! « AMEEICAIf BAPTIST PUBLICATION! SOCIETY, ^ g I ^ No. 118 Arch Street, PMladelpMa. \ 185 LIBRA.RY OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. BV 820 .08 1850 "^ Curtis, Thomas Fenner, 1815- 1872 Communion J the distinction h^tweBT) Chr 1 s 1 1 fln anri y COMMUNION: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CHRISTIAN AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP AND BETWEEN COMMUNION AND ITS SYMBOLS. "EMBRACING A REVIEW OF THE AEGUMENTS %m Entort Ball ml %m %qM W. IM IN FAVOR OF MIXED COMMUNION. BY T. r. CURTIS, A. M. PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, HOWARD COLLEGE, ALA. PHILADELPHIA: AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 118 ARCH STREET. 1850. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by the AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, PHILADELPHIA. A. PREFACE. The Author of the following pages had occasion, in commencing to prepare a series of Lectures on the Constitution, Government, and Discipline of our Churches, for the benefit of some young brethren studying for the Ministry, to re-examine the Mixed Communion Controversy, and especially the argu- ments of the celebrated Robert Hall. Some two or three years previously, while laboring as a Pastor, he had delivered a series of discourses on the sub- ject of Communion, which had been kindly received. These, re-written and re-arranged, form in fact the basis of the first two parts of the present work. The third and fourth parts, are the application of the principles before established to the arguments of Robert Hall, and also of Baptist W. Noel. The chief point in which this volume difi*ers from most which have preceded it on the subject, is that instead of attempting to defend a rule, it aims to es- tablish a principle. Most of our writers have sought chiefly to vindicate the rule that no unbaptized per- son is qualified for the Lord's Supper. The object of the present work is to exhibit the principle that the IV PREFACE. Lord's Supper is a symbol of Church relations he- tween those luho unite in its celehratio7i. The advan- tage of this course is, that whereas the rule is nega- tive, a principle is essentially positive. One true principle will lie at the basis of many rules. A rule bounds an idea but on one side ; a principle implies its own limit on all sides. A rule restricts, a princi- ple establishes. It w^as because the writer had felt the want of some popular exposition, exhibiting in a less negative man- ner the whole subject of the present Essay, that he was induced originally to deliver, and now publishes these views. The most simple, comprehensive, and conclusive plan, even so far as the restrictive side is concerned, is to maintain that positive principle, which comprehends all the rules, and presents the sub- ject in its Avholeness to the observation of the candid inquirer. The Author is convinced that no doubt can long remain after an attentive consideration of this subject, that the Lord's Supper symbolizes visible Church relations as existing between those who unite in it. To such as admit the primitive independence of the Churches of Christ, which is a point now uni- versally conceded by the ablest investigators of Church History in Germany, the rest will follow as a necessary consequence. Where these relations do not subsist, as they certainly do not Avhere different de- nominations are concerned, the symbol of such rela- tions must be inappropriate. It is because, in modern times, we do not feel the warmth of that peculiar affection which existed origi- PREFACE. V nally among those who were members of the same Chui'ch or family of Christians, that our practice in regard to the Lord's Supper, which symbolized it, comes to be called in question. It will be observed that this work takes for granted, that the views of our denomination on the subject of baptism are correct. To have pursued any other course, would have occupied too large a field. The writer has aimed, as much as possible, to narrow the controversy to the point at issue. Nothing, however, has been taken for granted, that was not freely con- ceded by the most skilful opponent of our views on this subject, Robert Hall. This volume is not sent forth into the world to provoke controversy. It is written chiefly for members of our own Churches, and for those pious persons, who, convinced of the general truth of our sentiments, as to the mode and subjects of baptism, are yet troubled with scruples in regard to the Lord's Supper. To his brethren in the ministry, the Author offers a word of explanation as to his motives, and his hopes. The substance of this work originated, not in any special circumstances of controversy, but in the regu- lar course of ministerial labors. It was, therefore, sim- ply to present to a Church of our own denomination, with a congregation often increased by other evangel- ical Christians, and well established in Divine truth, not only clear and settled views upon a subject of con- troversy, but also such thoughts as a Pastor would naturally desire to present in all affection, on such a subject as that of Communion ; and to promote VI PREFACE. some of the very highest and noblest of all the rela- tions of a Christian congregation — Church fellow- ship, love to fellow Christians, and above all, Com- munion with Christ. Nor is it without the hope of entering into, and silently assisting the labors of Pastors, in this unobtrusive manner, that the Author issues this book to the world. Hence, he has not been careful to prune out some paragraphs, especi- ally in the first Part, which might be spared from a mere theological argument. To promote love and true Communion between all mankind and Christ ; between all Christians as fel- low heirs of light and glory, and members of the Universal Church ; between all who sustain towards each other the solemn and endearing relation of bro- therhood in the same Christian Church, is the simple object which the Author has had in view. And if this volume can in any measure set these several re- lations in a clearer light, and restore that fervor of primitive love, that strong (not high) Church feeling that the study of the New Testament, and the earliest records of the Christian Church shows to have existed ; we are convinced that the greatest difficulty to the correct understanding of the subject w^ill have been overcome. Our chief object will assuredly have been accomplished. T. F. C. Howard College, Sepfember 27, 1849. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. 1. Distinction between the Literal, and Figurative or Symbolic use of the term Communion. 2. An eiTor here hes at the basis of much of the reasoning on this subject. 3. Division of the subject, 13 PART I. IN WHAT COMMUNION CONSISTS. CHAPTER I. MEANING OF TEEMS. 1. Literal meaning of Communion and KooviovCa- 2. Sense of Com- munion and Fellowship compared. 3. A closer Communion the great want of the age. 4. The Objects of Communion classified, 19 CHAPTER II. COMMUNION WITH CHRIST THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 1 . How far this embraces Communion with the whole Godhead. 2. Its powerful effect upon the heart and life. 3. The great clue to the labyrinth of life. 4. The vital force and moving power of religious action. 5. Illustration, 22 CHAPTER III. ■ • COMMUNION "WITH THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL: WITH THE SAINTS IN GLORY. 1. Communion with the Church Universal — its two divisions. 2. The Christian communes ivith the Saints in glory. 3. There was much of this in primitive times. 4. How it may be enjoyed now. 5. The spirit of the age in regard to it. 6. The Saints in glory have Com munion with us. 7. Spiritual influences. 8. Practical effects, ..••2'^ Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. COMMUKION WITH CHRISTIANS ON EARTH. 1. Distinction between Communion and its Sjmibols, repeated. 2. Com- munion with Christians on earth, of two kinds. 8. The distinction illustrated. 4. The distinction shown by the two senses of the word Church. 5. Quotation from Robert Hall. 6. The error of Mr. Hall's opinion, that a particular visible Church differs from the Invisible, only as a part from the whole. 7. The true distinction shown b}-- Neander, 34 CHAPTER V. FELLOVrSHIP ■^\^TH CHRISTIANS AS SUCH, AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF ANY PARTICULAR VISIBLE CHURCH. 1. The New Commandment explained. 2. This Communion may exist apart from all symbols. 3. It need not interfere with denominational ' preferences. 4. Baptist pi-inciples most favorable to Christian fellow- ship. 5. How to promote it, 41 CHAPTER VI. CHURCH COMMUNION, OR FELLOWSHIP. 1. Its nature. 2. Its proper subjects. 3. The two objects of it. 4. De- signed to promote tlie piety of the members. 5. Unreasonable expecta- tions in regard to it. 6. Evil effects of such expectations. 7. Modem and Primitive Churches compared. 8. We need a fellowship more sympathizing in temporal matters. 9. Church fellowship ought to include a complete vindication of character. 10. It should pi-omote the proprieties^of Christian intercourse. 11. Church fellowship as an instrument of converting sinners. 12. A proper Esprit clu Corps. 13. Its power. 14. The duty of joining a Church. 15. Siimmary of Part I. 48 PART II. THE SYMBOLS OF COMMUNION. CHAPTER I. NATURE OF SYMBOLS. 1. Definition of a symbol. 2. Simple symbols. 3. Complex sj^mbols. 4. Those only to be used when all the relations are as represented. 5. Division of the subject, 65 CONTENTS. ix CHAPTER II. SYMBOLS OF COMMUNION WITH CHRIST. 1. These are various, but two are chief. 2. Baptism, the first of these a simple symbol. 3. Ground assumed in regard to Baptism. 4. Bap- tism, a symbolic burial. 5. Baptism, a putting on of Christ. — Optatus. 6. The Apostle's idea. 7. Importance of practically uniting the sym bol and thing signified. 8. Baptism, a pledge — contains a reciprocal assurance. 9. Importance and beauty of this symbolic garment. 10. The Lord's Supper, a symbol of frequent recurrence. 11. A fresh acknowledgment of the baptismal profession — instituted con- nexion between them. 12. A complex symbol. 13. A symbol of communion with Christ. U. Meaning of sffn. 15. A re-afiirmation of the baptismal vow. 16. Contains a reciprocal assurance of our acceptance, 67 CHAPTER III. symbols OF christian COMMUNION. 1. Symbols imperfect and partial. 2. They change in their symbolic character. 3. Various symbols specified. 4. The same original term used for Contributions, 79 CHAPTER IV. THE SYMBOLS OF CHURCH COMMUNION. 1. Kiss of charity — feasts of charity — i-ight hand of fellowship. 2. The Lord's Supper — in what sense the Communion. 3. A symbol of Church relations. 4. Is more than a recognition of Christian character. 5. Is a Church ordinance. 6. Not a mere symbol of Communion with the Church Universal. 7. Nor with all saints on earth. 8. But with those with whom we celebrate. 9. Illustrated by the Passover, and institution of the Supper. 10. Independence of Churches. 11. The early Christians esteemed the Lord's Supper a Church ordinance. 12. It is not to be used where there are not Church relations. 13. The Church an executive, not a legislative body. 14. Baptist Churches cannot be charged with want of charity. 15. The Lord's Supper belongs to all the members of a Church which celebrates it. 16. In- justice of debarring infants in Pedobaptist Churches, 83 CHAPTER V. OCCASIONAL COMMUNION. 1. Meaning of the phrase. 2. Two classes. 3. Occasional participation with members of other Churches of the same denomination. 4. With 1* X" CONTENTS. Christians of no visible Church, and of other denominations. 5. The difference is only as to occasional participation. 6. Shown from Methodist Book of Discipline. 7. From the Pres. Con. of Faith. 8. From the Thirty-nine Articles. — Not acted up to. 9. Any other plan of Chui-ch membership must destroy all denominations. 10. This ad- mitted by Robert Hall. 1 1 . Must silence Truth, if in the minority. 12. Baptist Churches originated in the desire of Pedobaptists. 13. Occasional Communion must be regulated by general princi- ples. 14. Methodist and Presbyterian principles applied to this case, 95 CHAPTER VI. OBJECTIOKS CONSIDERED. 1. These Objections stated. 2. " It is only the mode of Baptism that prevents us from uniting with Pedobaptists," considered. 3. " That we do not consider the Baptism of Pedobaptists as valid," considered. 4. This true. 5. But not the only ground for our not uniting with them. 6. "That w^e unchurch Pedobaptists," considered. 7. The Lord's Supper not designed to express Church relations as subsisting between different Churches. 8. Custom of Baptist Associations un- churches ourselves as much as other denominations. 9. Each Church entitled to declare the terms of its own fellowship. 10. The eft'ect of the lack of a valid Baptism in unchurching, considered. 1 1. Differ- ent significations of the word Church. 12. Those unbaptized cannot form regular Churches. 13. Our difference as to Baptism chiefly keeps us from affiliating. 14. Ought our Churches to make Baptism necessary to their membership ? 15. This the Primitive plan, con- ceded by Robert Hall. 16. Importance of keeping the ordinances as delivered to us. 17. Ought the rule of Church Membership to bo extended to occasional participation ? 18. This conceded by Christian writers of all ages. 19. This is consistent and charitable. 20. Illustration from American citizenship, il2 CHAPTER VII. REVIEW OF PARTS I. AJStD II. 1. Distinction between Communion and its Symbols. 2. Different kinds of Communion specified. 3. The Nature of Symbols. 4. Dif- ferent Symbols of Communion. 5. Symbols of Communion with Christ, (a) Baptism, (b) Lord's Supper. 6. Symbols of Christian fellowship. 7. The Lord's Supper a Symbol of Church fellowship. 8. Further proofs of this. 9. Additional proofs— The Passover— -but CONTENTS. Xi one Altar to a Church. 10. May it be used for other purposes? 11. Robert Hall's "leading position" considered. 12. This confounds the Visible and Invisible Churches. 13. " Occasional Communion." 14. The case of other denominations considered. 15. Three objec- tions considered. 16. That we deny the validity of their baptisms. 17. That we unchurch other denominations. 18. Our own posi- tion, 130 PART III. THE ARGUMENTS OF ROBERT HALL CONSIDERED. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. Classification of Mr. Hall's writings on the subject of Communion,- • 149 CHAPTER I. ROBERT hall's FIRST ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. Ambiguity as to the use of the word Coriimunion. 2. Applied to the Lord's Supper proves nothing. 3. Robert Hall's view of the signifi- cation of the Lord's Supper considered. 4. His illustration of chil- dren refusing to eat at the same table. 5. Symbolic feasts. 6. The anguish of separating from Christian friends at the Lord's Supper considered. 7. Illustration, 152 CHAPTER II. ROBERT hall's SECOND ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. 'The toleration of all errors consistent with salvation,' considered. 2. No Christians practice thus. 3. The Scriptures forbid this course. 4. Consequences of Robert Hall's views. 5. Errors generally de- structive, may not be so in every case. 6. Persons holding almost every species of error might become Church officers on the Mixed Communion plan. 7. The cases of John Milton and others. 8. This system would permit Roman Catholic priests to perform their cere- monies in Baptist Churches.— Arians.—Polygamists. 9. Rom. 14th and 1 5th, considered. 10. The command to receive, only applies when the individual is complying with the whole revealed will of God in the matter in hand. II. The case stated in another manner by Robert Hall, considered. 12. Each Church must be allowed to de- clare its own terms of Communion. 13. Why Pedobapti?ts should not be admitted to Baptist Churches. 14. Effects of Pedobaptism as a system, 160 XU CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. ROBERT hall's THIRD ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. Two senses of the word Church. 2. Assertion of the Author that they ' differ only as a part from the whole,' considered. 3. The tnie distinction destroys his argument. 4. ' Those who commune with God fit to commune with us,' considered. 5. ' Presumptuously to aspire to greater purity than Christ,' considered. 6. The same rea- soning applied to the Passover, 177 CHAPTER IV. ROBERT hall's FOURTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. I. *The exclusion of Pedobaptists a punishment,' considered. 2. The Lord's Supper a family feast. 3. The Evangelical Alliance excom- municate, on Robert Hall's principle. 4. The charge of excommuni- cating considered. 5. Mr Hall would excommunicate all Churches whose invitation to Communion he declined. 6. ' That our views make the approach of Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper criminal,' considered. 7. The difficulty of 'Mr. Hall's system on this point considered, 183 CHAPTER V. ROBERT hall's FIFTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. ' The impossibility of reducing Strict Communion to any general principles,' considered. 2. The Lord's Table to be governed by the same rules as our Church Membership. 3. Baptism a prerequisite to Church Membership, a rule semper^ uhique, et ab omnibus. 4. Every visible Church must have some visible profession of Christianity. 5. Visible Chm'ches aggi-essive in their nature. 6. The ' general principle ' of Mixed Communion, considered. 7. The distinction between tolerating imperfection and endorsing it. 8. The distinction between errors fundamental and not fundamental, considered. 9. Baptism formerly deemed necessary to salvation, admitted by Mr. HaU. 10. A further difference as to Mr. Hall's ' general principle.' 11. Some visible profession must be necessary to Church Menber- ship, ■' 192 CHAPTER VI. ROBERT hall's SIXTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. ' The Impolicy of Strict Communion.' 2. How far policy should weigh, considered. 3. Mr. Hall's statement as to its impolicy. Effects CONTENTS. Xlll of "party," considered. 5. The comparatively rapid * extension of sci- entific truths,' considered. 6. Distinction between the extension of speculative and practical truths, considered. 7. The speculative preacher of Baptist sentiments described. 8. The Baptist reformer described. 9. The question at issue between Robert Hall and ourselves. 10. The peculiar power of social organizations. 11. Shall the power of the Churches be applied to restore the obsolete practice ? 12. Singular shift of Mr. Hall. 13. Practical test of his views. 14, Comparative progress of the Baptists in England and America. 15. Effects of Bap- tist sentiments on other denominations in America and Europe,* • -201 CHAPTER VII. REVIEW OF PART III. , Review of Mr. Hall's first argument. 2. Of the second. 3. Of the third. 4. Of the fourth. 5. Of the fifth. 6. Of the sixth. 7. Of Mr. Hall's " leading position." 8. Mr. Hall's leading position clearly trace- able back to the fundamental error of Popery. 9. Counsels of Sir James Mackintosh to Robert Hall, 218 PART IV. THE ARGUMENTS OF REV. BAPTIST W. NOEL ON FREE COMMUNION, CONSIDERED. INTRODUCTORY. 1. Recent appearance of his book on Baptism, and its claims to general regard. 2. Shortness of the section on Commxmion. 3. Not many new ideas, but in general follows Mr. Hall. 4. Yet some differences in method and spirit. 6. Analysis of his remarks, 229 CHAPTER I. MR. NOEL'S STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. 1. In this he agrees with Robert Hall— Regards Pedobaptists as unbap tized — pleads for their admission as such. 2. Tendencies of this course — Mr. Noel's inconsistency. 3. Concedes too much to the sincerity with which Pedobaptism is upheld. 4. Yet in effect yields the very point at issue, 232 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. MR. KOEL'S arguments CONSIDERED. I. Argument from the nature of things. 1. Error in illustration. 2. Con- founds the Visible Church with the Invisible. 3. Assumes identity of qualifications. 4. Pedobaptists are not disowned as brethren, but as unbaptized. 5. The Lord's Supper belongs to visible churches. 6. The question resolves itself into this, Is it the duty of Churches, as such, to uphold Christian Baptism ? II. Arguments from the Scriptures. 1. The main reliance here. 2. (a.) John 13: 35, and 17: 20, considered. 3. Nature of Christian union. 4. On whom rests the blame of breaking the Visible Church fellow- ship. 5. (5.) Rom. 14: 1 — 7, and 15: 7, considered. 6. Mistakes and their consequences. 7. The proper grounds of Church toleration. 8. The proper grounds of exclusion. Gal. 5: 12, 1 Cor. 5: 11 — 13, Rom. 16: 17, 2 Thess. 3: 14, compared with v. 6. 9. Result — There are other terms of communion than such as are terms of salvation. 10. Prac- tical importance of this principle. 11. A fundamental distinction explained. 12. (c.) Mr. Noel's concessions ; — 1. Of an instituted connec- tion between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. Of the close Scrip- tural connection between Regeneration and Baptism, 235 CHAPTER in. MR. NOEL'S OBJECTIONS TO STRICT COMMUNION CONSIDERED. 1. These might be passed over. 2. State of the case. I. Prohibitory aspect of the system. — 1. Each visible Church independ ent. 2. No conscientious Christian is forbidden to commune at the Lord's Table with those who hold similar views. II. Implied usurpation over conscience. — 1. Peculiar impropriety of this objection from Mr. Noel after his concessions. 2. Supposes two serious misconceptions. 3. Singular reasoning. 4. Results to which it tends. III. Apparent inconsistency. — 1. It is not real. 2. Evidence of this. 3. The first Christians worshipped with the Jews in the Synagogues- 4. Unique relation of Baptism and the Supper, intuitively felt. 5. The alternative forced upon us. 6. Acknowledgment of Drs. Ypeij and Dermont of Holland. 7. Remark of Andrew Fuller. 8. Illustrations. IV. Impolicy of exclusiveness : especially where a doctrine is unpopular, though true. — 1. The Author's theories. 2. They strike at the root of investigation, by denying its necessity. 3. Action is here more neces- sary than investigation. 4. Action produces action. 5. Such exem- plary action does not diminish spii'ituality. Comparison of United States and England shows this. 6. Mr. Noel's grand concession. 7. It amoimts to the surrender of his whole argument, 250 CONTENTS. XV GENERAL CONCLUSION. 1 . The beai-ing of these views on the Churches. 2. The power of the Churches, to spread right views of the ordinances. 3. The ordinances specially committed to the Churches. 4. The relative position of the Chm-ch and the Bible to the world. 5. Duty of the Churches in view of the corruption of the ordinances. 6. Objection — ' part to be sacrificed to the good of the whole.' 7. The duty of Pedobaptist Churches— their Baptism a nullity. 8. Position of the Baptists towards them — we ask them to defer Baptism to believing. 9. The duty of such Churches. 10. The duty of such ministers. 11. Why we offer these remarks, 12. All Christians love Christ better than any symbols. 13. Fate of Sects. 14. Prevailing ideas of this age — Voluntariness. 15. ■ Sdf-government. 16. Baptist sentiments embody these. 17. Changes progressive. 18. The Home of the Christian. 19. It embodies the results of all the changes of Time, 265 APPENDIX. A. Experience of President Edwards, 281 B. Usage of the terms " Church,"—" Kingdom of God," 282 C. Moral Maxim of Confucius, 289 D. Rev. B. W. Noel's reasons for being baptized, 289 E. Augustine's account of the baptism of Victorinus, 291 F. Pliny's account of the Lord's Supper, 293 G. Criticism on 1 Corinthians, 10: 17, 294 H. Effects of Mixed Communion in England, • • 296 J. Baptist views do not tempt to Superstition, 299 K. An early opinion of Mr. Jefferson on our churches, 299 L. Conservative and Reviving influence of Baptist Principles, 300 M. Fundamental Evil of Infant Baptism, 302 COMMUNION INTRODUCTOEY REMARKS. 1. Distinction between the Literal, and Figurative or Symbolic use of the term Communion. 2. An error here lies at the basis of much of the reasoning on this subject. 3. Division of the subject 1. The word Communion is used, amongst Christians, in different senses. Of these the reader of the following pages will need carefully to distinguish two, the Literal and the Figurative. Literally, as we shall see more fully in the next chapter, it is a spiritual union and interchange of feeling, and is nearly synonymous with fellowship. Figuratively, the word Communion is used, in one verse of Scripture, in relation to the Lord's Supper. There, (1 Cor. 10: 16,) by a rhetorical figure, that ordinance is termed '^ the communion of the body and blood of Christ.'' Although the figurative has now become a prevalent and technical sense of this word, the above is the only passage, we believe, in the New Testament, in which it, or the corresponding G-reek term xoti/wn'a, which occurs at least twenty times, is thus used. It is also figuratively used in the New Testament for the '^ contributions" of Christian benevolence. In the present Essay, we propose to consider the subject of Communion, first, according to the more strict and 2 14 COMMUNION. literal meaning of the term, and tlien in its figurative sense, as denoting tlie symbols of Communion. The reader should guard at the outset of this discussion, against losing sight of the distinction between Communion and its Symbols. From very early ages, and in the Roman Catholic Church to this day, the symbols of religion, and the things signified by them, have ever been strangely confounded ; Penance and Repentance, Baptism and Re- generation, the Lord's Supper and Communion with Christ. Indeed, this is the very worst and most essential error of Roman Catholicism. By no means confined, however, to this system, it will continually be found lead- ing theological writers of all classes, even the most com- pletely Protestant, into error. So entirely distinct have the literal and symbolic uses of this word become, that as accurate a lexicographer as Crabbe, treats them in his Synonymes, without the least explanation, as two separate words, classified, as to signifi- cation, under altogether different heads. 2. On the other hand, it is singular to find a writer, generally so exact in his use of terms as Robert Hall, employing this word so ambiguously, as unfairly to preju- dice the views of his opponents. He thus takes for granted that what is true of the term, used in one sense, is of necessity equally so, when used in the other, — the very thing denied. Thus, in the Terms of Communion, Part II., the title of the very first section reads, " Free Communion [with all true Christians,] urged from the obligation of hrotlierly love." We do not question that all such ought to interchange the warmest affection, and spiritual Com- munion, as Christians. The only point of dispute respects that symbolic Communion, which denotes church member- DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 15 ship. The ground we assume on this point, in the following pages, though opposed to his, we think more reasonable, that we should spiritually commune with those to whom we are spiritually united, and ceremonially with those who also agree with us as to the ceremonies which Chris- tianity enjoins. 3. The present work, therefore, will be divided into four Parts, corresponding respectively with the Literal and the Popular uses of the word, and with the applica- tion of the whole to the arguments of Robert Hall and Baptist W. Noel for Mixed Communion. Part I. In what Communion consists. Part II. The Symbols or Communion. Part III. The Argujvients oe Robert Hall con- sidered. Part IV. The Arguments of Baptist W. Noel considered. Upon the first part of our subject, as being not only more vital, but also more spiritual, and therefore more dif- ficult to apprehend, we shall dwell at greater length than is perhaps strictly necessary to its elucidation. To avoid confounding the Literal and Figurative senses of the term Communion, we shall, where there can be the least danger of mistake, use it only in its literal signification. PART I. IN WHAT COMMUNION CONSISTS. ■m CHAPTER I. MEANING OF TERMS. 1. Literal meaning of Communion and Kocvuvia. 2. Sense of Com- munion and Fellowship compared. 3. A closer Communion the great want of the age. 4. The Objects of Communion classified. 1. Communion ! How grateful this word to the ear of the believer in Christ, connected as it is with all his hap- piest associations and highest blessings. While we con- template its nature, may we, through the Spirit, be in true Communion with the Great Head of the Church. This term is probably from the Latin communis, com- mon ; as xoivuvLa, the corresponding Greek term, is from xoivuvso, to share in common, (and radically, therefore, from xoivoi, comiyion). Kowtcvia, in the New Testament, is gene- rally translated FellowsMjy. " That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us : and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.'' Perhaps this fact may be useful, in enabling us not only to extend, but also to spiritualize our idea of the word Communion, if indeed this be necessary of a term which Crabbe discrimi- nates from Converse, by saying, that it ^' may take place without any corporeal agency ^ 2. Even when we escape the common error of confound- ing Communion with something outward and corporeal, we still are so far affected by it as to circumscribe Com- munion to some particular act or time, while Fellowship 20 COMMUNION. seems to express the more habitual state of our affections and hearts. It was doubtless on this account that our translators rendered xotrurta, fellow8hi]jj rather than comi- munion, in the passage quoted above. It certainly would not convey precisely the same meaning, rendered " Truly our communion is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ," Communion is most used to denote an act. Fel- lowship, a state. Communion implies the more intensCj Fellowship the more enduring and habitual union. Thus we speak of '' Communion with Grod in prayer," and of ^' living in Fellowship with our Christian brethren." We need some term for our purposes in this Essay, that shall, like the original, embrace all that is contained in both these words.* We shall use them in the following pages almost interchangeably, or vary or unite them as the occa- sion requires. 3. The great truth which we wish to develope in the First Part of these meditations is this : — that A closer Communion of Christians as such, and of members of churches in their church relations, is the great spiritual waiit of the present time. In the first ages of Christianity, the sword of persecution acted like pressure on the arch of a bridge, and bound all its followers firmly and closely to- gether. This pressure is now taken off, and the whole arc and fabric of our piety has, as it were, sprung up and sprung apart, until it seems ready to drop to pieces. There wants something to bring Christians, as such, together, in a more true and well-defined fellowship, without pretend- ing to pledge them to an agreement as to the constitution of a church, on which so many differ. * For some further remarks on the senses of Kow/wj'ta, see Macknight on the Epistles. 1 John, i. 3. Note 3. OBJECTS OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNION. 21 This is the great want of the age. There are scattered elements of piety and of power enough to erect a glorious and imposing edifice of true religion. But they need combining and cementing by a more earnest fellowship, a warmer, higher, holier, and more perpetual communion. Accurate views of the nature and proper manifestations of Christian fellowship, as distinct from Church fellow- ship, it is hoped, may lead to the increase at least of the former. The want of this discrimination has certainly led to many of the most serious heart-burnings that have afflicted Christendom. 4. The different objects of religious Communion may be classified as follows : I. Communion with the Head of the Church. II. Communion with the Church Universal; ^Hhe whole family in heaven and in earth." The latter division will embrace, — (1.) Communion with the Saints in glory. (2.) Communion with Saints on earth. The latter of these will embrace, — (a) Communion with Christians, as such, and not as members of any particular visible Church. (5) Communion with the particular Church to which each one respectively is attached. CHAPTER II. COMMUNION WITH CHRIST THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 1. How far this embraces Communion with the whole Godhead. 2. Its powerful effect upon the heart and life. 3. The gi'cat clue to the labyrinth of life. 4. The vital force and moving power of religious action. 5. Illustration. "Whom having not seen, ye love."— 1 Pet.2: 8. " Truly our fellowship (xoivuiia) is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." — 1 John, 1 : 3. 1. In order to conceive of tlie abstract and essential nature of Christian Communion most perfectly, let us begin by considering that Communion which the believer enjoys loith Christ j the Head of the Church. It is indeed true, that the believer enjoys Communion with the Father of Spirits, but in the present state, this is chiefly through the Mediator. The period will come, when Christ, ^^ having delivered up the kingdom to Grod, even the Father,'' our Communion with Him shall be immediate and direct. But thus is it not with us now. It is also true that all Christians enjoy '^the Communion of the Holy Ghost,'' but this is rather a communion which He awakens in us with the Father and with the Son, so that in our proposed contemplations we shall substantially include all our Communion with the Godhead. 2. This Communion is the most intense in its nature, and powerful in the influence it has upon the spirit. It is not confined to any means or channel. " If a man love me," says the Saviour, ^' he will keep my words, and my ITS EFFECTS ON THE HEART AND LIFE. 23 Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him/' It may be in Baj^tism, or in the Lord's Supper, under preaching or in prayer, that the Christian enjoys it. Or it may be without any outward means, other than the written word, or in solitary contem- plation. One of the most marked and beautiful instances of this latter kind, is mentioned by President Edwards, in his account of his own conversion.* This Communion is, of all things, the most essential to the maintenance of the Christian life, character and happiness. What is ex- istence itself without it, to him who has tasted of the grace of God ? A howling wilderness, a sandy desert. If cool streams seem flowing before him in the distance, they are but phantoms, which only disappoint and lead astray. Without Christian principles to guide a man, without communion with Jesus to cheer him, life itself is all a hopeless mystery, — a labyrinth, in which the traveller is continually losing his way, or ever vainly coming round, again and again, without progress, to the same point. " That which hath been, shall be,'' seems stamped on every thing, and the highest merely intellectual processes bring him round to the sickening conclusion, that "all is vanity and vexation of spirit." Without this grace, a man stands at the close of existence, no nearer its true goal than at the beginning. Life is but a circle, and death a " leap in the dark." 3. Communion with Christ illumines this darkness, and aff'ords a clue to this maze ; giving to life a definite aim, an animating hope, and rendering it in every case suc- cessful in its issue. The story of Rosamond's Bower is familiar to all. It was said to be surrounded by a laby- rinth so constructed, that amid a thousand devious paths, * See Appendix, A. 24 COMMUNION. but one conducted to tlie centre. None could penetrate it without the clue. That clue, formed of a single thread of silk, was so suspended that it was difficult to keep it in sight, and so slender that a touch would snap it. Yet only by following that delicate guide could one penetrate the maze successfully, or escape being utterly lost in its windings. Just such a hidden guide through life is Com- munion with Christ. A single golden thread running unperceived by most, along the labyrinths of life, afford- ing to those who possess it, a clear and certain clue, and conducting safely all who follow it through the world's mazes and mysteries. It comes from heaven and therefore conducts to it. Mysterious clue ! So sure when truly followed with a sincere and humble footstep, yet so deli- cate J so often unperceived even by the most careful ; so hard to regain when missed. Holy and Most Blessed Guide, to whom we owe it, sole Leader of the pilgrim here below! grant us thine aid; leave us not orphans; ever be thou present ; let us never lose sight of thee. 4. We need ever to feel that communion with Christ is the first and chief thing in Christianity. It gives life to all the rest. Let it be there, and every Christian grace and virtue will regularly and naturally follow. It is the vital force, the great moving power of all truly religious actions. 5. It is like the main-spring of a watch, which, though boxed around, and covered up from sight, moves all the wheels by its concealed, but steady and drawing power. Without it, the mechanism might seem perfect, the wheels all adjusted, but they could never move. Thus it is with man. His intellect may be clear, his knowledge complete, his morals excellent, he may have the Bible in his hand ; but without the love of Grod in his heart, without com- LLUSTRATION. 25 munion with Christ, what is he ? He knows not how to make the first right movement in anything religious. Much more evidently is it thus in a Church. If it hold not the Head, — if its members have not communion, daily personal spiritual communion with Christ, what is that Church ? A watch, without a main-spring. It may have hundreds of members, great intelligence, regularity, and ability ; all the wheels and mechanism of Christian mem- bership may be there ; yet what is it after all, but a cold, dead, motionless uniformity, with the regularity of order, but the rigidity of death. Such a body is a mere for- mality. Church fellowship is a lifeless and powerless thing, unless fellowship with Christ be its basis. But let that be there as the moving principle, and it will make all the routine of Church duties, order, and discipline, work easily and frictionless. The more earnest and powerful the Communion with Christ, the more easily will all other duties be performed. If we wish to make all the ma- chinery of a large factory perform with most perfect regularity and ease, and if there are a hundred compli- cated wheels and joints, all rusty and stiff, how shall we hope to effect our purpose ? By turning around each little wheel by hand, retailing thus our strength by driblets ? No, but by concentrating force in the engine, by kindling a flame, and piling up fuel, and generating the steam, and when the main-shaft moves with a powerful stroke it will carry everything around, large and small. From the great driving wheel to the most remote spindle, all then will work harmoniously and well. Just thus is it in the Church of Christ; one-half of the wheels turn not at all in ordinary times ; and when they do, they speak with creaking, rusty eloquence, of the disorder that corrodes each part, and disturbs the motion of the whole. 3 26 COMMUNION. What is the remedy ? More Communion with Christ. That secured, all duties and discipline of the Church, with its glorious and goodly fellowship, will work smoothly and sweetly, without harshness or formality, without strife or jarring. This is the true and only remedy. CHAPTEK III. COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL: WITH THE SAINTS IN GLORY. 1. Communion with the Church Universal — its two divisions. 2. The Christian communes loith the Saints in glory. 3. There was much of this in primitive times. 4. How it may be enjoyed now. 5. The spirit of the age in regard to it. 6. The Saints in gloi-y have Com- munion with us. 7. Spiritual influences. 8. Practical effects. 1. We turn now to consider the Communion of tlie child of God with the Church Universal. This may be divided into Communion with the Saints in glory, and with the Saints on earth. In the present chapter we treat of The Christian's fel- lowship loith the Saints in Glory. This communion is mu- tual. He communes with them ; they with him. 2. The Christian communes with the Saints in Glory. There is not a more unscriptural dogma, than that of the Romish Church, which teaches us to pray to and for the dead. But there is not a more scriptural or delightful doctrine than that of the spiritual communion of the whole church, the living and the dead, of all ages and of all climes. ''We are come,^' says Paul, ''to the hea- venly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first- born, whose names are written in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.'' 3. Primitive Christians lived much nearer to their brethren who had passed into the world of spirits, than 28 COMMUNION. we do in modern times. Paul speaks of them continually as all forming a part of that same great company ; two divisions of the same army, one on this side of the river of death, and the other beyond it; one division having "en- tered into rest/' the other, by small detachments, entering in ; both as having the same leader, Christ, " who died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living,' ' so that " whether we wake or sleep, we might live together with him/' " One family, we dwell in him ; One church, above, beneath ; Though now divided by the btreani, The narrow stream of death. One army of the living God, To his command we bow ; Part of the host have crossed the flood, And part are crossing now." The saints of primitive times walked so closely to the gates of Paradise, and lived so completely in communion with the unseen world, that it appeared to them but a short and easy step from the Church below to that above, as if a person on a journey, should go to sleep to-night in Time, and awake to-morrow in Eternity. Hence it was, that anciently the bodies of pious Chris- tians were brought for a time into the churches, and so often buried in and around them ; even because the early Christians loved the idea of uniting their praises and wor- ship in company, as it were, with those who having passed through the trials of the church militant, were now enjoy- ing the repose and blessedness of the church triumphant. Their names were read, and their lives and actions of piety mentioned at the Table, during the celebration of the WITH THE SAINTS IN GLORY. 29 Eucharist, and solemn praise was offered that they had been enabled to maintain a holy and virtuous life to the end. Their memory was cherished, and every means taken to keep up the idea that we are now worshipping the same Being below, that they adore around the Throne above. This was done, we are expressly informed by the Author of Dionysius, '^ partly to excite the living to the same course, and partly to show that they were still living according to the principles of religion and not properly dead, but only translated by death to a more Divine life.''* No doubt superstition very early corrupted all this into praying for the dead ; for what will not superstition cor- rupt ? But the idea of the essential oneness of the whole Church, militant and triumphant, is true, scriptural and ennobling. " Let saints below in concert sing With those to glory gone ; For all the servants of our King, In heaven and earth are one. Tbe Church, triumphant in thy love, Their mighty joys we know ; They sing the Lamb in hymns above, And we in hymns below." ' 4. In studying the holy deeds and writings of Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and Reformers of all ages, we enjoy a true spiritual fellowship with them. While we meditate upon the history of the people of Grod, the struggles and piety of men of former ages, we imbibe their spirit, and become wiser and holier by their examples. And in pro- portion as we do this, do we enjoy the true Communion with Saints. Even when, from time to time, we bend * Bingham's Antiq. Christian Church, bk. 15, ch. iii., sec. 17. 3* 30 COMMUNION. weeping over the remains of those whose virtues we have known, and bedew their coffins with our tears, and resolve to follow their faith, to imitate their example, and to wor- ship as they also worshipped, we enjoy this fellowship and communion. Who has not felt the influence of a pious Mother or Father, a Sister or AYife, animating their devo- tions, long years after their departure to the skies ? Robert Hall lost his theoretical materialism in praying by the grave of his Father. How often are the saints of Christ cheered by the hope, that their eyes will one day gaze upon their departed friends, upon Apostles and Prophets, whose example they have followed, and whose deeds have encouraged them here; — Paul the logician, — Peter the zealous, — John the beloved, — Moses and Elias, — Samuel and David, — Daniel and Isaiah, — the glorious company of the Apostles, — ^the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, and the noble army of Martyrs ! And those hopes shall not be disappointed. Our eyes shall gaze upon them. Even now are they worshipping as we worship, all forming part of that ^'general assembly'^ to which we also belong. With all, from the saint most newly arrived in the king- dom of bliss, whose life and suiFerings we have witnessed, to the holy Apostle who leaned on the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper, we have fellowship, a true and living com- munion even now : it is our privilege as saints, our birth- right as Christians. 5. But how little of all this do we realize ! How far below it do we live ! The tendency of the age draws men to live only in the present, and to forget the past. This infects even the temper of our piety. There is too often a forgetfulness of the maxims and experience of those of our Christian brethren and friends who have fallen asleep before our very eyes. '' The righteous perisheth, and no OF SAINTS IN GLORY WITH US. 31 man layeth it to heart." Tlie saints of Christ die, and their memory seems lost, almost before their bodies are cold. They fall asleep in Jesus, their spirits fly to the throne of God, but what eye of faith follows them ? They are put into the cold, damp earth, and then, oh ! how soon are their labors and piety forgotten. We dread this temper of the times, so cold, so careless. He only who looks backwards, with piety and reverence, to the past, knows how to move forward with wisdom into the future. Reader, have you had pious relatives and friends ? Think of them. Where are they ? On what con- templations are they now employed ? How would you act if you felt their eyes at this moment resting on you ? 6. It is certain that the Saints in Glory have a true Communion with us. We know that ^^ the great cloud of witnes&es," who all died in faith, " compass us about," to animate and strengthen us to run the race of life eternal. We know, too, that there are ^'ministering spirits sent forth to minister unto those who shall be heirs of salva,- tion.'^ These proffer us the communion of their love, sym- pathy, and example, in order that we may draw spiritual sustenance through our knowledge of their purified natures. 7. The soul has, doubtless, powers of attraction and repulsion for different orders of spiritual beings, by a magnetism of its own, and according to its own character. The spirit of the man of evil dispositions, repels holy influences and agents, just as one point of the loadstone repels substances magnetized for the opposite pole ; but it will perhaps attract and draw unto itself other spirits more wicked than itself, and they, entering in, dwell there. Hence the demoniacal possessions of ancient times, and hence probably much of the perfect madness and folly of wickedness, so often exhibited in outbursts, by men of 32 COMMUNION. depraved characters. But the soul of the pious man, quickened by the Holy Ghost, will draw towards it influ- ences only of light and glory, and repel all others. Thus is it that those happy spirits, ^'who do always behold the face of the Heavenly Father," guide us through the snares, and elevate and comfort us amid the depressions of the present state. In this manner it is, that the believer in Christ is made so fully one with the spiritual and invisible Church, of all climes, and of all ages. Hence, too, the whole Church militant, united as it is with the Church triumphant, possesses the combined wis- dom and experience of all the past, and moves forward, " fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." 8. Christians in this way stand, in each successive age, upon a more elevated platform. We may, if we will, mount upon the shoulders of those who have gone before us. We must do this, if we would effect anything. The hosts of sin are wiser and more subtle by the experience of the past. Good and evil are assuming greater force ; becoming more compact, condensed, and tremendous. Be- tween these two classes of influence, we have to choose. To one or the other of these powers, we must ally our- selves. It is impossible to be neutral. There is in the spirit of man, an instinctive choice of good or evil, momentarily going on ; a choice between the fellowship of Christ and his Saints, and the fellowship of the hosts of evil. But with one party or the other, we must side. There is a battle to be fought, and life is one vast scene of conflict. If we choose the elevated course, the heavenly fellowship, which has just been discussed, we become allied to that cause whose final triumph is cer- tain. The Son of God goes forth to war. Victory is ITS FINAL ISSUES. 33 written on his thigh, — angels are his attendants, — spiritual powers watch and guard those who love him, — the nations fall before him, — the kingdoms of this world are rapidly becoming the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ. He sweeps all his enemies away before his face. The whole earth and all heaven will finally be embraced in one vast fellowship of Holiness, and " the knowledge of the Lord sliall cover the earth, as the waters cover the depths.'' But who shall stand among that holy throng ? Let the beloved Apostle reply — " If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.'' CHAPTER lY. COMMUNION WITH CHRISTIANS ON EARTH. 1. Distinction between Communion and its Symbols, repeated. 2. Com- munion with Christians on earth, of two kinds. 3. The distinction illustrated. 4. The distinction shown by the two senses of the word Church. 5. Quotation from Robert Hall. 6. The error of Mr. Hall's opinion, that a particular visible Church differs from the Invisible, only as a part from the whole. 7. The true distinction shown by Neander. 1. We are now about to treat of our Communion with the followers of Christ on earth, however this may exist, or in whatever way it may be expressed. Whether they are members of any visible church, or not, if they are Christ's, they are Abraham's seed, heirs of the Covenant, and therefore, partakers of the Communion of Saints. We would again remind the reader of the necessity of distinguishing the Communion of the Saints, from the tokens of Communion. The one may exist, as we have seen, with Christ, and with the saints in glory, apart from all outward tokens, and so the tokens may be present, when all true Communion with Christ, and with Chris- tians, is absent. Indeed, the expressions of Communion must be partial and varied, compared with the fellowship or Communion signified, which is often far more extensive and perpetual. True Communion is a spiritual, and not a visible thing. It may, in part, be symbolized, as in united prayer, or the Lord's Supper; but no Christian ever TWO KINDS ON EARTH. 35 yet, on the most extensive sacramental occasion, partook of tlie same elements with one thousandth part of those with whom he would acknowledge true Christian Commu- nion, for this he has, with all saints in heaven, as well as on earth. Nor will the two ever be co-extensive, until he shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to eat bread in the kingdom of God, at the marriage sui3per of the Lamb. 2. The Communion with the Saints on earth is of two kinds. I. Christian felloivship, II. Church fellowship. The former embraces that spiritual Communion which we hold with our brethren in the Lord as such, and not in consequence of any visible Church relations. The latter is that which we have specially with those to whom we sustain such relations. 3. The distinction which we would here point out, may be most readily illustrated by the difference which there is in civil life, between the affection which a man owes to his own particular family, and the regard which he bears to his friends and fellow-citizens. It is his duty to cherish toward all around him, sincere friendliness and good-will; there may even arise cases, where it will be so far neces- sary to sacrifice the family to the community, that he should be willing to die for the good of his country. Yet who doubts that there is a vast distinction between the affection due to a wife and family, and a proper regard to all others, neighbors, fellow-citizens, or even friends? The peculiar family affection can be, and ought to be, shared only by members of that family. For a man to love any other children as his own, would be far from a virtue. Just so must we cherish not only a fellowship with all Christians upon earth, rendering us willing, if need be. 36 COMMUNION. to ^^ lay down our lives for the brethren," but a still closer Communion and fellowship with those who, by providence and grace, are members of the same particular Church or family of visible Christians. 4. This distinction is neither arbitrary, nor artificial. It originates in the Bible, or rather in the plan of Church government instituted by the Apostles of Christ, who established, wherever they went, societies, independent of each other, and completely organized within themselves, consisting of those professed Christians who were able, conveniently and regularly, to assemble together. These Societies were termed Churches. Whoever carefully studies the New Testament will find that the word Church, when applied to a Christian assembly, is used in two distinct senses. (1.) For a particular Congregation of professed believers. (2.) For the Universal Church, — the general assembly and church of the first-born. Dr. Robinson, in his New Testament Lexicon, defining sxxJirjOLa finds two, and but two ecclesiastical senses in which it is used, (a) a particular Church, e. g. The Church in Jerusalem, Acts 8: 1. Antioch, Acts 11: 26, &c. (b.) The Church Universal, Heb. 12: 23, &c. (See Appendix B.) 5. Robert Hall has, in like manner, remarked, that " in the New Testament we shall find the word Church, as a religious appellation, occurring in two senses only, denoting either the whole body of the faithful, or some one assembly of Christians associated for the worship of Grod. * * * * In |;iiig ^the former] sense, Jesus Christ is afiirmed to be 'Head over all things to the Church, which is his body.' When the term is em- ployed to denote a particular assembly of Christians, it is invariably accompanied with a specification of the place where it was accustomed to convene, as for example, the ROBERT hall's ERROR. 37 Church at Antioch, at Corinth, at Ej^hesus, or at Rome. It is never used in the New Testament, as in modern times, to denote the aggregate of Christian assemblies through- out a province or a kingdom ; nor do we ever read of the Church of Achaia, Galatia, &c., but of the churches, in the plural number/^* Fully concurring in the above observations, we quote them here only for the purpose of showing that, according to Robert Hall himself, the New Testament treats specifi- cally of our communion or fellowship with the particular or visible Church with which we are associated, as quite distinct from that general fellowship which we have with all other Christians, as members of the Universal or Invi- sible Church. Each separate Church then, is recognized in Scripture as a divinely organized Society, having its own special prerogatives and relations independently of all other bodies ; and for the employment of which, it is answerable to the Head of the Church alone. Its fellowship is peculiar; just as in every state, each member of a family has pecu- liar relations and obligations to the other members, in regard to which the State has no concern ; he is answerable only to them, and to the God of the families of all the earth. Such is the distinction between Christian fellow- ship and Church fellowship. 6. It is far indeed from our intention to represent Robert Hall as carrying out this distinction as we have done. He seems, on the contrary, to us, first to admit its Scriptural basis, and then quite to fail in erecting upon the foundation thus laid, any appropriate edifice. He takes for granted, as a matter of course, rather than * R. Hall, on Communion.— Part 2, sect. 3. 38 COMMUNION. attempts to prove that the Universal Church, (which is an Invlsihle body,) " diiFers from a particular assembly of Christians (which is a visible body,) only as the whole differs from a part," and that a single Church, such as the Church of Ephesus or Corinth, differs from the general assembly and Church of the first-born, ^^ only as a part differs from the whole."* In this case, it would be diffi- cult to perceive why the sacred writers so carefully avoid using it, as in the former extracts he admits and contends that they do, to denote the aggregate of Christians throughout a province or a kingdom. Here, the chief fallacy lies in that able author's Treatise on Communion. We can by no means admit that a particular visible Church differs from the Church Universal invisible, ".only" as a, part differs from the whole. With equal justice might it be said, that a family differs from a nation only as a part from the whole. The membership of the two bodies is based upon different principles. As no man can read the heart of his fellow-man, so a credible j)'^o/ess ion of piety is all that is requisite for membership in a particular visible Church, whatever may be the state of the heart. The Invisible or Universal Church, on the other hand, as Robert Hall would allow, is entirely a spiritual body, and consists of such only, whatever their professions, as possess sincere piety, j- Indeed, from the meaning of words, it is not difficult to show that the terms of visible Church member- ship must embrace that which he himself admits not to be requisite to membership in the Invisible Church. For although true faith in Christ, which alone is necessary to salvation, or admission to the Invisible Church, may be said perhaps to include the disposition to confess him, it * Terms of Communion. — Part 2, sect. 3. t Dr. Dagg, on Communion.— Part 2, sect. 3. NEANDER MAKES THE TRUE DISTINCTION. 89 cannot always embrace any actual profession of religion ; whereas, in the very nature of things, some credible pro- fession of religion must be one of the pre-requisites to visible Church membership. To contend that the terms of admission into the two bodies are identical, must there- fore be a fallacy. 7. That in the plan of government developed in the New Testament, the distinction between the term of visi- ble and invisible membership is recognized clearly, the following extract from Neander's ^^ Planting and Training of the Christian Church,^' well illustrates : '^ John also describes an inward community, the assemblage of those who stand in communion with the Redeemer, and which embraces the whole development of the divine life among mankind ; and an outward community of believers, which it is possible for thou to join who have no part in the former We find here, as in St. Paul's writings, the distinction of the visible and the invisible church." Bk. 6, chap. 4, pp. 320-321. To the visible churches of Christ belong ordinances and means of grace, things temporary in their nature, and to be observed only ^' till He come,'' who is the Head of the Church. To the Universal Church, as such, which is a spiritual and therefore invisible body, ordinances are impossible, since it cannot be convened ; and means of grace are unnecessary, since its members all drink from the fountain head, and enjoy the grace of the means. There are radically, therefore, two, and but two kinds of communion, which we can hold with the followers of Christ on earth. First, Christian Cor}itnunion, or fellow- ship with the followers of Christ at large, as such ; and secondly, Church Communion, or fellowship with the par- 40 COMMUNION. ticular cliiircli to which, by the grace and providence of God, we belong. The fellowship of Associations, Conven- tions, Synods, and Denominations, is a voluntary and advisory matter, to be regulated on general principles of expediency, not being laid down in the Word of God. CHAPTER V. FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRISTIANS AS SUCH, AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF ANY PARTICULAR VISIBLE CHURCH. 1, The New Commandment explained. 2. This Communion may exist apart from all symbols. 3. It need not interfere with denominational preferences. 4. Baptist principles most favorable to Christian fellow- ship. 5. How to promote it. *' "Whoso loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how shall he love God whom he hath not seen." 1 John, 4 : 20. 1. The object of the present chapter is to show, or rather to illustrate what will hardly be denied, though it is often forgotten; that, as Christians, we must and ought to have a true fellowship with those whom we esteem Christians, as such, though they may not be members of our own, or indeed of any particular visible Church, but only of Christ's mystical body, the Church Universal; such characters as the penitent thief of primitive, or a pious Quaker of modern times. It was in relation to this love for all who love Christ, that our blessed Saviour said, ^^ A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. As I have loved you, that ye also love one another.'' But wherein, it will be asked, is the newness of this command ? Not in the injunction laid on Christians to love one another, in com- mon with the rest of mankind. Had Christ never come, 4* 42 COMMUNION. this duty would liave "been binding upon tliem. ^^ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is the universal com- mand, not only of Christianity, but also of the Jewish, and even of natural religion. And while Infidels have cavilled at it, even heathen philosophers have laid it down as the foundation of all Ethics.* Wherein then, consisted the newness of the command ? It was in the peculiar manner and degree of the love enjoined, "as I have loved you that ye also love one another." Christ here makes out that '' especial dearness, that watchful disciplinary love and loving-kindness, which, over and above the affec- tions and duties of philanthrophy and universal charity," were to form the basis of a new, a Christian fellowship. "By a charity, wide as sunshine, and comprehending the whole human race," says Coleridge, " the body of Chris- tians was to be placed in contrast with the proverbial misanthropy and bigotry of the Jewish Church, while yet they were to be distinguished and known to all men, hy the peculiar love and affection displayed by them towards the members of their own community. How kind these Christians are to the poor, without distinction of religion or country, but how they love each other."f This new, this higher, this holier affection that binds Christian to Christian, is of the most heavenly nature. The love of Christ to the Church Universal is the highest exhibition, the full measure of it. He loved the Church, not as, but better than himself, for " He loved the Church and gave himself for it." " Love one another as I have loved you," saith he : " Grreater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend." 2. This love, this Communion, may exist truly and per- * See Appendix C. t Coleridge's Aids to Reflection, p. 325. APART FROM ALL SYMBOLS.- 43 fectly where there is and can be no interchange of any particular tokens of fellowship. This has, in substance, been already shown, for our fellowship with the saints in light, and with Christ, the Head of the Church, is of this spiritual character. Our fellowship with the saints on earth as such, our ^^ brethren whom we have seen,'' may be of the same nature in this respect, with those whom '^ we have not seen.'' This may be the case, even although our earthly fellow- ship be much more close and sympathizing than that which we have with the saints in glory. The great cloud of witnesses in heaven, bending from their lofty seats, may sympathize with us, because they have passed through our state of trial, but we cannot so well sympathize with them, not having yet attained to their excellence and holiness, and they not being encompassed, as we are, with infii'mities. But our brethren in the flesh, however holy, are imperfect still ; they need our prayers, they are com- forted and sustained by our love. They are often mate- rially assisted by our efforts, and stimulated by our example. Hence, we can assist and sympathize, and therefore commune with them more perfectly. And yet, notwithstanding all this. Communion of spirit is easily distinguishable from any particular tokens or symbols of Communion. There is needed in the present day, a greater feeling of oneness among Christians of every name and denomina- tion; one existing, primarily at least, apart from signs and tokens. 3. This need not, and would not, in any degree inter- fere with a fii*m maintenance and vindication of denomi- national peculiarities, or church customs. Should we not rather trust a man who was warmly and actively attached 44 COMMUNION. to his family and kindred, to be a fast friend in the hour of adversity, than he who had no particular zeal or love for any one, and was almost indifferent to his own wife and children ? So it is a good general rule, that unless a Christian love his own church, and his own denominational peculiarities, warmly and strongly ; unless, in their place, he maintains them firmly up to the measure of truth and justice, he will not prove very warmly attached to the cause of Christ, or the true fellowship of Christians as such. No genuine Christian love will he promoted by attempting to break down Church peculiarities. But on the other hand, where party zeal is a blinding thing, infidels mock while Christians quarrel. Every noisy controversy, all the selfishness of mere sectarian zeal, all the quibbles and the quirks, the party manoeu- vring and scheming, the pride and tricking of sectarianism, (and there is far too much of this,) rend and mar the Communion of saints, the true and proper fellowship of those to whom Christ said, " by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another. '^ That there must be different denominations, so long as there are different opinions on essential truths, or on the divinely instituted order of the churches, is to us clear. Truth must be upheld. Each Christian must follow the truth of God for himself, so far as he see it, not loving the errors of good men, because he loves them ; not fol- lowing a multitude, even of the most pious, to do any thing forbidden, or to omit what is commanded him by the Word, the Spirit, or his own conscience. That there must, and ought to be an ever increasing number of par- ticular churches, in proportion to the greater number of Christians, is quite clear, if only from local causes ; and BAPTIST PRINCIPLES MOST FAVORABLE. 45 the members of each of these must uphold what they believe to be truth. 4. But we may have true Christian fellowship with many whom from other, as well as local causes, we cannot join in Church fellowship ; and those churches are to be regarded as having most truth and piety that have the most extensive fellowship and real love for Christians, as such, apart from the name they bear. Take those denominations, beginning at the Roman Catholic, who are the most proud, the most selfish, the most contemptuous of others, and those are the sects, and those the Churches, that have the least of the life of religion. Men of the world, the mass of Christians even, do not go into nice- ties, but they can easily see the spirit that is manifested. If it is a spirit of love for those who love Christ and bear his image as such ; it is a good, a Christian spirit. ^^ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another.^^ How far, as Baptists, we may have actually attained to the practice of this grace, it is not for us to say ; but that our princii^les are more favorable to its developments than those probably of any other denomination, admits, we think, of demon- stration. We never baptize any persons, until we first believe them to be true Christians. Hence we are obliged, in each instance, to keep Christian and Church fellowship distinct, and to have the former kind of Communion with them prior to, and apart from receiving them to the lat- ter. Pedobaptism tends rather to destroy this distinction of feeling. Especially is this the case, when Baptism is supposed to confer Christian character. 5. With all true Christians, we ought to cherish and cultivate a spiritual communion as our strongest and most powerful feeling. We should strive to promote it by all 46 COMMUNION. consistent means. Properly carried out, it will not be found to interfere with our more immediate duties to the particular Church of which we are members. Let Christians pray, and preach, for and with each other ; let them '^ speak often one to another '^ of heart expe- riences of religion. Is a church revived ? Let her not be selfish, and unwilling for other congregations to share in the good work, and catch the heavenly flame from her altar, but rather let her pray that it may be so. Let her members and ministry urge others to use the means which they have found successful. And let all the other churches around, praise God for it, as a blessing to them, and pray that it may extend to them also. Let them exercise no narrow and sectarian jealousy, as if they would prefer that people should remain unconverted, rather than be converted to any creed but their own. Is a church divi- ded, or tried ? Let others sympathize and weep, and never aim to exaggerate and foment the disorders of their bre- thren, or tear open their wounds. It is the want of this kind of spiritual interchange of aff'ections among the different congregations and denomi- nations in our towns and villages, it is the scheming and selfishness, the grasping sectarianism, trying in every way to get the advantage, and regarding all others as in anta- gonism, that cuts at the root of true Christian fellowship and real communion, such as we all feel with the saints in glory, and hope to enjoy in eternity with every Christian. This is the spirit which makes infidels rejoice and angels blush. There is, it is true, a momentary success which seems to attend all this grasping. Strenuous exertions will pro- duce a certain effect. But the motive will soon be dis- covered, and the means rejected as an imposture. The HOW TO PROMOTE IT. " 47 mass of people never yet could be convinced that such is the Spirit of Christ, It may be set down as a certain rule, that where there is most bitterness of spirit, most manoeuvring and scheming, there is least of truth and least of piety. These are the resorts and refuges of that conscious weakness that cannot bear honest investigation. So it is also certain, that where there is most real, ear- nest love, most simplicity, candor, and spirituality, there is most truth, most of that Charity which is the bond of perfectness, most of that ^^ communion of saints", which is one of the clearest evidences and noblest features of Christianity. CHAPTER yi. CHURCH COMMUNION^ OR FELLOWSHIP. 1. Its imtui-e. 2. Its proper subjects. 3. The two objects of it. 4. De- signed to promote the inety of the members. 5. Unreasonable expecta- tions in regard to it. 6, Evil effects of such expectations. 7. Modem and Primitive Churches compared. 8. We need a fellowship more sympathizing in temporal matters. 9. Church fellowship ought to include a complete vindication of character. 10. It should promote the proprieties of Christian intercourse.— 11. Church fellowship as an instrument of converting sinners. 12. A proper Esprit du Corps. 13. Its power. 14. The duty of joining a Church. 15. Summary of Part I. 1. We have seen tliat tlie word Cliurcli is used in two distinct senses ; first^ for the wliole body of believers in Christ, the Church Universal or Invisible ; and secondly, for a particular visible congregation of believers, habitually associating for worship, and uniting in the ordinances of the Christian religion. In the present chapter, we are about to speak of the Communion, {. e. the spiritual fel- lowship peculiar to the members of these latter bodies within themselves respectively, over and above that general fellowship which they have with the whole body of the faithful in Christ. This fellowship, though having its origin in the more general affection which binds all Christians together, is far more specific, and very different in some of its mani- festations; just as family affection may, in some respects, be analogous to that general love of Society, which makes social intercourse so preferable to solitude, while yet it has DISTINCTION OF ITS SUBJECTS. ' 49 many relations peculiar to itself. It is not too much to say, that as the happiness of mankind is more dependent upon a properly regulated family affectioUj than upon any of the more general feelings which bind men together, as tribes, as nations, or as human beings, — so to Christians, in the present state of existence, the proper affection of the particular members in the churches of Christ to which they respectively belong, is productive of more important effects for the good of themselves, and for the extension of the cause of Christ, than the most correct views and feelings as to their more remote relations to '-'■ the whole family in heaven and on earth/^ These separate Churches of Christ's professed people, though so small and insignifi- cant, so widely and irregularly scattered through the whole earth, do yet produce the most powerful effects upon man- kind. They are the salt of the earth, and the light of the world, the leaven that is ever working and permeating and fermenting the surrounding mass, infusing into it the most heavenly activities. 2. There is, as was shown in a previous chapter, a dis- tinction between the proper suhjects of Christian and of Church fellowship, the former extending to all the follow- ers of Christ in heart, whether members of any visible Church or not, the latter subsisting between those v>'ho make a credible and appropriate profession of faith in Christ, whatever may be the state of their hearts, and who are in the habit of associating for the promotion of their mutual piety, and the extension of the Redeemer's king- dom. There are also other important distinctions. Chris- tian fellowship is more extensive ; Church fellowship more definite. The one contains perhaps a more spiritual sen- timent, but the other, a more stirring and practical effi- ciency. If indeed the latter is more artificial and earthly, 5 50 COMMUNION. it is for that reason more visible, tangible, and better adapted to the present state of human nature, — of the Churcb and of the world. The purely spiritual commu- nion of the whole true Church of Christ, may suit the peaceful and triumphant state of glory in heaven, where there is no enemy to oppose, or discipline to be carried on ; but the more visible fellowship, though circumscribed by place and time, professions and ordinances, is far better adapted to the militant state of Christ^s followers upon earth. When a town is besieged, or a country is in a state of insurrection, the stringency of military law affords the greatest real liberty for all, compatible with their security. Or, to recur to a former figure, as the pros- perity of society in the aggregate, is best promoted by the citizens all segregating themselves into families, for the enjoyment of household comforts, the education of the young, and the accumulation of property ; and as thus a nation attains to a higher degree of riches and happi- ness, morality and refinement, than it could under any other social system, more compact and central, whether that of ancient Sparta or of a modern Fourier, — even so the prosperity and progress of the Universal Church will be best promoted by the distinct and independent organi- zation of visible Churches. 3. The oljecfs of the peculiar fellowship of Church members, as such, are two. To promote piety among themselves, and to convert others. We offer a few remarks on each of these points. 4. First, as to the fellowship of a visible church, so far as it is designed to promote the piety and grace of its own members. Some have, indeed, very unreasonable expectations in regard to this fellowship, desiring it to be closer than it ever can or ought to be on earth. They UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS. 61 would wish, for instance^ such a oneness among the mem- bers of a Church, as would break down all individuality of character. There are not probably any in our Churches now, who carry this to the extent of desiring a community of property. But some professors of religion would wish all acquaintances, and all the familiar intercourse of private friendship in common, and expect all the members of a church to be equally unreserved and unqualified in the concerns of private life. They are jealous of those more intimate with others than with them, and are disposed to regard private friendships, and particular attachments in the Church of Christ, as so many violations of a proper fellowship. 5. This is altogether unreasonable. It arises sometimes from a shallow acquaintance with the Scriptures, and then a closer study of the Bible will correct it. Let any man read the Epistles, and he will see that even the intimacy of the Apostles was not alike with all. Paul preferred Silas to Mark, and had a personal warmth of friendship for Priscilla and Aquilla, that he had not with every Christian. John was emphatically ^^the beloved'' of Jesus, and, with Peter and James, enjoyed more of his intimacy than the rest. We would even put the young Christian on his guard against expecting, suddenly at any rate, a perfect communion with all his brethren, even in the holiest church on earth. A Christian is a man who must dare to be singular, must dare to stand alone, and walk alone with Grod in prayer, with conscience in self-com- munion. He must be careful not to make Christians, but Christ his guide. He must follow the Bible, and light, and truth, and duty, wherever they may lead him, and without regard, beyond a certain point, to the feelings, or the friendships, or the practices, even of the members of his own church. 52 COMMUNION. 6. There is a weakness about most Christians here, that keeps them ever in leading strings, and makes them think it hardly proper to hold an opinion, or to practice a virtue, beyond what their church requires. This it is that makes our religion so dwarfish, our devotion so weak. They fol- low Christians, not Christ. They go as far as the church to which they belong, make the average of its piety their standard, but go no further, and attain no higher. The stream cannot rise above its fountain, but may fall below; and such a communion as this, destroying, as it must, the individuality of Christian character, levelling down- wards the noblest spirits in the Church of Christ, puts all upon a Procrustes' bed, to shape them according to the newest pattern of orthodoxy. All this, however, is not to be identified with the scriptural doctrine of Church Com- munion. 7. "Were we to compare our present Churches with those of primitive times, we should perhaps find that our mem- bers live, upon an average, in even greater regularity of outioard deportment, peace and harmony, than anciently. Not even in these things as they ought, not as did the Apostles, and holier members and ministers, but more than a large part of the professors of those times actually attained. We cannot forget that there were serious dis- orders and divisions in the first Churches, Jewish teachers, doting about strifes and fables, and endless genealogies, and meats and drinks and new moons. Things were suf- fered in the first Churches, that would not for a moment be tolerated now. There was the thief at Ephesus, of whom St. Paul wrote, ^^ let him that stole, steal no more.'' There was the incestuous man at Corinth. There were those who, even at the Lord's Table, took ^^ each before other his own supper, and one was hungry and another MODERN AND PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 53 drunken." It must at least be concededj that great as are the faults of our present Churches, they are more regular and orderly than all this would indicate. And these cases are no doubt left on record, in order that Christians may not plead the inconsistencies and errors of Church mem- bers now, as an excuse for not uniting . themselves to a society constituted on the same principles with those to which holy Apostles scrupled not to attach themselves. But on the other hand, if we have not the errors and divisions of the early Churches, neither have we their life nor their love. If we have not their strife and their fail- ings, neither have we their Christian faithfulness, or affectionate zeal, rebuking and reproving. They could afford to take in rough-hewn Christians, full of faults and inconsistencies, as we cannot afford, seeing that they in the zeal of their holy affection would reprove and exhort them with a vigor of discipline, in which we are altogether lacking. They melted them down, and they moulded them over; and they turned them out as quickly as they took them in, if heretical, contumacious, or schismatic. Our church life is a petrified life. It is said that in Sweden, a physician has discovered a process of applying gradually increasing degrees of cold to all kinds of ani- mals, from lizards up to man, and thus reducing them to a perfectly torpid state, without destroying life. Some cul- prits of the government have been taken through these different stages, and so long as kept at the proper temper- ature, preserved insensible for weeks, months, and even years ; after which by restoring warmth, they have been brought back to consciousness. The fellowship of Church members thus exists, all petrified and frozen up for long periods. It is not dead. It is there. It is alive ; but only now and then, after months and years of torpor, is it 5* 54 COMMUNION. thawed out into consciousness and activity. There is in our Churches, a mysterious energy, that only needs waking up. There is a real life, a something between which and the spiritual death of false and formal systems of religion, there is placed an immeasurable and impassable gulf. Still it is only a spark of life. It wants waking up, draw- ing out, and fanning to a flame. We pause to specify some of those things which are needed to render our Church fellowship more efficient, and like that enjoined in the New Testament. 8. "We need a Church fellowship that shall be more sympatliizing and comjmssionate, in temporal matters, to those members who need assistance. There is, indeed, much of this compassion exhibited every where in this country, and beyond what is common in any other. But while there is much of this love to man as man, and to a neighbor as a neighbor, there is little to a member of the same Christian Church as such, beyond this general social feeling. The cup of cold water, even when given to a disciple, is not given to him in the name of a disciple. Numerous are the societies formed and flourishing in our cities, towns, and villages, for the especial purpose of afford- ing mutual support, visiting the sick, burying the dead, educating the orphan, or encouraging particular reforma- tions. If one of the members of these fraternities is sick or suffering, he is visited, nursed, and relieved, as the case may require ] or if he dies, is buried by his Order. But a Church of Christ, whose comprehensive relations to her members involves far more of these duties than any other society on earth, will often neglect these to a degree which would bring disrepute on any other. Now we believe that the heart to perform these offices exists nowhere so strongly as in Christian Churches, and IN TEMPORAL MATTERS. 55 it is only from tlie lack of system in our arrangements, that so mucli of all this goes undone. A Christian may be sick and require nursing and kind attention, and though belonging to a Church, he will often be neglected to a degree that he would never have been in primitive times. There were orders of men and women anciently appointed to these very duties, even to digging the graves of Chris- tians.* A large proportion of the funds of the Church were also appropriated for these purposes. This it was that won for Christians the love of all mankind, and caused them to grow so rapidly. And not only in pecu- niary matters, but in all the duties of mutual service and benevolence, was this spirit manifested. To belong to a Christian Church was to be one of a society, each of whom loved the other with a new love, and in a peculiar degree, and who strove constantly to forward each others' interests. Our union is too often a merely spiritual or rather nominal thing ) a mere intellectual fiction. We meet at the Lord's Table, and there we shake hands and unite in prayer, and are warm friends inside the Church doors. But how is it in the street, in the transactions of business ? There is sometimes, we fear, a sharpness in making bargains and trading, and a selfishness, not to say an over-reaching, wherever there is opportunity, that destroys the unbounded confidence which should exist in a Christian brother, as a Christian brother. There are men of the world of such integrity, that a person would prefer to trust their honor in dealing for a tract of land or for a house, rather than the virtue, love, friendship, and word, of a Christian bro- ther united. The word of a Christian ought to be suffi- cient assurance that what is said is not only true and honorable, in everything, but that there is as much con- * See Bingham's Christitin Antiquities, Bk. 23, chap. 3, sect. 7. bb COMMUNION. sideration of a brother's interest, as truth, justice, and the proprieties of the case will admit. 9. There is also wanting, in our Church fellowship, such a hrotlierly feeling as shall jwoduce a complete vincli' cation and maintenance of the characters of the worthy, and the rejection of the unworthy altogether from our Churches. If a member of a Christian Church hear any thino; ao-ainst the character of another member, he should feel it a wound upon his own, until he is vindicated. He ought to be affected as he would if, in society, his own brother were accused of some dishonorable transaction. Would he not in such a case, go and tell him what was being whispered, and urge and assist him to clear his cha- racter? If this could be done satisfactorily, he would cling to him the closer, because attacked unjustly and slanderously. Or if that brother were guilty and incor- rigible, he would retire from his defence, and cease to uphold him as worthy of confidence. So with a Christian brother whose character is assailed, it is the duty of the Church and of each member to yindicate him, if he can be rightly vindicated, not listening to a whisper or an in- sinuation without going and telling him of it, so as to give him opportunity for explanation. If he be innocent, let them put down all evil and malicious insinuations ; if not, it is their duty to withdraw fellowship from such an one, that their own character may not be implicated in his baseness. But the suspicion and tattling, the whis- pering and backbiting which a man himself can never reach; — from these, the whole fellowship of the Church ought to protect its members by the broad shield of its high character, and by its warm and living union. Herein is one of its greatest benefits and delights, that it is a society of holy persons, full of love and sympathy, ready PROPRIETIES OF CHURCH INTERCOURSE. 57 to sustain and support each other in adversity^ while they walk piously before God^ and faithfully with each other. 10. There needs also a more careful observance of the 'proprieties of Christian intercourse, especially in all matters of Church action ; — a vigilant attendance on many duties, and as careful a forbearance from unauthorized intrusion. A punctual attendance on all the meetings of the church for worship and for business, is to be regarded as the solemn duty of each individual. A careful forbearance from tyranizing over a conscientious minority, by any undue extension of their power, is no less the duty of the body. A majority, by pressing a measure unnecessarily against the scruples even of a few, may be the cause of schism and of strife, and of breaches of Christian affec- tion in others, if not directly guilty of them themselves. A Christian, with proper views of communion, will rarely jiropose any measure requiring a new course of action, for which he cannot hope to obtain the unanimous sanction of the Church, unless it be some constitutional matter, in which, not to act, would be clearly sinful. Until some course of procedure can be devised which will secure unanimity, it is generally best for all to agree in deferring action. It is not sufficient that a majority can be found to support a particular measure ; for a packed and party majority may thus be obtained in favor of many things which, to force upon a conscientious minority, may be destructive of all communion of heart. 11. Secondly, Church Communion or fellowship, is designed, not alone for the edification of its own members. One great object designed by Christ in instituting Christian Chiirches -was thereby to convert the icorld. These living organizations were intended to effect this even more directly, than the written word. ^' Ye are my witnesses, 58 COMMUNION. saith the Lord/' ^^ Ye are the light of the world/' The Churches are the chosen instrumentalities of accomplish- ing his purposes, and they are kept in a militant state, while on earth, for this end. Their organization is essen- tially aggressive in its object. As soon as they lose sight of this great truth their own yital energy dies within them. 12. A serious deficiency of our modern Church fellow- ship is the want of more of what may be termed the Esprit du Corps of the Christian army. It is not enough that there be "one body.'' There must be also "one spirit" to animate and control it. Any man who has been in battle well knows that everything there depends on the spirit and enthusiasm of the officers and men. It is this that gives them the desire to perform every operation in the best possible manner. It is this that makes the soldier ready to die at his post rather than give way, and fulfill honorably every duty entrusted to him as if the safety of the whole depended upon him alone. Thus too in the army of Christ, the most exact order and regularity, for the good of others, is what each soldier of the cross must maintain, while a member of the Church militant. There are many duties which he owes to the body of believers to which he belongs, not only for his own, or for its sake, but for the sake of the cause of Christ in the world. Regular attendance on the Sabbath, prayer and church meetings, contributions for the pecuniary support of public worship in due proportion to his means ] resolu- tion to stand at his post, and do his duty unmoved, even if all others turn back, are some of these. As then so many of the obligations of Church fellowship are for the good of the whole cause, rather than any particular sec- tion, no delinquency on the part of other members can be an excuse for the Christian in neglecting any part of them. ITS POWER UPON SOCIETY. 59 He is ratlier pledged to do the more, that is to see that the Church, as a Church, does her part to promote the cause of Christ in the earth ; and therefore if some do but little, the rest should, as far as possible, seek to make good their deficiency. Certainly the neglect of others can never justify the Christian in doing less, for though the commu- nion be with the Church, i1^ is in j)art at least for the benefit of the world, and for the glory of the cause of Christ as a whole. A Church covenant is in some respects like the articles of partnership, by which each of the par- ties is bound not only to act in a particular manner toward the other, but also to a certain extent to see that all their joint agreements with third parties are fulfilled. 13. All or nearly all the power which Christians have upon society, is from their Church, as distinct from their Christian fellowship. And by Church fellowship, we mean that family affection for the particular Christian society, with which they are by the Providence of God associated, an afi'ection which lies behind all professions, ceremonies and symbols, and is essentially distinct from them, though often shining through and blended with them. It is the holy fellowship of these societies as such, that keeps up the true worship of Grod in the earth, and bears a various but united testimony to the only way of salvation, to Christian morality and Christian doctrine. To its affec- tionate guardianship, have been committed the oracles and ordinances of God. The testimony also of a number of distinct witnesses, animated by one spirit, varying on a thousand minor points, but all agreeing on the most im- portant, becomes infinitely more weighty than that of any one body could be, however imposing the multitude it embraced, or however splendid the monuments of its piety and learning. GO COMMUNION. 14. From this it will be also sufficiently obvious, tliat it is tlie duty of every true Christian to become a regular member of a particular visible Church. It is not enough that he be a member of the Church Universal. Special is the fellowship, special are the relations, and therefore the blessings reserved for believers in Christ, assembling though it be but '■'■ two or th»ee" in his name. There are some who cannot see this ; — ''Why cannot I be a Christian as well out of any Church V^ "Do walls make Christians ?'^* they ask. This, at least, must be an evident and sufficient answer, — that if one Christian may argue thus, so may all, and if all did, we should have no churches, no sabbath bells, no assemblies, no ministry, no ordinances, no public discourses or prayers. If there be any efficiency or ani- mating spirit in these, either for the comfort of believers or the conversion of sinners, as they are the results of this more special communion, so it is the duty of all Christians to support the visible Churches of Christ. That many seemingly pious and excellent persons omit entirely the duty of embracing this fellowship by a public profession of religion, is alas, too well known. The injury such do, both to themselves and others, can be estimated alone by G-od. In some, it would seem as if they thought no Church sufficiently correct. In others, it is doubtless timidity and distrust of themselves. But in many cases, it is evidently a fear of the cross, and a desire to live as much like the world as possible, and even a distaste to this close and holy fellowship. The sin of living out of all visible Church membership and communion is not sufficiently brought to the view of Christians. Those who do so may wish well to the cause of the Redeemer as a whole, and subscribe liberally to all * See tlxe Account of the Baptism of Victorinus. Appendix, E. ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE. 61 pious institutions, but unless tliey walk in avowed and earnest Cliurch fellowship, they utterly fail in a great and important duty. For it is the open, hearty, warm co-ope- ration of the pious, that gives a Church all its power. It has no authority but that of love. It has no prisons, nor penalties, nor other temporal powers at its command. What keeps it alive ? What is the source of its strength ? It is its love, its fellowship. Without this, it is but a lifeless formality, a figure of wax, a rope of sand. May the Lord ^' add to his Churches daily, such as shall be saved." 15. Such is Communion in its essential nature. It is a spiritual, not a ceremonial thing. It consists not in any symbols, nor can it be confined to them. It may at times use them as channels, but it is in its own nature too ethe- rial and elastic to be fettered by them. It will exist when time and symbols are all no more. It is found where they are absent. "They are no more essential to it, than they are to salvation. It is as far above mere ceremonial Com- munion, as the heavens are above the earth. It is a por- tion of heaven to be found on earth.'' All symbols with- out this are cold as moonbeams, and animating, only as they reflect a nobler, higher light. But this is like the sun, which inspires the whole scene, and gives even to ceremonies and symbols, their warmth, their lustre, and their life. PART II. THE SYMBOLS OF COMMUNION. CHAPTER I. NATURE OF SYMBOLS. 1. Definition of a symbol. 2. Simple symbols. 3. Complex symbols. 4. Those only to be used when all the relations are as represented. 5. Division of the subject. 1. A SYMBOL is an emblem, or sign by which any moral truth or idea is intelligibly represented. Whatever emblem or action is designed to indicate our fellowship with any party, is a symbol of that fellowship. All those actions, therefore, by which we express our Com- munion with Christ, or with Christians, are to be regarded as symbols of our Communion with them. 2. These symbols may be either simple or complex. A simple symbol represents our relations with one and but one party. Thus when in private prayer we bow the knee, it is a symbol of this class, that is, of Communion with Grod alone. 3. A complex symbol represents relations with more than one party. When, for instance, we request a Chris- tian brother to lead our devotions, our uniting in that worship symbolizes our fellowship with him, as a sincere and pious man, in the petitions he offers, and our Commu- nion with God in the devotions offered. 4. Where any symbol represents several relations, it is not sufficient that one of them exist in reality as repre- sented by the symbol. To be appropriate, all of them must subsist in the measure indicated. For example, thie Lord's Supper is, first of all, a symbol of our participation 6* 6G COMxMUNION. in the benefits of the death of Christ. But inasmuch as it also indicates, as we shall show, certain relations as sub- sisting between the parties who celebrate together, it would not be proper for those persons to unite, between whom all the relations indicated did not exist, however appropriate the symbol might be so far as it related to the Great Head of the Church. 5. In the former part, we have seen that our Commu- nion, as followers of the Lamb, has for its objects, 1st. Christ, the Head of the Church, and 2nd. The Church which is His body; this latter being again divisible into 1st. Communion with Christians, as such, and 2nd. with the members of some particular visible Church. Corres- ponding to this, the Symbols of Communion may be classified according to their objects thus, — I. Symbols or Communion with Christ. II. Symbols of Christian Communion, or with Christians, as such. III. Symbols of Church Communion. CHAPTER II. SYMBOLS OF COMMUNION WITH CHRIST. 1. These are various, but two are chief. 2. Baptism, the first of these, a simi^le symbol. 3. Ground assumed in regard to Baptism. 4. Bap- tism, a symbolic burial. 5. Baptism, a putting on of Christ. — Optatus. 6. The Apostle's idea. 7. Importance of practically uniting the sym- bol and thing signified. 8. Baptism, a pledge — contains a reciprocal assui-ance. 9. Importance and beauty of this sjmibolic ganuent. 10. The Lord's Supper, a symbol of frequent recurrence. 11. A fresh acknowledgment of the baptismal profession — instituted con- nexion between them. 12. A complex symbol. 13. A symbol of communion with Christ. 14. Meaning of 6 or J. 15. A re-afl&rmation of the baptismal vow. 16. Contains a reciprocal assurance of our acceptance. 1. "We have seen that whatever emblem or action is designed to signify our Communion with Christ, is a sym- bol of that Communion. It may be the yielding of our bodies to an emblematic burial in a watery grave, or a participation in the tokens of a Saviour's body, broken, and his blood shed for our sins. Passing by all emblems of human device, let us fix our minds on these two chief divinely instituted symbols of our Communion with Christ, i. e. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. For these, being appointed by Jesus, become, when rightly received, sym- bols of a reciprocal' Communion, of ours with Christ, and of Christ's with us. I. BAPTISM. 2. This, of the two, most nearly approaches to the nature of what we have termed a simple symbol. It sym- 68 COMMUNION. bolizes our union with the Saviour^ and so to speak, nothing else. Indirectly, indeed, it may seem to indicate a spiritual relationship between the Minister or Church, through whom we receive it.* In a world in which all our relations are so complicated, nearly every symbolic act must have some reference, indirectly at least, to more of them than one. But in baptism, all other relations are so secondary, that we shall here consider it simply in regard to the Communion it expresses with Christ the Head of the Church, (and through him with the Father and the Holy Spirit). 3. We have no space here, to go over the whole Bap- tismal controversy. We rather take for granted therefore, than attempt to prove at length, (for, apart from the words bestowed upon it in controversy, it is in truth a very plain case,) firztj that Christian baptism as a symbol, necessarily embraces an immersion or burial of the body in water, and secondly J that the chief thing symbolized by it is personal union or fellowship with Christ by faith.f 4. (1.) It is unquestionably in allusion to the sym- holic part of baptism, that Paul speaks of Christians as " Buried with Christ in baptism, wherein also they arc risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.'^ (Col. ii. 12.) Hence he also says, '^ Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism * For a more full discussion of the relations indicated between the particular Chiu'ch and ]\Iinister through Avhich it is received, and the Candidate in Christian Baptism, the author refers the reader to an arti- cle which he prepared a few years ago for the Christian Review, and which appeared in that Journal, July, 1846. Art. o. t See Appendix D. WHAT IS SYMBOLIZED IN BAPTISM. 69 into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.'^ Rom. vi. 3, 4. In reference to this also, he speaks in the next verses of our being " planted together'^ in the likeness of his death and resur- rection. 5. (2.) It is in allusion to the thing symhoUzed by bap- tism, that in Gal. iii. 27, " as many as have been baptized into Christ,'^ are said to have '^ put on Christ.'^ One of the early Fathers (Optatus) in commenting upon this pas- sage, compares the Christian's baptismal profession to " a garment found swimming in the water, that is always one and never renewed," that decently fits all, " not too large for little children, nor too small for men, and without alteration fits women." 6. The idea of the Apostle seems to be, that as the spiritual fellowship with Christ, into which we enter at regeneration, hides all our sins and covers us in his right- eousness as in a robe, and conforms us to his image and likeness, so baptism is the divinely appointed symbol of all this, the emblem by which our union with Him is visibly signified. In it we put on Christianity outwardly and before the world. We profess our fellowship with the Lord Jesus, and publicly assume his uniform and allegiance. Mere water baptism however, administered without the baptism of the Spirit, and where it is not a profession of personal faith, is at best a lifeless ceremony, a tame and vapid thing. But where the inward and the outward may justly be presumed to correspond, and thus be considered together, as they are by the Apostle in the passage above ; — where through the transparent drapery — the outward garment of profession, shines the rich vesture of a living faith within, the whole assumes a symbolic 70 COMMUNION. lustre and magnificence, sufficient fully to justify the warmest eulogium of the Christian. Not too extatic to be applied to it, is the language of the Prophet when he says, '^I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God 3 for he hath clothed me with the gar- ments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with orna- ments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels/^* 7. If the confounding of this symbol, and the thing symbolized by it, led the early Fathers,")" as unquestionably it often did, to attach too great an importance to the mere baptism of water; on the other hand, let us not forget that there is an opposite tendency, sometimes mani- fested, so completely to separate these two, that the symbol comes to be regarded quite too much apart from the truth it signifies, and as a mere meaningless form. Thus all due sense of its worth is lost, and it comes to be regarded as of no importance. But as in nature, soul and body are so mysteriously blended, by the All-wise Creator, that they cannot be separated, without so etherealizing the one that we cannot grasp it, and reducing the other to a loathsome mass of dust and decay, so in the New Testament, has the Author of Eedemption inwrought the spiritual essence into, and clothed it upon with the substantial body of symbol, that while the anatomists of spiritual influences may speculatively separate them, to ascertain the respective properties of each, it must be our care in practical life, to keep them relatively as he has placed them, that both may thrive. What he has joined, let none separate. For as by the union of two in marriage, each receives a benedic- tion, neither could obtain alone, and both have bestowed * Isaiah Ixi. 10. + See Appendix E. . BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL. 71 on them a relationshipj neither had before, so by the unit- ing of the spiritual essence of baptism with its appointed symbol, both the consciousness of spiritual communion becomes more clear and strong, as being embodied in visible form, and the visible form assumes vitality, color and warmth from the animating spirit within; so also those who rightly receive baptism, not only in it give to the world a profession of their faith, but also obtain thereby a direct Divine assurance and pledge of Christ's present and eternal fellowship with them, a ]pal][>al)le covenant, that assures them by a formal act, that they actually are "heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ/^ 8. Indeed even this is not a full view of the importance of Christian Baptism, as it is placed in the New Testament. For it is also to be regarded, on our part, not only as a profession of present fellowship with Christ, but as ?i pub- lic pledge before the Church of Grod, and men and angels, of our whole future course. The baptized is regarded by the Apostle Paul, as having by this act, placed himself under a moral and public obligation, to live a new and holy life. Speaking of baptism, Paul adds therefore, "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto Grod, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." (Rom. 6: 12.) 9. A pious mind properly instructed, will never think lightly of this ordinance, or regard it as of no importance, because a symbol. How can it be a matter of indifference ? In it we enter into a public, solemn, and Divinely ap- pointed covenant with Grod, We openly dedicate, and consecrate ourselves to be his. Baptism is the act of con- secration. Those who are living in the neglect of baptism therefore, are living in the neglect of this consecration. 72 COMMUNION. They who through indifference, or because they esteem it a matter of no importance, whatever may be their inward piety, are certainly neglecting to put on Christ publicly, in the divinely appointed way. '^ As many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.^^ This divinely appointed confession of Christ, animated by a true faith, is a garment which well befits all Christians; "it becomes The crowned Monarcli better than his crown." It can make poverty honorable, decrepitude and old age cheerful, sickness and death happy. It suits all ages and gradations of intellect. What sight on earth so beautiful as to behold the young and lovely descending into the waters of baptism, yielding up their hearts and lives to the service of the Saviour, ^' putting on Christ." It be- seems well, even the simplicity of childhood, when entered into voluntarily and intelligently. The profession of the Gospel suits the heart and life of a child. Sin, repentance, forgiveness, the three great truths symbolized, are the three earliest moral ideas it can understand. It is a garment that will adapt itself to the Christian's growth. If he puts on Christ while a child, he finds when his mind is cultivated and matured, in the faith to which he has attached himself, that which affords him contem- plation, which warms his heart, and shelters it from the bleakness and coldness of the world. And when he is old and ready to die, and all the other relations of life have changed, and all his other fellowships have sundered again and again, the fellowship symbolized in his baptism remains as firm in texture, and as sufficient every way as at first. It is a garment that never wears out; but like those shawls of Cashmere that retain their colors brilliant THE lord's supper AS A SYMBOL. 73 for successive generations; is unfading and resplendent to the very last. This garment is the uniform, divinely appointed for Christians upon earth. It is intended to mark them as separate from the world, soldiers of the Church Militant, members of the fraternity of Christians. It contains a significance and mystery that angels desire to look into, and that shall never be fully unravelled, until Time shall be no more, and unto all the saints is granted everlast- ingly to be clothed in fine linen, clean and white. Such is the first symbol of Communion with Christ ; Christian Baptism. II. THE LOPtD's SUPPER. 10. We turn now to consider the second Divinely ap- pointed symbol of our Communion with Christ. As such it differs in two respects from baptism. First, This is a symbol oifreqiient recuvrence. Baptism is appointed for each individual once, and but once. The Lord's Supper, ^^ often ^ ^' As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come."* We will not say that Baptism confers an indelible character, but it certainly makes an indelible profession and vow. It pledges the candidate to be Christ's for life. It is a confession that can never be retracted, a step never to be retraced. He who has once voluntarily taken it, must if he possess a correct moral sense, ever feel that he has " opened his mouth to the Lord, and cannot go back.'' The Lord's Supper, on the other hand, may and ought to be frequently repeated. The first Christians made it part of their regular worship. It symbolizes our * 1 Cor. 1 1 : 26. 7 74 COMMUNION. renewing covenant with God and Christ from time to time. It assists and enables ns to do so. 11. In its relation to Baptism, it is rather like the rati- fication of an old deed, than the execution of a new one ; — the acknowledgment of a bond, repeated again and again at different times and places, all having reference to some one original and permanent document. On this account it is that there is no instance in the New Testament of any person coming unbaptized to the Lord's Table. Those who knowingly receive this ordinance without baptism, act contrary to all the precedents of Holy Scripture, and to the instituted relations of the symbols. 12. Secondly, the Lord's Supper differs from Baptism, in being a complex instead of a simple symbol. It sym- bolizes first and chiefly, as also does baptism, our Commu- nion with Christ. But it also symbolizes directly, as Baptism does not, a peculiar fellowship and relation, as subsisting between those who unite together in this ordi- nance. Baptism is an individual, the Lord's Supper a social ordinance. Both of these views are indicated in 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17. 13. In the present chapter, we have however, only to consider the former of these relations our communion with Christ. This is indeed the first, the chief, the most im- portant fellowship signified. ^'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ V The Apostle was exhorting Chris- tians not to partake of meats offered to idols in their tem- ples. Why, because the idol was anything or the meat offered to idols capable of communicating spiritual taint or infection ? No ; but because in partaking, they would seem as if seeking and symbolizing a spiritual communion with PAUL'S ILLUSTRATION OF THE SYMBOL. 75 the idols, by giving tlie accustomed token of so doing. This he illustrates in ver. 18. " Behold, Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar T"^' As if he had said, do not they who eat together of the sacrifices ofi"ered to Jehovah, betoken to the world their joint worship of the God of Israel ? In ver. 16, 17, he similarly illustrates his argument by the Lord's Supper; '^ the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the commu- nion of the blood of Christ V Is it not a token by which we show to the world, our communion with Jesus ? that we are partakers of the precious fruits of his death for our sins ? The bread that we break, is it not a token that we are not ashamed to be considered as having imbibed the spirit and principles of the Crucified One ? Do we not thus acknowledge ourselves to be joint worshippers with those with whom we partake. If they by partaking sig- nify -this, we by partaking with them signify it also. Such is the Apostle's thought. Idol altars and temples have crumbled into ruins before the power of the Cross, and we have happily no use here for the Apostle's argument against partaking of idol's food, but only for his illustra- tion. From this, it will be apparent that when St. Paul speaks of the cup, being '^ the communion^' of the blood of Christ, and the bread, ^' the communion" of the body, he intended these words to be understood, not in the sense put on them by Roman Catholics, as if the act of partak- ing was a communion in the literal body and blood of Christ, but that it was a symbolic acknowledgment to the world of our communion and faith in Christ; just as the partaking of idol meats would seem an acknowledgment of communion and faith in idol worship, although he de- * See Macknight's translation of verse. 76 COMMUNION. clares that ^^ the idol is nothing in itself, neither that ichlch is offered in sacrifice to the idoV So neither is the bread anything in itself, nor the wine anything in itself; they are but tokens to the world of that Communion we profess to feel with Christ the Head, and with those with whom we celebrate in Him. Our partaking of them is a public act of worship and fellowship. 14. In precisely what sense the bread ^is' the Commu- nion of the body of Christ, has been a matter of fierce controversy. " This is my body,'^ construed literally, has been made to teach the Romish doctrine of transubstan- tiation. Zwingle on the other hand, put beside it Ex. 12: 11. "Ye shall eat the Lamb in haste, it is the Lord's Passover." Here, he argued, the Septuagint £6Tfi is, can mean nothing else than " signifies."^ Neander most truly expresses the sense of the passage, " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ ? This can only mean that it marks, it represents this Communion, it is the means of appropriating this communion. "f It symbolizes the body of Christ; and further as we have seen, that the right reception of Bap- tism becomes to us an act by which we obtain more than a mere outward or symbolic blessing, so in the Lord's Supper what in itself might be, and to the unworthy is, a mere symbol, becomes in the right reception of it to the child of faith, a means and act of true and living Commu- nion with the Lamb of God. It is on our part a ratification and re-affirmation of the Baptismal profession and pledge. It is a profession of our constant communion with Christ, of our feeding by faith upon him. As every one one needs bread daily, and * See D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, vol. iii. p. 272. t Planting and Training, Bk. 6, chap. i. p. 277 THE lord's supper AS A SYMBOL. 77 as the bread he eats, nourishes his body, becomes indeed incorporated into and part of it, as the wine he imbibes sustains him, so do we imbibe the spirit of Christ, and feed upon him, our souls being nourished and supported by his grace and his doctrine, especially that of his aton- ing sacrifice. It is the death of Christ for our sins, which is the great sustenance of our hopes and life as Christians. How he himself taught this, see his memorable discourse, John 6: 24—65. 15. The Lord's Supper is also a ratification of the Bap- tismal pledge, every time it is taken ; a vow to lead a holy and Christian life. That is a touching passage in Pliny's letter to Trajan, written within twenty years of the death of the Apostle John, in which he tells him, that he can get no further information in regard to the nature of Christianity than that its followers are accustomed to meet on a certain day (the Sabbath), and bind themselves ^^ by a sacrament not to commit any kind of wickedness ] to be guilty neither of theft, robbery, nor adultery; never to break a promise, or to keep back a deposit when called upon.^^* The Lord's Supper is a token of our renewing covenant with Christ, and the public act by which before the world and the Church, we re-affirm the consecration and dedica- tion of ourselves to Christ, made in baptism. 16. This as a Divinely appointed symbol, rightly par- taken of, contains a reciprocal assurance of our acceptance ; — of our being the very persons who are now living in the enjoyment of the pardon jjurchased by the body and blood of Christ. It is as sure and individual a token, as if the symbols were sent by a holy angel directly from the throne of Grod, to us alone and set before our very faces. It is a * See Appendix F. 7* T8 COMMUNION. token, partaken of again and again, to repeat the assurance, and render tlie sense of it, habitual and certain. It is also a symbolic pledge and promise of Christ's unchanging love ; that he changes not in his relations or feelings, but is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Its voice is still affirming in the ear of faith that touch- ing and beautiful testimony of Jesus — '■'■ Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.'' John 13: 1. CHAPTER III. THE SYMBOLS OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNION. 1. Symbols imperfect and partial. 2. They charge in their symbolic character. 4. Various symbols specified. 4. The same original term used for Contributions. 1. In the present Chapter, we consider the symbols of Communion with our fellow-Christians, as distinct from those of fellowship with Christ the Head on the one hand, and from Church Fellowship or Communion on the other. It is proper to remark however, — (1.) That all outward symbols must necessarily/ he hut imperfect and partial, and must come short of fully repre- senting that which is so spiritual in its nature as true Communion. Even words, the most perfect of all signs, fall far short of ideas in rapidity, variety and power. We shall look in vain therefore for any one perfect token of our fellowship with all Christians as such. Union in prayer, the great symbol of Christian Communion in the third and fourth centuries, is but an imperfect indication of the extent of our fellowship.; for when does the Chris- tian pray with all whom he loves as the children of God ? How often does he even pray for all such ? The petition cannot grasp every particular, and he who prays is under the necessity of segregating certain objects to place them distinctly before his own mind. Thus the prayer of the blessed Saviour (John 17,) was at fii'st limited to the dis- ciples who stood around him. ^^ I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world.'' 80 COMMUNION. In that case, it was afterwards more extensively added, ^' neither pray I for these alone ; but for them also who shall believe on me through their word/^ From the ab- sence of some particular symbols, the absence of all Christian Communion is not therefore to be inferred. Omissions are not contradictions. Communion may often rightly exist, without all the possible symbols being cele- brated, or even being appropriate. Better is this than the symbol without the Communion. 2. (2.) The expressions of our fellowship change much as to their symbolic character in different ages and in different circumstances. The Jewish symbols of religious fellowship were done away by divine command, when they had lost their significance to the Jews, and from being symbols, had come to be regarded as the things signified. Under the Christian dispensation, particular actions are symbols of closer fellowship in one age than in another. The same forms may be used, but they change their signification, and with it in measure, their propriety. In former ages of the church, that is from the close of the second century downwards, until heathenism was obliterated, it was gene- rally, but erroneously supposed by almost all, that Chris- tian fellowship or communion consisted chiefly in praying together. Christians would never unite in saying ^^ Our Father who art in heaven,' ' would not even pray in the same house of worship, with those whom they did not consider orthodox Christians. Heathens, unbelievers, he- retics, persons suspended, or excommunicated, even cate- chumens or candidates for baptism, and members of other sects were admitted to hear the Psalmody, and reading of the Scriptures, and the discourses, but were invariably excluded from the building before the prayers of the church were offered. Our views of prayer are much more just ACTS OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNION. 81 than these. Our symbols of Christian Communion are far more various and discriminating. 3. Whatever action is designed to indicate to the world^ or to the parties themselves, our Christian fellow- ship with thenij is a symbol of Christian Communion. Whether it be uniting with them in Missionary, Bible, or Tract Societies, in Evangelical Unions or Alliances, in Conventions or Associations, the interchange of the reli- gious exercises of prayer or preaching, all or any of these may be symbols so far as they go, of Christian Communion. Indeed whatever exhibits the peculiar charity due to all Christians, as such, if it be but a cup of cold water, symbolizes it. These form its active developments. ^'By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another.'' 4. There are two and but two senses in which the original term for Communion is metaphorically used in the New Testament for different outward acts of Christian fellowship; the iSrst where it is put for the Lord's Supper, which is termed " the Communion of the body and blood of Christ." The second, where it is put for the " contri- butions'^ of Christian benevolence; Bom. 15: 26. The former of these we have already considered.* In regard to the latter, it is not difficult to perceive how pecuniary contributions came to be designated by the same original term that is used for fellowship and communion, since he who has true communion of spirit with another, will be willing to '^ sJiare in co7m7ioii" the necessities of the sufferer, and his own means of supplying them. See Bom. 12: 13; Hcb. 13: 16. Hence we read in Bom. 15: 26. ^at hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a * See Appendix G. 82 COMMUNION. certain contribution [xoivuvCa) for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. (See also 2 Cor. 9: 13.) Contributions for the support of the ministry and of missions are also desig- nated by the same term, as being symbols and acts of communion, Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4 : 4. This use of the term is not at all confined to the New Testament. Such contributions may be either for the cause of Chris- tian benevolence generally, as for missions, or for our own particular Church, as in defraying the expenses of keeping up its public worship. The neglect of either of these, in just proportion to our means, is a violation of symbolic, and if voluntary and knowingly, of true Communion. In the former case, it violates Christian, in the latter, Church fellowship. CHAPTER lY. THE SYMBOLS OF CHURCH COMMUNION. 1. Kiss of charity — feasts of charity — right hand of fellowship. 2. The Lord's Supper — in what sense the Communion. 3. A symbol of Church relations. 4. Is more than a recognition of Christian character. 5. Is a Chui'ch ordinance. 6. Not a mere symbol of Communion with the Church Univei-sal. 7. Nor with all saints on earth. 8. But with those with whom we celebrate. 9. Illustrated by the Passover, and institution of the Supper. 10. Independence of Churches. IL The early Christians esteemed the Lord's Supper a Church ordinance. 12. It is not to be used where there are not Church relations. 13. The Church an executive, not a legislative body. 14. Baptist Churches cannot be charged with want of charity. 15. The Lord's Supper belongs to all the members of a Church which celebrates it. 16. In- justice of debarring infants in Pedobaptist Churches. 1. It was remarked in the last eliapter that whatever action is designed to indicate our Christian Fellowship with any, is a symbol of that fellowship. So now, it may be added, that whatever action, over and above this, is de- signed to indicate Church fellowship with any person, is a symbol of that Communion. There were in primitive times, many symbols of Church Communion, such as ^^ the kiss of Charity,'' 1 Pet. 5: 14, the " feasts of Charity," alluded to in Jude 12, and ^^ the right hand of fellowship,'' see Gal. 2:9. But we enter at once upon the considera- tion of the most important and Divine of them all, the Lord's Supper as the symbol, not now of our Communion with Christ, but with those with whom we celebrate. 2. There is indeed a popular mode of expression, by 84 COMMUNION. wliicli the Lord's Supper is termed "the Communion/' In Scripture, it is nowhere thus designated, except it be as " the Communion of the Jjody and hlood of Christ." The popular use might seem to indicate that it is, at least, the divinely appointed and chief if not the only symbol of the Communion which ^e believer enjoys with all Chris- tians as such. Even Eobert Hall uses it thus ; whereas, it is chiefly the symbol of our Communion with Christ, and then with those with whom we celebrate it; of a Communion, not as Christians merely, but as sustaining a peculiar, that is a Church relation. 3. AYe consider the Lord's Supper, then, a symbol of Church relations. When we say this, we mean that there is a fellowship in Church relations, professed with those Christians, with whom v\^e visibly celebrate. We do not say that this is everything indicated, for then its chief significance would be lost, in not symbolizing our Commu- nion with the blessed Saviour himself. But we do mean that Church fellowship and relations are uniformly ex- pressed by it with all our fellow-communicants. It implies for example the exercise of that peculiar watchful and disciplinary love, which it is the special province of visible Church members, mutually to exercise among each other, as it is the province of none beside, by which the Lord's Table is preserved from the approach of notoriously im- proper persons. Hence " with such a one, no not to eat,'' L e. the Lord's Supper, is equivalent to saying that he was not to be regarded as a member of the Church. 4. If the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance, then it symbolizes, each time it is celebrated, a very different and much more specific relationship subsisting between the parties thus celebrating together, than a communion simply as Christians. It is much more than a recognition THE lord's supper A CHURCH ORDINANCE. 85 of their Christian character ; it indicates a visible Church fellowship as existing between them. Nor will it be a just or safe inference from parties not communing together, where there is opportunity, that they do not recognize each other as fellow-Christians, but at most that they cannot unite as members of the same visible Church. 6. We desire to show that this is the true view of the Lord's Supper. " When ye come together therefore into one place," says the Apostle, ^' this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, every one taketh before other, &c. . . . Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another." (1 Cor. 11: 21, 33.) The Apostle here clearly alludes to it as the universally current opinion, that the Lord's Supper was a Church ordinance, so far as this, that it was completely celebrated in one place, by one Church. Nor does he oppose, but rather takes this view for granted as correct, only objecting to the peculiar abuses of which the Corinthians were guilty, as vitiating the ordinance. When he bids them '^ tarry one for another," he clearly intimates that the regulation of the Supper, so far as time and place are concerned, is lodged in each particular Church ; that it expresses the relations of the members of that Church, to each other as such ; and that as an executive body, each Church, as such, is to decide what course is suitable for it to pursue in the observance of this ordinance, as most conformed to the laws and spirit of the New Testament, responsible to the Great Head of the Church, and to Him alone for the cor- rectness of their interpretation. The Lord's Supper is thus committed to the guardianship of the visible Churches. 6. That this ordinance is not, as it was considered in the third and fourth centuries, and has been often since, a symbolof that Communion which belongs to the universal 86 COMMUNION. Church, as such, is plain, for then it would be the symbol of our Communion with all Saints, asleep as well as alive, in heaven as well as on earth. If this were the case, it would be proper to have seasons for holding communion with the dead, by the Lord's Supper; and masses /or and with the dead are not so very distinct, as to make our non- adhesion to some of the worst corruptions of Popery, plain or reasonable. Puseyism, at least, would naturally spring from the error. 7. Nor is the Lord's Supper appointed as the symbol of our Communion merely with all the saints on earth, or with this or that denomination, but each time it is cele- brated, it is the token of a fellowship more specific in its nature, a Communion in Church relations. The first Churches were always willing to enter into these relations with any whom they admitted to the Lord's Table. The two always corresponded exactly to each other. The first was the thing signified ; the latter, the sign. 8. We have seen, in a former chapter, the distinction between Christian and Church fellowship. That the latter, though having its origin in the same more general affection, which binds all Christians together as such, is far more specific, and hence as distinct in some of its manifestations, as family afi"ection, and ordinary fellow-citizenship or friendship. That the origin of this distinction is not of man, but of Divine Revelation, we have also seen. In the Lord's Supper we symbolize our Church fellowship, with the Christians with whom we participate. 9. To illustrate more clearly this distinction. "When the Jews celebrated their Passover, it was ordained as a general rule, that each family should partake apart in its own house. If any other person or persons partook with them, they did so by special arrangement and invitation. ILLUSTRATION AND PROOF. 87 Thus was the Passover a family ordinance. All concern- ing it, that was not regulated by a special divine command, was left to the arrangement of each family. The non- extension of an invitation by another family to participate with them, was not in any way equivalent to a denial of the true Israelitish character of the parties not invited. It was never intended that because they were Jews, they should be entitled to eat the Passover in any family they pleased besides their own. So when our blessed Saviour instituted the Supper, as he did upon one of these Paschal occasions, it was we say as a Church ordinance, that he ordained it. He did not call together all his followers. Where for instance were the seventy, whom he had sent out two and two ? He simply gathered together the twelve, with whom he was wont more intimately to com- mune 'y his own special disciples, (or particular Church,) and to them he brake that bread and poured out that wine that instituted this feast. But no person has ever sup- posed, that in choosing, as our Saviour evidently did, to institute the Supper with the twelve, but without the seventy, and without those pious women (including even his own Mother) who were in or near Jerusalem, it was at all indicated that the rest were not partakers of a true and real fellowship with the Great Head of the Church, or that he expressed any exclusion of them from his fellowship, as true members of his spiritual body. We say therefore that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, were never designed to mark the limits of our true spiritual fellowship, so that those not partaking at the same Communion Table should therefore be supposed not to have true Christian Communion or fellowship with each other. 10. In the Congregational, as well as in the Baptist 88 COMMUNION. denomination, each particular Church is regarded as a perfectly distinct society. This was the prihiitive plan. Our Churches advise with each other by Councils, Asso- ciations, and Conventions, they fraternize in all ways that may be mutually agreeable, but each Church is an inde- pendent body. Because a Christian is a member of one church, he is not therefore a member of all, nor yet of any other. This can only be effected regularly by a formal vote of the Churches concerned, and transfer of member- ship. Nor does the mere fact that he is a member of one of them, entitle him to the privileges of any other, as for instance, to partake with them of the Lord's Supper. When he does, it is by Christian courtesy, and invitation to occasional communion. The propriety of this will be discussed in the succeeding chapter. Among Baptists, no person, because he is a member of one Church, is there- fore entitled as a matter of right, to partake of the Lord's Supper with any other, even of the same denomination; any more than the mere fact of being a Jew, authorized a man to enter the house of any other Jew, without invita- tion, and there celebrate the Passover. Each particular Church of Christ is a separate family in the great Israel or nation of Christ's professed followers ; and we apprehend that the blessed Saviour instituted the Supper when and where he did, that he included those whom he did, and no others, to show that such was the idea by which the administration of this ordinance was to be regulated.* 11. There is sufficient proof to convince any close stu- * Neander, in his "Planting and Training of the Cliristian Church,'» Book 3, ch. 5, p. 103, says, "As to the celebration of the Holy Supper, it continued to be connected with the common meal, in which all, as mcvihers of one fainihj, joined, as in the primitive Jewish Church, and agreeably to its first institution." EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. 89 dent of Church History of the first three centuries^ that in the very earliest ages, the Lord's Supper was regarded as strictly a Church ordinance, as we have defined this phrase. For even in after times, when they had departed from the primitive pattern, — when the Churches of most cities had embraced each of them several congregations, there was ever one and but one altar, at which were con- secrated the bread and wine for all the assemblies under the charge of one Bishop. Sometimes a Church consisted of so few, that two deacons and himself were sufficient to supply its wants, and sometimes it embraced more than forty congregations. Still, however numerous the assem- blies included in a single bishoj)ric, each Bishop's charge was regarded as one and but one Church, separate and complete, and each Church was indicated by one, and but one altar, or communion table. Here the elements were blessed, and sent from the hands of the Bishop to the several congregations. The discipline of this body was usually and properly final within itself, and its own mem- bers. It baptized and excommunicated at pleasure. For any of these branch congregations to set up an altar, was to set up a claim to Church independence."^ The two were regarded as synonymous. Hence was it that even in after ages, the High Altar of the Cathedral or Bishop's Church became so important. Thus firmly did the super- stition of succeeding ages, amid many corrupting and more modern elements, embalm the form of the true and primi- tive doctrine, long after its vitality had fled. ^' One altar where there is one Bishop,'^ is the known aphorism of Ignatius. (Epis. ad Phila.) In the time of Cyprian, Bishop and altar were correlative terms, so that both Op- * Thus Novatian is on this account charged with " ei-ecting a ^>?-o- fane altar." Cyp. Epis. 672. 8* 90 COMMUNION. tatus and Augustine speak of the wliole diocese, over ■which Cyprian presided, as having but one altar, and show that the Donatists had gone out from his church, because they had set up another altar. Thus at Rome as late as the time of Innocent the First, (A. D. 402 — 417,) Vale- rius speaks of his sending the bread of the consecrated eucharist, to the Presbyters ministering in the parish churches on the Lord's day.* Sufficient this to show that the Lord's Supper was anciently regarded as a Church ordinance. 12. It may here perhaps be asked, whether if a body of Christians should so desire it, and should agree to cele- brate the Lord's Supper together, not in any token of Church relations, but simply as a mutual recognition of Christian character, and of their fellowship as such, it would be proper for them to do so ? A few years ago, the case was practically presented in this way. The Old and the New School Presbyterian General Assemblies, meeting at the same time in the same city, and having formally dissolved their ecclesiastical relations with each other, although neither was prepared to deny the general Chris- tian character of the other body, it was proposed by one of them, that they should celebrate the Lord's Supper together. This was declined. Was there sufficient reason ? That bodies of Christians, where they cannot meet as members of the same Church, should desire to recognize each other's Christianity by outward tokens, is natural and proper. It might seem desirable to a number of suitable persons to form a Christian Temperance Society, the basis of which should be a recognition and fellowship with each other, not only as friends of Temperance, but also as pro- * See Bingham's Christian Antiquities, Bk. 8, chap. 6, sect. 16, 17. THE CHUECH NOT A LEGISLATIVE BODY. 91 fessed Christians. Such a society might be formed of various churches and denominations. In such a case whatever symbol distinguished them from members of other Temperance Societies would be a recognition of their fellowship as Christians. The question might arise, whe- ther they should for this purpose celebrate the Lord's Supper together. As a matter of expediency, we think few would hesitate in saying that almost any other plan would be better than this. Otherwise why do not our Missionary Societies (whose members are all of the same denomination) adopt this at their Anniversaries, but that it would seem to change a mere Society into a Church. 13. But the question might be discussed as one of right rather than of expediency, and then it must turn upon this point ; whether the churches of Christ or Christians have a lefjislativey or only an executive authority in regard to the ordinances of Christianity. If the former, then they have unquestionably, not only a right to make what regulations they please, in regard to it, as to time and place, but to vote whether they will celebrate it to denote a Church fellowship, or Christian fellowship ; in fact, whe- ther they will celebrate it at all, or whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper shall be laid aside or radically altered as to their object or form. The Boman Catholics have so far assumed this power as to administer the bread only, and not the wine in the Lord's Supper. Protestants have uniformly denounced this as a stretch of usurpation ; but their complaints cannot be considered just, if the Churches of Christ have a legislative authority as to this ordinance. In that case they might, if more convenient, agree in Ireland to celebrate it with potatoes and milk, instead of bread and wine, and so do away with both. No considerate person will hesitate in taking the oppo- 92 COMMUNION. site view, ^. e. that the Church is an Executive and not a Legislative body. The laws of Christ are supreme and final. A Church of Christ cannot repeal or supersede theni; Ibut only execute. It cannot alter, it can only carry out. It is not required even to sit in judgment upon other churches to decide what is the application of the law of Christ to them. It can only decide what is proper for itself to do, or the application of the law to its own cir- cumstances. Each Church is an executive body of the New Testament for itself. It has sufficient powers con- ferred to execute the Will of Christ, none to alter. 14. The effects of a right understanding of this prin- ciple will be, entirely to relieve the Baptists from all possibility of being charged with bigotry, on account of their views and practice in regard to the Lord's Supper. It is frequently urged that we refuse Christian Communion with the members of different denominations, and thus commit the most flagrant of offences against the law of Charity. This is an error. We do not refuse to commune with the members of other denominations as Christians. On the contrary, we seek communion with them all, in proportion to their piety. But we do not consider them, nor symbolize our communion with them, as belonging to the same particular Church as ourselves ] and as we have shown, the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance. Where- ever we find Christians, we commune with them as such. But the Lord's Supper being a Church ordinance, none but the members of a particular Church, or Christian con- gregation can claim to partake of it. Even members of another Church of the same denomination only do so by special invitation, and not by right, as we shall show in the next chapter. There is nothing in our views of the Lord's Supper to ALL BUT BAPTISTS INCONSISTENT. 93 prevent our haying the most perfect charity and fellowship as Christians, with those who differ from us in many respects. We can and do commune with them as such. As indeed we never baptize any person, until we believe him to be a Christian already, his baptism never can int7^oduce him to our Christian fellowship. We never do regard, and never have regarded the outward act of bap- tism as an essential to Christian character, and it is im- possible we ever should. It is then impossible with us, (as with no other denomination,) that our Christian com- munion should be limited to our own church ; nor do we any more refuse Christian communion with other denomi- nations, than did the Saviour with the seventy, or with his mother Mary, the blessed and highly favored among women. On the points of baptism and church arrange- ments, we acknowledge a difference, just as, and where, do Presbyterians, Methodists, and all other denominations; and we say as Abraham said to Lot, " Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between thee and me, for we are bre- thren : is not the whole land before thee ? If thou wilt take the right hand, then we will go to the left, and if thou depart to the left, then we will go to the right." 15. It only remains to be added here, that if this view is correct, and the Lord's Supper is designed to mark the peculiar fellowship subsisting between the members of a particular church, then it is an ordinance belonging of right to all the members of a particular church, as such. 16. It is at this point, that all denominations of Chris- tians, except the Baptists, exhibit such a singular and inconsistent restriction of their communion. Kegard- ing, as they all do, Baptism as the door of their several churches, they on the one hand baptize children into church membership, and on the other, refuse them the 94 COMMUNION. Lord's Supper, thereby excluding half or three-quarters of their own members from the symbols of Church fellow- ship. What makes this inconsistency more remarkable is its contrariety to all those ancient Church customs, to which our Pedobaptist brethren appeal as their chief evi- dence in favor of Infant Baptism. It is notorious that the proofs in Church History of Infant participation in the Lord's Supper, are as clear, as early, and as universal as those of Infant Baptism, so that they must stand or fall together. That our Pedobaptist brethren are sub- stantially right in not considering infants proper persons to participate in the Eucharist, we do not deny. It is one of those happy inconsistencies that result from their being so far " Baptists in theory,'^ as Dr. Bushnell de- clares that they are. But a most strange and serious inconsistency there certainly is, in first declaring them members by baptism, and then refusing them the tokens of membership. Baptists have no such close communion as this. CHAPTER y. OCCASIONAL COMMUNION. 1. Meaning of the phrase. 2. Two classes. 3. Occasional participation with members of other Churches of the same denomination. 4. With Christians of no visible Chm-ch, and of other denominations. 5. The Difference is only as to occasional participation. 6. Shown from Methodist Book of Discipline. 7. From the Pres. Con. of Faith. 8. From the Thirty-nine Articles. — Not acted np to. 9. Any other plan of Church membership must destroy all denominations. 10. This ad- mitted by Robert Hall. 11. Must silence Truth, if in the minority. 12. Baptist Churches originated in the desire of Pedobaptists. 13. Occasional Communion must be regulated by general princi- ples. 14. Methodist and Presbyterian principles applied to the case. 1. ^^ Occasional communion" is a technical phrase for a participation in the Lord's Supper, with those Christians who are not members of our own particular church ; but who may occasionally worship with us, and so partake by special invitation, or with whom we may thus worship, and so be invited to partake. As the same principles will apply to both cases, they will be treated as one. 2. These Christian brethren may be divided into two classes, namely, members of other churches, whose senti- ments are in accordance with our own, and who are there- fore only prevented by local causes from becoming mem- bers of the church with which they propose to partake ; and secondly, those between whom and ourselves there are such differences of sentiment, as would make it inconsistent with the constitutions of our respective churches for us to 96 COMMUNION. receive them, or them to receive us, as permanent members, entitled to all the privileges of that relation. This will involve the consideration of Occasional Partici- pation in the Lord's Supper, with (1.) Those of our own denomination not members of the same Church. (2.) Christians J either belonging to churches of other denominations, or to no visible church. 3. (1.) As to the first of these cases, i. e. occasional participation with members of other churches of the sa7ne denomination. These occasional or exceptional instances, must of course be regulated by those principles which belong to the general administration of the ordinance, that is, as we have seen, by Church principles. It is the cus- tom of the Baptists to invite members of other churches of the same denomination to participate with them in the Lord's Supper. This might at first view be thought a deviation from the principle we have laid down, that the Lord's Supper is designed to express the communion sub- sisting between the members of a particular church, as a church. As however the individuals so invited, are such persons as we should be willing to admit to our permanent Church fellowship, if they were permanently located amongst us, and may therefore be considered for the time being as members of the Church with which they unite in worship, they may with perfect propriety be invited to partake of the Lord's Supper. There is every consistency in this, with those Church principles that should, as we have seen, guide the administration of the ordinance. Indeed it has been practised in all ages from the very first. Acts 20: 6, 7. 4. (2.) As to occasional participation loith the second class of persons mentioned,. *'. e. Christians, either belonylnj A SERIOUS CHARGE CONSIDERED. 97 to no particular church, or to other denominations, the same principlej i. e. that the Lord's Supper is the symbol of Church, as distinct from Christian fellowship, at once and finally decides against it. So far as this decision affects those persons, (a very large and increasing class in the present age) whose title to be considered Christians we cannot deny, but who yet are members of no regular Church, our Pedobaptist bre- thren generally will fully concur with us. Members of the Society of Friends, who from not administering bap- tism have commonly been regarded as belonging to this class, have not generally been thought proper persons to be admitted to the Lord's Table. Bishop White of Penn. it is said, refused the elements to a pious Quaker who desired to partake. Indeed, as we shall shortly see, all Pedobaptist writers restrain from the Communion unbap- tized persons. Instances are to be found in nearly all evangelical congregations, of persons whose lives for twenty or thirty years, have led all around them to trust that they are Christians, but who, from modesty, or mis- taken views of their duty, never having joined any Church, are not invited to the Table of the Lord. It has however, strange to say, often been brought as a most serious charge against our usages and denomination, that we do not participate in the occasional celebration of - the Lord's Supper with Churches of other denominations whose members we do not consider baptized, nor invite their members to partake with us. As this is urged with great earnestness as an objection against the Baptists ; as with many, it is avowedly the only objection; and as young Christians are sometimes perplexed by what they hear said on the subject, we shall consider it the more carefully. 9 98 COMMUNION. 5. (1.) In the first place, it will he observed that this objection is only urged hy other denominations in regard to the OCCASIONAL participation in this ordinance. As regards permanent Church fellowship, they are perfectly agreed with us. They do not doubt that Christians ought usually to partake with the Churches to which they respectively belong; and in the formation of their Churches, they are professedly at least as distinctive as we. Such are their terms of membership, that a conscientious person, holding Baptist sentiments, could not join one of their Churches. If he did, so are their Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Church Covenants framed, and that purposely, that he would be obliged to support Infant Baptism. If he had children, he would be pledged to bring them forward for Baptism. This, a conscientious Baptist could not do. It is nothing to say that many, and an increasing number, do practically neglect it ; — neglect it because they have no faith in it. The standards of these Churches are pur- posely so framed, as to make it the covenant obligation of every member to conform to this. A person of Baptist sentiments would be acting treacherously to join a Church with the intention of subverting its order and customs, by not fulfilling his solemn pledges. 6. That these statements are correct, is easily shown. Our Methodist brethren, for instance, in their 17th Article of Faith, declare that '^ the baptism of young children is to he retained in the Church,^' and in Chap. 1, sect. 16, of the Discipline, it is made, " the duty of every minister of a circuit or station, to obtain the names of the children belonging to his congregation, and diligently to instruct and exhort all parents to dedicate their children to the Lord in Baptism, as early as convenient." In answer to the question, ''How improper persons shall be kept PEDOBAPTIST CREEDS AND CATECHISMS. 99 from joining the Clnircli?'' the answer is, ^^ Let none be received into the Church, until they are recommended by a leader, with whom they have met at least six months on trial, and have been baptized, and shall on examination by the leader in charge, before the Church, give satisfac- tory assurances, both of the correctness of their faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.^' Discipline, chap. 2, sect. 2. The whole of this answer is put in italics in the Book of Discipline, to indicate its radical importance. Hence it will be observed that all persons joining the Methodist denomination must not only be baptized according to their views, but after six months in which to learn what the rules of the Church are, and among them this, as to ^^ the baptism of children'^ being '^ retained,^' they must publicly give assurances of their willingness to *^ observe and keep" all, and of course this rule of the Church. Thus then it is evident that according to the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church, persons conscientiously objecting to the Baptism of Infants, not believing in, or not promis- ing to comply with this rule of that denomination, are declared ^^ improper persons'^ to join their class, or eccle- siastical society. Among Presbyterians, the Confession of Faith is the authorized exposition of the belief of their Teachers. The larger Catechism seems to be a standard rather of that be- lief and practice expected of all their members. (See Form of Government, Book 1, ch. 1, § 5.) The shorter Cate- chism, of those more important and essential points of the belief and practice of that denomination to be impressed as such on the minds of the very children. In the Con- fession of Faith (Chap. 28, sect. 4,) it is said, " not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience to 100 COMMUNION. Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to he haptized." So also the larger Catechism, (Q. and A. 166,) declares that such ^^ are to he hajJtized;" and so even the smaller Catechism reiterates these same words, '^ the infants of such as are members of the visible Church, are to be baptized." In the Form of Government, (Book 2, of Discipline, chap. 1,) it is stated that all their baptized are members of the Church, and that these, " are bound to perform all the duties of Church members/' Thus it is made by their standards, incumbent on all members of their Church, even in the loosest sense of the term, to bring their children forward for baptism, and to instruct them that Infant Baptism is of Divine authority. This a conscientious Baptist can never do. Our Presby- terian brethren seem conscious that in some of their requirements, they may err ; but they feel what is unques- tionably true, that it is better for those who sincerely hold the same sentiments, to unite in the same Church, rather than what they consider truth, should not be distinctly avowed and advocated for fear of offending some member, or that the conscience of a Christian should be wounded by upholding what he believes to be error. Hence, in their Form of Government, (Book 1, ch. 1, § 2,) they state that " every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, .... that in the exercise of this right, they may notwithstanding err, in making their terms too lax or too narrow ; yet even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own." The Congregational Churches of New England hold substantially the same views. A few years ago, it was OUR ONLY DIFFERENCE. 101 solemnly proposed by the Congregationalists of Maine to make the neglect of bringing forward infants for Baptism, a subject of regular Church discipline. 8. The Episcopalians declare distinctly in the Thirty- nine Articles, (Art. 27,) that '' The Baptism of young children, is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.^' Practically, indeed, it is true there is no denomination of professed Christians in this country, except perhaps the Roman Catholics, in which this is now uniformly made a subject of actual discipline, at least to the extent of exclusion ; because the number in all Churches, who re- ject or neglect it from a conscientious belief that it is un- scriptural, is so immense, and embraces so large a portion of the most pious of each denomination, that somewhat after the manner in which Tertullian illustrated the pro- portion of Christians, under the Roman government, in his day, might it now be said of these, that '^ if they should break away and remove ^^ to some other Church, the mere loss of so many, would "le^\e a frightful solitude. ^^* But it is still true as ever, that all persons joining any one of these Pedobaptist denominations, are most solemnly pledged to bring their children forward for infant baptism, a pledge that is always urgently exacted where practicable. We do not blame those who conscientiously believe in Infant Baptism, for making it a duty of Church member- ship; we only wish to show that we, in making our Bap- tism requisite to our Church membership, do no more than they, in making theirs ; — that all are agreed so far ; and that at most our only difference is as to occasional Com- munion and not as to the principles of Church membership. * See Tertullian's Apology, sect. 37. 9* 102 COMMUNION. 9. (2.) We remark further, that not only practically do all Christian denominations in this country agree with us as to the principles of Church membership, but that any other views on this suhject must result in the amalgamation of all denominations into one, or the constant changing of each Christian Church to and fro, from one denomination to another, as any shifting majority might chance to vote, at any Church meeting. That the plan of Church Membership proposed by R. Hall, would result in the mixing up of all creeds and de- nominations, both he and his followers in England have freely admitted. He indeed predicted that " the mixture of Baptists and Pedobaptists in Christian societies, would probably ere long be such, that the appellation of Baptist, might be found, not so properly applicable to Churches as to individuals, while some more comprehensive term might possibly be employed to discriminate the views of collective bodies.^'* In perfect harmony with these views, the Church which Mr. Hall instructed, have refused to be any longer designated by the name of Baptist. 10. It will be proper, here briefly to consider the views of the celebrated Robert Hall in regard to the organ- ization of Christian Churches. His principle was, that ^' the universal Church differs only from a particular assembly of Christians, as the whole from a part," or that '' each particular Church is to the Universal Church, as a part is to the whole. '^ Hence he would admit all whom he considered Christians, Roman Catholics, or Protestants, baptized or unbaptized, not only to the Lord's Supper, as occasional communicants, but to full membership ; and this in any numbers they desired, so that they could vote and * Christian in Opposition to Party Communion. Works, vol. 2, p. 228. CHURCH VIEWS OF ROBERT HALL. 103 act in every way, for or against any views they esteemed proper, and thus force them upon the Church, and give them its sanction if they had the majority. To use his own words his '^ leading position" is, that ^' no Church has a right to establish terms of Communion which are not terms of salvation/^ (Works, vol. I. p. 359.) Indeed he would make it a matter of indifference, whether the Min- isters of the Gospel were themselves baptized, or unbap- tized, or what their views were upon any subject of Theology, provided they were esteemed to be Christians. Some of them have been Universalists of the older sort, and they might perhaps be Arians, or Roman Catholics. He admits that this would effect the most sweeping reform, doing away all denominational distinctions. When his views have been adopted, it has frequently occurred that owing to the much larger number of Pedobaptists than Baptists in England, a majority for the time of the mem- bers of Churches originally Baptist, being Pedobaptists, have called and settled Ministers of other denominations. " In October, 1846, the leading mixed Baptist ministers of London participated in the formation of the Church at High Wycombe. The Rev. Joseph Angus, Secretary of the English Baptist Mission Society, was designated to deliver the address on the occasion. In that address, he says '' In a Baptist Church, baptism (as we understand the term) is essential to membership. In a Christian Church, the possession of true faith is alone essential.^' After a protracted argument to illustrate and commend this latter term of membership, he adds, " I rejoice then that this Church is not in the common sense, a Baptist Church.^' A tutor of one of the Baptist Colleges, (in which candidates for the ministry are educated) and editor of one of the Magazines in England, after presenting in 104 COMMUNION. his paper of August, 1846, an earnest plea for mixed fel- lowship, imagines that it would be objected that the principle oi free communion for which he pleads *^ would annihilate all denominational Churches,'^ and exultingly replies '■'■ granted. Mr. Hall showed that long ago." Many leading men openly avow their sympathy with Mr. Hall's willingness for the extermination of Baptist Churches, for the sake of Christian Union.* The prin- ciple assumed by Mr. Hall, and on which all this was based, is erroneous. Particular visible Churches cannot, in the nature of things, and were never meant to be like the Church Universal or Invisible, and differing from it only as a part from the whole. This was shown in a former part of the work, (p. 37, 38,) to which, in order to save repetition here, the reader is particularly requested to recur. We therefore confine ourselves here, to showing in a more practical manner the error of the course proposed by Mr. Hall; and this merely so far as the subject of Baptism is concerned. Let us suppose the connection between it and visible Church membership entirely destroyed in all the Presbyterian Churches, in order to make room for Baptist members upon the terms of that social equality as Church members, which would be necessary. Then it would become the duty of the Pastors of those Churches not to insist or urge upon their members, the rite of Infant Baptism. So on the other hand, if in all Baptist Chui'ches, those who held to Infant Baptism were received as full members of these Churches, the duty of believers to be baptized could not be insisted on. Baptism could not be preached or practised publicly as the act of the Church, * See Appendix H. EFFECTS OF ROBERT HALL'S TLAN. 105 but only in the twilight, and as tlie act of the individual. What must be the result ? Perfect indifference to all kinds of Baptism, and perhaps its entire neglect or rejection. Better surely is it that things continue as they are. Let those who hold to Believers' Baptism join Churches which practise thus, and those who conscientiously believe in Infant Baptism, and are prepared to practise it, join Churches, composed of those whose views are similar. AVe may safely assert that no Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Congregational, or Episcopal Church would be willing to agree never to have Infant Baptism publicly preached and administered, or the peculiarities of their denominational views enjoined on their members. To do this, would be to surrender what they believe, and assert to be truth. Why then should we be expected to do this ? 11. Besides, whatever opinion happened to have the majority in the beginning, would, by this unnatural silence, be certain to become universal. That tendency which Truth has, to prevail, when spoken and acted upon in love, would be prevented. No errors could ever be corrected by such a course. A moral torpor, stagnation, and inanity, must ensue. That system which restricts liberty, can never be eventually favorable to truth, or even to quiet, unless it be the quietude of death. It should perhaps be regarded as a proof of the sincere and earnest desire of the Baptists for peace and union, that such a system of forming Churches should have been attempted among them, and them alone. It has arisen from a most sincere love to Christians, as such. But on the other hand, we hope that this experiment may not be tried in this country. No denomination but our own has attempted it any where. Even the Unitarians have repudiated it in their papers. It would be no compliment for a conscien- 106 COMMUNION. tious Pedobaptist to give up a consistent advocacy of infant baptism, because he thought that the preaching of his own views, in his own Church, in a Christian spirit, would offend us; while as members of a Church, it would be no compliment for us to assist to propagate what we did not believe^ Pious and sensible Pedobaptists are not offended at a fair and candid exposition of our peculiari- ties, in our own pulpits. In this way the public mind is enlightened, and insensibly the truth that there is in any set of opinions, becomes prevalent, and is adopted by uni- versal consent, the error being dropped. Many of the most important controversies have thus been settled. It is now, for instance, generally agreed among all Evangeli- cal Churches, that an experience of renewing grace is necessary to visible Church membership ; but a hundred years ago, it was in many quarters a mooted question, whether even the ministry should necessarily be composed of converted men. The true and proper way is for Chris- tians to form themselves into Churches with those with whom they agree in practice and opinion. Let this only be done solemnly and prayerfully , then let such a Church conscientiously carry out their views, "with Christian love towards all other Churches. If they are true they will prevail, if erroneous it is well that they should fall. 12. Here it deserves to be especially remarked, that both in England and in this country, some of the first regular Baptist Churches originated in the express desire of Pedobaptists, that those who held such views should not remain members with them. In London, indeed, the first regular Baptist Church originated thus. It was found that an Independent Church had grown too large for convenience, and at the same time, that many of its members were Baptist in sentiment, if not in practice; PRINCIPLE OF OCCASIONAL PARTICIPATION. 107 whereupon it was proposed and carried, that those who were of such views should be baptized, and form the new body. In this country however, it was not until after the forcible ejectment of Roger Williams from both Church and Colony, on account of his principles, that the first Baptist Church was formed. It was thus an absolute ne- cessity, and from the action of Pedobaptists, that the Baptist Churches of this country and of England origi- nated. The desire was perhaps not unnatural in them, if convinced that their views were right. On the principle therefore, which should regulate our Church Membership, we are all perfectly agreed. It affords the greatest prac- ticable liberty for conscience, and scope for truth ; and has doubtless resulted under God thus far," in placing the views of both parties more clearly and thoroughly before the world, than they could otherwise have been. We are satisfied, both with the principle and the results, for these have brought us where we are. All parties in this country appear satisfied so far as Church Membership is concerned. And yet, it is only on account of the consistent application of the same principle to occasioiial participation that our Pedobaptist brethren find fault with us. 13. (3.) We remark in the next place, that this parti- cipation, being only occasional or exceptional, must con- form to the principles that guide us in the formation of our Churches. It cannot fail to be to us a matter of surprise and regret therefore, that we should be charged so frequently and earnestly as we are, with illiberality, for acting in the one case exactly as we do in the other. It never can or ought to be systematic, to participate with any Church, but that to which we belong. And our course in all such cases ought to be framed on the principle of 108 COMMUNION. making exceptions bend to general rules, not general rules to exceptions. The wliole matter is to be regarded as one of Christian courtesy, and invitation, not of right. Such exceptive cases must not be allowed perpetually to alter regulations, upon which all agree as proper for other occasions. Why should we depart from all analogy, from all antiquity, from everything we find in Scripture, and put our occasional participation of the symbols of Com- munion on a footing quite different from that of our Church fellowship ? We take our stand upon this ; that if the Lord^s Suj)per is a Church ordinance^ if it is the appointed symbol of Church relations, it should only he celebrated together with those with lohom we can consistently sustain these relations. To do otherwise is to symbolize more than we should be willing to realize in action. 14. There is to us a most obvious inconsistency in ad- mitting to our occasional Gommumon those whom we should be unwilling to admit to our Church Fellowship ; making an exception in favor of irregularity. It is as much as to say that those admitted are good enough for the Lord's Table, but not for our Church. This perhaps is not intended ; but it may at least be well compared to one welcoming a neighbor to his piazza, while he publicly ex- cluded him his house. Such slender and discriminating hospitality would do little to promote good social feeling. Our Methodist brethren are about to celebrate the Lord's Supper, and they invite members of the Baptist Church to commune with them, and they feel hurt because our views do not enable us to partake or reciprocate the invi- tation. Perhaps they think and say that we refuse to participate with them in Christian Communion. It is in vain that we explain the difference between uniting in Christian Communion, which we do as freely with them, METHODIST PRINCIPLES APPLIED. 109 as with all other Christians, and in the tokens not of Christian only, but also of Church fellowship. Or if we were to go to them and express our willingness to accept their invitation to the Lord's Table, not for once only, but permanently, our willingness to join their Churches, if they could consistently receive us, just such as we are, they would be obliged, if they should act in conformity with their standards, to refuse to receive us, and say,* ^^ In order to prevent improper persons from insinuating themselves into the Church, none are to be received until they have given satisfactory assurances, both of the cor- rectness of their faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church,^^ — their faith being to us antagonistically Arminian, and their rule that '^ the bap- tism of young children is to be retained in the Church/^ If we cannot conscientiously believe the Arminian faith, or live up to Pedobaptist rules, their standard declares that we are " improper persons" to belong to their body. We can be invited to the occasional participation of the Lord's Supper, only by their adopting one set of rules for permanent, and another for the occasional celebration of this ordinance. We can see the consistency with their own principles, in having such rules as they have in re- gard to their Church Fellowship ; but we cannot see that those who are " improper persons" for the Lord's Supper, if it is to be received in one sense, are yet proper persons to be welcomed to the very same table in another. This, it seems to us, savors of that Romish doctrine, that the effi- cacy of the sacraments depends upon ^Hhe intention." There is indeed a further inconsistency in the conduct pursued by our Methodist brethren, in regard to Ordi- See Discipline, cli.ip. 2, sect. 10 110 COMMUNION. nances. Eor while their standards invite members of other Churches to partake with them of the Lord's Supper as often as they please, which is really a Church ordi- nance, they refuse to admit any, not of their own Church, " except with the utmost caution^^ even to he 'present at their Love Feasts, and ^^ the same person on no account above twice or thrice, except he become a member.'^* One would suppose that they at least could perceive no incon- sistency in our views of the Lord's Supper, when their own are so nearly similar, we were about to say, so much more exclusive, in regard to the Love Feast. We do not feel their regulation as to this feast, the least infringement upon Christian charity or fellowship, because the Love Feast is intended only for the members of their own Churches. We only do not see why they cannot at least, allow us to take the same view of the Supper. At times indeed, and to a certain degree, they seem to feel thor- oughly, that the relation expressed towards all those with whom we partake of this ordinance, even occasionally, is quite analogous to, if not identical with that of being members of the same Church. Thus it is ordered, that ^^ No person shall he admitted to the Lord's Sujiper among us, who is guilty of any practice, for which we would exclude a memher of our Church.''-\ This indicates precisely our view of the Lord's Supper. Our Presbyterian and Congregational brethren are far enough from entertaining Robert Hall's views of the consti- tution of Christian Churches. They would not be willing to give up all denominational peculiarities, and have their members and even their ministers, Arminians or Calvinists, * Book of Discipline, chap. 2, sect. 4. t Book of Discipline, chap. 1, sect. 23. PRESBYTERIAN PRINCIPLES APPLIED. Ill Pedobaptists or Baptists^ just as it might happen. It is only as to occasional participation that they differ from us. And yet how can they, without inconsistency ? They invite us, as Baptists, to occasional Communion. If we were to reply, that it is inconsistent to ask us to occasional Communion, while they deny us their Church Fellowship, they would perhaps answer that they did not exclude us, we excluded ourselves, for that we could join the Church also, only comjilying witli their rules. If, then, we should say that we were willing to join, provided we could live and practise according to our own conscientious and avowed opinions, their standards would reply that all who join their Churches, ^^are bound to perform all the duties of Church members," and among these, that ^^ the infants of one or both believing parents are to he baptized." We might, with at least equal propriety, say that we do not decline to receive pious Pedobaptists, only let them com- ply with our rules, and be baptized. In another chapter it will be seen that we do not differ as to the principle of making Baptism a prerequisite even to '^ occasional communion." CHAPTER VI. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1. These Objections stated. 2. "It is only the mode of Baptism that prevents us from uniting with Pedobaptists," considered. 3. " That we do not consider the Baptism of Pedobaptists as valid," considered. 4. This true. 5. But not the only ground for our not uniting with them. 6. "That we unchurch Pedobaptists," considered. 7. The Lord's Supper not designed to express Church relations as subsisting between difterent Churches. 8. Custom of Baptist Associations un churches ourselves as much as other denominations. 9. Each Church entitled to declare the terms of its own fellowship. 10. The effect of the lack of a valid Baptism in unchurching, considered. 1 1. Differ- ent significations of the word Church. 12. Those unbaptized cannot form regular Churches. 13. Our difference as to Baptism chiefly keeps us from affiliating. 14. Ought our Churches to make Baptism necessary to their membership ? 15. This the Primitive plan, con- ceded by Robert Hall. 16. Importance of keeping the ordinances as delivered to us. 17. Ought the rule of Church Membership to be extended to occasional participation ? 18. This conceded by Christian writers of all ages. 19. This is consistent and charitable. 20. Illustration from American Citizenship. 1. It has often been objected against our views in re- gard to the Lord's Supper, that after all, it is nothing but our mode of baptism that really draws the line between us and our Pedobaptist brethren ; that not recognizing their baptism as valid, we unchurch them at least, if we do not deny their title to be considered Christians. It will be observed that there are here in reality three objections, that may be thus stated more at length. (1.) That it is only the mode of Baptism that prevents NOT A MERE MODE DIVIDES US. 113 Baptists and Pedobaptists from celebrating the Eucharist together. (2.) That at least, Baptists do not recognize the baptism of Pedobaptists as valid, and on this account refuse to celebrate with them. (3. ) That by not uniting with Pedobaptists in the Lord's Supper, we unchurch them. 2. (1.) With regard to the first of these, that it is only the mode of baptism that prevents our denomination from uniting with Pedobaptists at the Lord's Table, it is quite an error to suppose that it is simply because they are not immersed, that we do not admit the validity of their Bap- tism, or celebrate the Lord's Supper with them. We hold indeed that the word Baptism essentially and necessarily embraces the idea of immersion ; that as a Scriptural ordi- nance, it always was in primitive times, and ever ought to be administered in the way indicated by the term itself; and while we fully concede that our brethren in the Lord of various denominations may be as truly and spiritually ^Mead with Christ" to the power and dominion of sin as ourselves, yet we feel that of no person who is not im- mersed in the name of the Trinity, as a profession of the Christian faith, can it be said, as St. Paul said of all the members of primitive Churches, that they are ^'buried with him hy baptism.'' Rom. 6: 4. But Dr. Grriffin greatly erred, when in his letter on this subject, (See Appendix to Fuller on Communion, p. 244,) he asserted that "the separating point is not about the subjects of baptism, but merely the mode" "in other words, whether baptism by sprinkling, is valid baptism." That this is not the chief difficulty is easily demonstrable; for it is well known that none of the bap- tisms of the Greek Church, though always performed by 10* 114 COMMUNION. immersion would by us be esteemed valid, and this simply because tbey are administered in infancy, and not as a profession of personal faith in Christ. 3. (2.) With respect to the second objection, that we do not recognize the baptism of Pedobaptists as valid, and on this account refuse to celebrate with them ; it is indeed true that we do not regard the sprinkling of an infant as valid Christian baptism. Our reasons for this are open to the world ; they have been expressed again and again, in all charity and affection ; they have never been answered, and we feel sure they never can be. This does not however prevent our entertaining the warmest affection for and Communion with Pedobaptists as Christians. It causes us to desire them to be truly baptized, before we can unite with them in Church relations, or the symbols of those relations ; on the same principle that their attach- ment to infant baptism makes their standards require con- formity to that practice, of all who unite permanently with them. 4. Certainly, the most important, though not the only point of our difference on the subject of baptism is, that we hold it to be intended essentially as a public confession of personal faith in Christ. Infant baptism is not, and cannot be at all the same in its purpose. It is no profes- sion of the faith of the party baptized, and therefore as utterly void, as any bond or deed executed in the name of an unconscious infant by a third party would be in law. We hold baptism to be, not only the profession of a past change, but a voluntary pledge of future obedience; a divinely appointed act of personal dedication and consecra- tion of the heart and life to the service of Grod. See Rom. 6: 11 — 13. Hence it is that the baptisms of the Grreek Church are as utterly void in our esteem as those of the WE DO NOT UNCHURCH ANY. 115 Cliurcli of Rome. If our views are correct all those who have never voluntarily submitted themselves to this ordi- nance, have omitted the divinely appointed method of publicly consecrating themselves to the service of God. It is quite true therefore that we do not admit the validity of the baptisms in question. The above are some of the reasons. We sincerely ask and urge all Christians to ponder well the ground we take. The further discussion of it belongs more properly to the Baptismal controversy, and must here be dropped. 5. But it may be remarked in passing, though we do not stop to urge it, that it is not quite correct to say, as often is said, that the only ground of our not uniting in the occasional celebration of the Lord's Supper with all Pedo- baptists is their baptism ; for we do not commonly cele- brate with Free-will Baptists, who agree with us in regard to that ordinance, but are Arminians, nor with immersed members of other Churches, nor with the Campbellites. That which draws the line is, that the Lord's Supper is con- sidered by us a symbol of Church fellowship; so that those with whom we could not unite in the one, we do not feel at liberty to unite with in the other. 6. (3.) As to the third objection, that by not uniting with our Pedobaptist brethren in the Lord's Supper, we unchurch them, it will be evident, on the least considera- tion, that our practice in regard to this ordinance, our ^' close communion,^' as it is often termed, does not inti- mate this, either directly or indirectly ; since we do not profess to partake of that ordinance with all Christians, or with the members of all true Churches, any more than the Methodists in their Love Feast ; or any more than the Jews in celebrating the Passover professed to be ready to 116 COMMUNION. unite in observing it at the same table with all whom they considered to be true Israelites. 7. That the Lord's Supper is not designed to express Church relations as subsisting between different Churches as such, is evident ; for this would imply either that many of them together form one great Church, or that all are parts of a Universal Visible Church, implying a visible central government, perhaps a universal bishop, and thus Roman Catholicism. This would certainly destroy Church independence. 8. It is on this account, that it has not been usual for the Associations and Conventions of Baptist Churches, when assembled, to celebrate the Lord's Supper together. When this is done, it is always by special invitation of the particular Church with which the body meets, to the dele- gates, as so many brethren of the same faith and order. We invite them only as individual Christians. We do not regard all the Churches represented as, for the time, thrown into one, even of our own denomination. We might therefore, with at least equal propriety, be charged with declaring our own not true Churches, because as such we refuse to celebrate with them, as to be charged with unchurching those of other denominations by the course we pursue. 9. In our view, each particular Church is a separate and independent body, with authority derived immediately from the Grreat Head of the Church, and " entitled co de- clare the terms of admission into its Communion, and the qualifications of its members;" (Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church, Bk. 1, ch. 1, sec. 2;) and the Lord's Supper is a token, divinely appointed, which sym- bolizes, among other things, the relation which each mem- THE LACK OF VALID BAPTISM. 117 ber of that Church sustains to every other. Hence we unite in that ordinance, only with such as are, or but for local causes might be, and therefore are temporarily con- sidered, members of the same Church. All that our course, in declining to celebrate with members of other denomi- nations, exhibits, therefore, is that such persons do not belong to Churches of our order. In this, however, we no more unchurch all other Churches, than the Presbyterian, when he insists that in his Church, the infants of all the members ^^ are to be baptized,^^ or than the Methodist un- churches us, each time he celebrates the Love Feast, or refuses to give up preaching Arminianism as his creed, or instructing all the parents in his flock to bring their infants forward for Baptism. 10. What effect the lack of a valid baptism may have in unchurching those who have not made the divinely appointed profession of their faith, it belongs not to our present discussion to settle, but rather to that of Baptism. This must depend upon how far Baptism is regarded as essentially prerequisite to Church membership. Almost all Pedobaptists so regard it; and so far would seem to unchurch themselves. We do not care to discuss the ab- stract question here, because it belongs not to the subject in hand. We shall however express in all candor our own opinion. 11. The original word for Church is used with different significations in Scripture. In one sense, even the tu- multuous assembly at Ephesus, is so designated [sxx'KrjtjLa.) Acts 19: 32. Any Christian ' congregation,^ especially if assembled for worship, would have been thus called in the time of the Saviour and his Apostles. Matt. 18: 17. All organized religious bodieS; acknowledging the Headship 118 COMMUNION. of Christ, and assembling for the worship of the Father through Him, we regard as ChHstian Churches. Certainly our opinions and rules as to occasional Communion do not in the least prevent our considering all the congregations of professed Christians as Churches, in as general or spe- cific a sense as other things may permit. This has been again and again shown by our principal writers on Com- munion. We only do not consider them regular Churches according to the New Testament pattern, and with such alone do we partake. (See Dagg on Com. Ch. 3, sect. 1.) 12. That which alone concerns us here in regard to baptism is, that Churches of our order, are organized on the basis of all their members being baptized persons. This we consider the only regular plan according to the New Testament, nor do any differ from us on this point. But we in no way assert that they may not be formed irregularly, and yet be fully entitled to the appellation of true Christian Churches. It is a question we are not called upon to settle. If a company of believers without any Baptism at all, as, for instance a body of Quakers, claimed that title, we should have nothing to say against it. Many of the promises which Christ made of being with his people to the end of the world, are often realized in their assemblies. 13. But it is true that Baptism is the chief thing that prevents us from afiiliating with those Pedobaptist Churches which are of similar faith, and of Congregational government. The separation did not however originate with us, but with them. Our Churches are formed on a clear and distinctive basis, as much so as those of any other denomination. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congrega- tional or Methodist, Dr. Bushnell concedes to us even a much more distinctive basis. BAPTISM NECESSARY TO MEMBERSHIP. 119 The only possible questions tlien remaining (if indeed the reader is not already satisfied as to them) are, first, if it is proper for our Churches to make Baptism necessary to their membership ; and, secondly, if it is proper that this rule as to Church membership should be extended to the occasional participation of the Lord's Supper. 14. (1.) As to the first, that it is proper for our Churches to make baptism necessary in order to their membership, there will be no question with any body of Christians in this country. There certainly will not, with our Methodist brethren, who, in italics, declare " Let none be received into the Church until .... they have met at least six months on trial, and have been haptized,'' &c. (Discipline, ch. 2, sec. 2.) Nor will there be any contro- versy on this point between us and our Presbyterian bre- thren, who declare that ^' Baptism is a sacrament .... for the solemn admission of the "party baptized inlo the visible Church.'' (Confession of Faith, ch. 28, 1.) Much less will there be any between us and our Episcopalian brethren, who declare that baptism is ^' a sign of Regene- ration or new birth, lohereby^ as by an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.'' The symbols of all the Reformed Churches contain the same doctrine. The Roman Catholics hold thesame. So that if we are in error here, it would be impossible to find any body of Christians in this country, professing to be a Church, that could cast at us the first stone. Indeed, ex- cept a portion of our own denomination in England, whose plan we have already considered, there is probably no such body throughout the Christian world. Our Pedo- baptist brethren will surely never impute to us, illiberality for not occupying a position that they themselves are un- willing to assume, and cne that has left our Baptist bre- 120 COMMUNIOIS'. thren in England so far behind tliose of America^ in point of numerical increase.* 15. That our plan of Cliurch membership is the primi- tive one, even Rabert Hall concedes. " On the same princi- ple'' says he, "we account for tJie members of the primitive Church consisting of only such as were haj)tized, without erecting that circumstance into an invariable rule of action We are willing to go a step further, and to acknowledge that he who, convinced of the divine origin of Christianity by the ministry of the Apostles, had refused to be baptized, would at that period have been justly debarred from receiving the sacramental elements On these grounds, it is not difficult to perceive that a pri- mitive convert, or rather a pretended convert, who without doubting that baptism, in the way in which we practise it, formed a part of the Apostolic Communion, had refused compliance, would have been deemed unworthy Christian Communion, not on account of any specific connection between the two ordinances, but on account of his evincing a spirit totally repugnant to the mind of Christ. By re- jecting the only authority established upon earth, for the direction of conscience and the termination of doubts and controversies, he would undoubtedly have been repelled as a contumacious schismatic." (See Terms of Communion, Part 1, sect. 3.) 16. It is, and must be then, abundantly conceded, that in restricting our Church fellowship to the baptized, we are but following primitive custom. All that even Mr. * At the late Baptist Anniversaiv'es in London, (1849), it was made a matter ofpixblic congratnlation among our brethren, that, while, for the last seven years, the average increase had been one member to each church, per annum, it had reached during the last year, four members to each church ! THE BURDEN OF PROOF NOT ON US. 121 Hall contends for, is, that it does not necessarily follow as a matter of certainty, that because the first Churches and Apostles did so, we are obliged to do the same, but that it may have been one of those accidental coincidences, like the celebrating of the Eucharist with unleavened bread. Something even more than this is, it seems to us, conceded, when it is allowed that he who violated this order in primitive times, " loould have heen repelled as a contumacious schismatic f' and withou there discussing the specific and necessary connection between the two ordi- nances, we may remark that it requires to be very clearly shown, why, if the Apostles were on earth, they would not " repel as a contumacious schismatic," now as well as at first, him who should invert the order in which they established the Church. The burden of proof clearly lies on that side. At any rate, it is fully sufficient for our justification and encouragement to feel assured, as it is by Mr. Hall himself conceded, that our customs in relation to Church membership are those followed by the Apostles ; — customs, any departure from which by them would have been esteemed contumacious schism. Thus did the Apos- tles, and so do we. It was an occasion of praise and con- gratulation by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, when the primitive order was observed. " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye heep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you.'' This is what we aim to do; to form our Churches on the primitive plan. Whether in regard to the mode or subjects of baptism, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, or the order in which the two ordinances respectively stand to each other, we wish to keep them " as they were delivered unto us" originally. We keep Baptism, as it was delivered unto us, not caring to enquire or discuss for ourselves, whether sprinkling or 11 122 COMMUNION. pouring might do, but unhesitatingly submitting our bodies to be '' buried with Christ by baptism." It is thus also that we, and indeed all Protestants, act in regard to the two elements of the Lord's Supper. How urgently, and how justly, have we all reproached Roman Catholics, for administering the Eucharist but in one kind, and with- holding the cup from the laity. Supposing that any denomination of Christians were to propose to change the elements, with what feelings would all others look upon the substitution ? Who would choose even to invert the order of the administration, by giving the wine before the bread? though no reason whatever can be assigned, why all Christians should observe the order they do, except that it was that uniformly observed by Christ and his Apostles. If thus all Protestants feel and act in regard to the Lord's Supper, why should there not be an equal sensitiveness as to any deviation from primitive practice in regard to Bap- tism ? and why should not the order' of the two institutions remain with us all, even as at first ? Why should it be a matter of reproach, that we " keep the ordinances, as they were delivered unto us" by the Apostles of Christ ? 17. (2.) The only remaining point then is, whether this rule, which makes Baptism a prerequisite to member- ship in our Churches, is properly extended to the occasional participation of the Lord's Supper. This has already been settled, so far as the general principle is concerned in the Chapter on Occasional Com- munion) particularly pp. 108 — HI; and it has been also shown that as the Lord's Supper symbolizes Church fel- lowship, those only can consistently be invited to the one, who are admissible to the other. We desire therefore simply to add here some remarks upon the special connec- tion between the LordU Supper and Baptism. That in UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF CHRISTIANS. 123 conformity with primitive practice, no person could be admitted to "occasional communion/^ any more than to Church fellowship, if not baptized, is allowed by Robert Hall himself in the preceding extract. That such has been the universal practice of Christians of all ages and places, except the Mixed Communion Baptists, it will now be our object to show. 18. In his second Apology, Justin Martyr (within fifty years of the times of the Apostles,) speaking of the Lord's Supper, says, " of which it is not lawful for any to partake, but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptizedJ' In the third century, it was a law of the Church, " Let no one eat of these (that is of the elements of the Lord's Supper) that is not initiated, but those only who have been baptized unto the death of the Lord."* It would be idle to multiply instances of the care with which even catechumens were excluded from the Lord's Supper. In the year 607, a bitter persecution of the Christian Saxons originated in nothing else but an adherence to this view. The Venerable Bede says (lib. 3, c. 5), " After the death of Eadbald, King of the East Saxons, his sons re-estab- lished idolatry in that kingdom, and when they saw the minister (^pontificeTii) .... give the Eucharist to the people, inflated with a barbarous folly, they said to him * Why do you not give to us that beautiful bread, which you used to give to our Father Saba V To which he answered, ^ If ye will be washed in that salubrious font, wherein your father was washed, ye may partake of this holy bread ; but if ye despise the water of life, ye cannot receive the bread of life.' Upon which they said, ^ We will not * Apostolic Constitutions, Lib. 7, c 25. 124 COMMUNION. enter that font, because we know we stand not in need of it, but nevertlieless we desire to be refreshed with that bread/ And when they had been frequently and dili- gently admonished that no one could lawfully partake of the holy oblation, without that most holy washing, being at length aroused to indignation, they exclaimed, ' If you will not oblige us in such a trifling matter, you can no longer remain in our province.' And they expelled him, and commanded him to depart from their dominion with his followers.'' These men were not Baptists, although in those days, no other baptism but that of immersion was practised. They were monks sent from Rome, under Augustine. Yet it was clearly the sentiment of all Chris- tians, in those days, that it was better to be expelled, better to leave the country even to Paganism, better that the sword of persecution should decimate the Church, than this rule be violated. Our object here, is not to vindicate all the views upheld by these men, but only to show that if any change were to be introduced into our plan in re- gard to the Lord's Supper, it could only be done at the expense of a great innovation, and of going contrary, not only to the usages of our own denomination, but of all antiquity, and of those sentiments for which Christians of every name have thought it worthy, rather to sufl"er mar- tyrdom than abandon. No denomination of Christians has ever discarded this belief. Individuals among the Baptists, who have fol- lowed Robert Hall, have done so 3 but numberless extracts from the chief writers of all the Churches of the Reforma- tion, might be adduced to show that our practice on this point is held by them all. Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, says, '' No Church ever gave the Communion to any persons before BAPTISM BEFORE THE EUCHARIST. 125 they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, that any person should partake of the Communion before he was bap- tized/'* Dr. Doddridge, in referring to this subject in his Lec- tures, says, ^^ It is certain, as far as our knowledge of primi- tive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's Supper. How excellent soever any man's character is, he must be baptized, before he can be looked upon as completely a member of the Church of Christ." Dr. Hopkins, the celebrated New England divine, says, '^ No one is to be considered and treated as a member of the Church of Christ, unless he be baptized with water; as this is the only door by which persons can be introduced into the visible kingdom of Christ, according to his ap- pointment." Dr. Dwight, the celebrated Theological writer, says that ''it is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance that a candidate for communion be a member of the visible Church of Christ in full standing. By this, I intend that he should be a person of piety, that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized /'-f Dr. Griffin remarks, in his Letter on this subject in 1829, ^' I agree with the advocates of close communion in two points: 1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance which introduces us into the visible Church ; of course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible Churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not Church members, * Part 2, ch. 9. t Sermons on Theology, 160. For several of the above quotations, I am indebted to former writers, particularly " Howell, on Communion." 11* 126 COMMUNION. even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from his principles, as to wish to commune with me at the Lord's Table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is such a relationship established between the two ordinances, that Iliave no riglit to separate them ^ in other words, I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the Church/^ Such are the opinions and concessions of our Pedobaptist brethren. 19. The ground which we take in regard to the Lord's Supper, practically harmonizes with that of Christians of all ages and climes. It is simple, charitable, and consistent with itself. We have a full and perfect fellowship or commu- nion as Christians, with all the followers of Christ so far as we know them. With those who agree with us cere- monially, we ceremonially commune. Where we agree as to ordinances, we celebrate ordinances together. Where otherwise, we do not. We differ from many as to what Baptism is, and we feel sure that we are right. We ask, in all love and charity, our brethren of different denomi- nations to examine the point of difference for themselves, prayerfully, and with a fixed determination to follow wherever Christ leads. But all denominations most fully coincide with us, that those only who agree as to ordi- nances, i. e. who regard as valid, each other's baptism, should partake together of the other ordinance, the Lord's Supper. But with all Christians, as such, we commune most heartily and truly. We commune in prayer, which was the great ancient test; in preaching, in singing, in expe- rience, in many Christian efforts: in everything except that in which they do not agree with us. Church ordi- nances. Can anything be more just, truthful, and proper? ILLUSTRATION. 127 ♦ 20. Suppose, in order to render this matter perfectly clear, that a foreigner should have taken up his abode in this country for many years; and from an ardent attach- ment to its liberties and citizens, and an honest preference of our institutions, have made it his home. For some reason, perhaps only through ignorance of the law, let us suppose that he has never gone through the ceremony of naturalization : neglected even to give the regular notice of his intention to do so. If he were to present himself at the proper place at some election, would it be right that he should be allowed to vote ? None will contend that he should. He might be an excellent man, far more worthy and better qualified than thousands entitled to the privi- lege ; still all would perceive that in removing the obstacle that hinders him from voting, we should break down the whole naturalization law, — a barrier which prevents the inhabitants of the whole world from overturning the liber- ties we enjoy. So it would be impossible for us to parti- cipate in the Lord^s Supper with those not baptized, even occasionally, without overturning the whole New Testament law of Baptism. Robert Hall, as we have seen, fully ad- mits that it would destroy Baptist Churches, as such. If now, notwithstanding all that has been said, any per- son should be disposed to assert that we refuse Communion with those on earth, with whom we expect to commune in heaven, we reply that it is a complete error, based upon confounding the literal and figurative use of terms. We do not. We are willing to commune with all those on earth, with whom we expect to commune in heaven, and precisely in the same way, i. e. spiritually. We do not expect there to participate in the outward symbols of bread and wine. These were appointed to show forth the Lord's death only '^ until he come." All that can be said in 128 COMMUNION. • regard to our practice is, that we decline to celebrate the symbols of a particular Churcli Communion with those, between whom and ourselves there is no such relation existing, as the symbols would indicate ! But the injus- tice of this accusation can perhaps thus be most readily illustrated. It is well known that in America, a foreigner enjoys privileges, which in most countries are denied to any but citizens. He can travel unmolested, and without passport ; avow any religion, engage in any business, prac- tise any profession. He is equally protected by law ; and except voting for the officers of the government, and one or two restrictions of that kind, enjoys all the advantages of a citizen, though he may never have been naturalized. He is received with friendship, according to his worth, as a man, and as a citizen of the world. Suppose however that this individual, after having lived thus for many years, respected, beloved, and happy, on being informed that it was necessary that he should go through the forms of naturalization before he could be permitted to vote, should assert that in this country all foreigners who had through ignorance or other causes neglected these regula- tions were denied their just privileges, were outlawed, and cast out of the pale of society, — would it not be a libel on the free institutions of the country? Might not any one reply to him. If you prefer to neglect the ceremony of naturalization, you will also see the necessity of omitting the ceremony of voting? In all other respects, you enjoy equal privileges, protection, and esteem with other mem- bers of society according to your merits, and are held in more true regard if deserving it, perhaps, than many who may be naturalized or native citizens. This is a precise illustration of the manner in which, as Baptists, we regard the members of other Christian deno- THE TWO SYMBOLS ON A LEVEL. 129 minations. We enjoy with them the warmest and truest communion as Christians, in prayer, in the interchange of pulpits, as ^' fellow-citizens of the household of faith,'^ in fact, in everything except those points on which we differ. Church ordinances. If they say that Baptism is a mere ceremony, and as such the neglect of it ought not to dehar them from partaking with us in the Lord's Supper; then we reply, that the same view that would reduce Baptism to a mere ceremony, must reduce the Lord's Supper to the same level. Those who voluntarily neglect the one as a matter of no importance, will not be surprised that we should treat them as those who put an equally low esti- mate on the other. CHAPTER VII. REVIEW OF PARTS I. AND II. 1. Distinction between Communion and its Symbols. 2. Different kinds of Communion specified. 3, The Nature of Symbols. 4. Dif- ferent Symbols of Communion. 5. Symbols of Communion -with Christ, (a) Baptism. (&) Lord's Supper. 6. Symbols of Christian fellowship. 7. The Lord's Supper a Symbol of Church fellowship. 8. Further proofs of this. 9. Additional proofs — The Passover — but one Altar to a Church. 10. May it be used for other purposes ? 11. Eobert Hall's "leading position" considered. 12. This confounds the Visible and Invisible Churches. 13. " Occasional Communion." 14. The case of other denominations considered. 15. Three objec- tions considered. 16. That we deny the validity of their baptisms. 17. That we unchurch other denominations. 18. Our own position. 1. "We have in tlie previous parts of tliis work, laid down in detail, and with some copiousness, the principles which should regulate our Communion as Christians, and as members of the visible Churches of Christ, our sym- bolic as well as our spiritual relations. We propose to occupy the concluding chapter of this portion of our work, with a condensed view of the whole ground over which we have gone, so far as it bears on our peculiar opinions and practice in regard to the Lord's Supper. Thus it is hoped that the reader will be enabled to perceive more clearly and comprehensively the position we occupy, and to determine, in the third part of this work, whether the principles of Robert Hall on this subject, or our own, are the more consistent with reason, charity, and Scripture. We have seen the importance of the distinction between THE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION. 131 Communion and its symbols. The one is purely spiritual, the other, visible. They are therefore easily distinguish- able ; moreover, the absence of a particular symbol is no proof of a refusal to commune with any Christian. This we never refuse knowingly, but, on the contrary, have a sincere and cordial fellowship, as Christians, with all whom we consider such. A closer fellowship with Christians as Christians, is one of the great religious wants of the pre- sent age — a fellowship, not interfering in any way with their Church relations, but loving, encouraging, and doing good to all. 2. We have seen that Communion is of different hinds, and degrees, according to its objects. There is for exam- ple, a true spiritual Communion with Christ, the Head of the Church, which is the animating principle of all the rest; and there is also a true Communion, though not of the same character, with the Universal Church, "the whole family in heaven and earth.'' Even in regard to this illustrious body, our fellowship is not equally close with all the portions and members of it. With saints in heaven, it is more exalted, but cannot be so sympathizing on our part, as with the saints on earth. And even in regard to these latter, there is particularly to be noticed, the distinction between our fellowship with Christians as such and apart from their being members of our own, or even of any visible Church ; and our Communion with those with whom we are united in these latter relations. This distinctness of Church fellowship, from that which we hold with all Christians, is analogous to the difference between the regard of every man for his own family, and that which he has for his country, his neighbors, and his friends. The latter may be said to have its foundation in that common love for society, which makes man a social 132 COMMUNION. being. Witliout it^ lie might dwell like the spider, which sits, the solitary tenant of a web, constructed for nothing but to catch prey. We know, however, that the affection a man has, and the relations he sustains to his own family, are quite distinct from any that he bears to others. So the obligations and fellowship belonging to membership in a Christian Church, as such, is, in several important respects, quite distinct from that due to a Christian as a Christian. To lose sight of this distinction, must produce the same mischievous effects upon the cause of Christ, that losing sight of the peculiar sanctity and distinctness of family affection would have upon society. As the latter would be far from promoting social happiness, so the former would not sensibly increase, even for a time, the more general affection of Christians as a whole, while in cutting at the root of the more special fellowship of the members of each particular Church, it would destroy the germ of both the one and the other. As the welfare and happiness of society depend more upon the proper main- tenance of the family tie, than any of the more general attachments which bind men together, whether as commu- nities, as tribes, or as nations; and as the former are the basis and nursery of all true social regard ; so the foster- ing of a proper Communion with the particular Church, with which by grace a Christian is united, is his first great duty and privilege. It is the germ of all the more ex- tensive affections of the Christian to his fellow-believers in Christ ; and is more important than them all. 3. As there are different kinds, so there are different symbols of Communion. Whatever action or emblem is intended to denote any kind of Communion, is its symbol. Some of these symbols are simple in their nature, indi- cating but one kind of fellowship ; others, complex, indi- THREE CLASSES OF SYMBOLS. 133 eating more than one. Complex symbols are appropriate, only when all the relations they express, exist as indicated. Thus, for instance, the Lord's Supper is the symbol of our Communion with Christ. It also indicates certain relations, as existing between those with whom we parti- cipate in it, and ourselves. The Lord's Supper, therefore, can be properly celebrated, only when the relations both between the Saviour and us, and also between our fellow- communicants and ourselves, are such as indicated by the symbol. • 4. The symbols of Communion may be arranged under three heads. (1.) With Christ. (2.) With Christians as such. (8.) With the particular Church to which we be- long. These three classes of symbols will correspond with the different kinds of Communion pointed out before. 5. (1.) As to the first of these, the symbols of our Communion with Christ, there are two, special and divinely appointed, (a) Baptism, (6) The Lord's Supper. Of these, baptism, which is divinely termed '•^ ])utting on Christ/* naturally comes first. It is to be received once, and but once. It is that symbolic garment of confession, by which the believer in Christ not only professes the grace which has been bestowed upon him, but also dedicates himself for the future to be the Lord's, and rightly receiving it, obtains in return a public assurance of acceptance with Christ. It is not a mere ceremony therefore, but a divinely appointed public consecration of the Christian to the service of Christ, which causes those who rightly re- ceive it, to stand in a new relation to the world, to Chris- tians, and to Christ, and of which, all those who omit it are living in the neglect. The Lord's Supper, which is the other special and divinely appointed symbol of our Communion with Christ, 12 134 CO MxM UNION. is to be repeated " often/' Every time this is done, it re-affirms the same profession as to the past, and conse- cration of himself for the future, which the Christian made in his Baptism. It is like a new public acknow- ledgment or delivery of an old bond or deed. There is an instituted connection between them. They are as uni- formly mentioned in this order of sequence, as regularly as are the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper. An alteration here would be like inverting the order of the elements in the Eucharist. To admit to the Supper without Baptism is a wrong similar to that for which we all reproach the Roman Catholics, administering one of the elements without the other.* 6. As to the second class of symbols, i. e. that of the fellowship of Christians, as such, and apart from their belonging to any visible Church on earth, we have seen that these are many and various. Uniting in prayer, in worship, in efforts to spread the cause of Christ, or in the contributions of Christian charity. With regard to the Lord's Supper, it is intended, first of all, to symbolize our Communion with the Saviour, and participation in the fruits of his death, and in the holiness which he bestows. But next to that, it expresses, in regard to those with whom we partake of it, more than a mere Christian, a Church fellowship. Indeed the latter is implied, chiefly as the more general is necessarily indicated in the more specific communion. 7. That the Lord's Supper is not a mere symbol of our Communion with the Church Universal, is plain. For as that body embraces the saints in glory, it would then be * On the instituted connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, see Fuller's Works, vol. 2, p. 671-2. Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, Boston, 1836; or vol. 3, p. 510, Am. Bap. Publication Society, Philadelphia. THE EUCHARIST A SPECIFIC SYMBOL. 135 appropriate, and even a duty to have seasons of holding this kind of symbolic communion with those of our Chris- tian friends who have passed into the world of spirits. This was an error, which, originating quite early in the history of Christianity, from confounding visible Churches with the Invisible Church, led naturally, if not inevitably, to the Romish corruption of masses for the dead. Nor is it a mere symbol of our Communion with all saints on earth, as such. If it were, we should have no right to refuse the Communion to any man, claiming to be a Christian, unless we could prove on him some error of doctrine or practice, that would make it impossible he should be what he professed. He might hold and teach sentiments, the general tendency of .which was subversive of the whole system of Christianity ; Roman Catholicism, Arianism, or Universalism ; but unless we were prepared to assert, in each case, that these errors were so held by that individual, as to be absolutely incompatible with his salvation, we should be obliged to welcome him to this feast. He might not only defend principles that were erroneous, but act up to them in a manner which would be most perverting to the order of the Church, and de- structive to the spiritual life and welfare of thousands of souls; but unless we were prepared to assert that the individual could not be a sincere man, and even a Chris- tian, we must receive him to celebrate the Eucharist with us.* The Apostle, on the contrary, exhorts us to ^' withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly." Indeed, in this case, it would be the duty of Christians, wherever they met as Christians, to unite in the celebra- * See Thoughts on Open Communion— Letter to Rev. W. Ward, Sept. 21, 1800. Fuller's Works, vol. 2, p. 667, (vol. 3, p. 503. ed. Am. Baptist Publication Society) where this point is ably stated. 136 COMMUNION. tion of this ordinance ; not merely when they assembled in their Churches, but in Missionary, Bible and Tract Societies, Evangelical Alliances, and assemblies of every description. Wherever prayer would be appropriate, so would be the Lord's Supper. Whoever considers the reason which has led all such societies instinctively to avoid even the mention of uniting in the Eucharist, at their anniver- sary meetings, will perceive that it originates in a feeling, that by so doing they would be assuming the peculiar prerogative of a Church, instead of acting as a simple voluntary society of Christians. 8. That the Lord's Supper is a symbol of Church rela- tions, subsisting between those who unite together in the participation of it, which is all that is necessary to our present purpose to prove, can be shown in many ways. For it presupposes that watchfulness and discipline of holy affection, by which improper persons are kept back from the number of the communicants. This, all will admit; nor can any deny, that to the Churches of Christ, as such, and to them alone, has the power of discipline been confided. Admission to the Lord's Table, therefore, implies admission to it by a particular Church, and this in fact, settles the question that the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance. For certainly no Church in primitive times would have admitted any to its Communion Table, whom it would have been unwilling to receive as a mem- ber of its own body. Each Church was originally inde- pendent, with full powers within itself, to receive and to exclude from its communion table. 9. The Lord's Supper being then a Church ordinance, indicates Church relations as subsisting between the par- ties who unite together in its celebration. Not to extend an invitation to the Lord's Supper, merely shows the ab- THE SUPPER A CUURCII ORDINAKCE. 137 sence of Church, not of Christian relations. A Jew, merely because he was a Jew, had no right to go into any house he pleased to celebrate the Passover with any other family than his own, except by mutual consent and invi- tation; nor was any man obliged to invite every Jew, or any person out of his own family, to partake with him. Not to invite any one out of the family to the Passover, therefore, was no indication that he was not regarded as a true and pious Israelite; because that was a family, as this is a Church ordinance. The Lord's Supper was instituted by our Saviour at one of these Paschal feasts with the twelve, his more especial family of disciples, and no other around him. Each Christian Church is a family of such disciples now; and the Lord's Supper was so insti- tuted as to express, not merely the Christian, but the Church fellowship, we say, of those who united in it at the same table. If, not to extend this invitation to others, is, as Robert Hall contends, equivalent to excommuni- cating them, and a proof of the want of Christian alFection and fellowship for them ; then were the seventy excom- municated, and even those pious women, (including his mother Mary,) who had come up with him to the feast, and were " Last at the cross, and earliest at the grave." The records of Church history plainly show, that origi- nally the Lord's Supper was everywhere regarded as a Church ordinance. For even after centuries of gradual corruption had altered the forms of Church government in many other respects, and many separate congregations were united under the care of one Bishop, and were con- sidered as only one Church, there was ever one and but one altar to each bishopric, at which alone the elements 12* 138 COMMUNION. of the Eucharist were consecrated. To set up another altar or Communion Table, was considered a violation of unity, or a declaration of Church independence. Each bishopric had the absolute power of receiving to, and ex- communicating from the Lord's Table. The whole of this shows how, contrary to all the centralizing tendencies of the age, and amid many corruptions on all sides, this truth remained, embalmed and preserved, that the Lord's Supper was a Church ordinance. 10. Seeing then no doubt can exist, that the Lord's Supper was originally thus constituted, the only question that can remain, is, if there be in the Churches or in Christians any power to employ the ordinance for other purposes beside those originally intended; such for instance, as expressing a simply Christian fellowship, and omitting the more special one, which belonged to it originally. This however can only be done by the parties presuming to alter what God has appointed, and assuming a legisla- tive authority equal to that of the Divine Head of the Christian Church, superior to that claimed even by Rome herself. But if it be conceded, as it must, that the Lord's Supper is ever the symbol of particular visible Church relations, then it is impossible that Baptists should be rightly charged with bigotry, or want of charity. There is no unjust closeness of Communion in not inviting those who, as not having in our view a valid baptism, could not ac- cording to our principles be received into the membership of any of our Churches, and whose own standards would forbid them to enter into Church relations with us. Much more justly might the charge be brought against those who refuse to admit more than half their own members to the Lord's Supper; who, contrary to all the antiquity ROBERT hall's SINGULAR POSITION. 139 to which they appeal, jfirst receive infants into their mem- bership by baptism, and then withhold that token which belongs to them as members. Baptists have no such close communion as this. 11. A formidable objection has however been brought, not indeed against Baptists alone, but against all Christian denominations, in respect to their views of Church mem- bership. The objection is, that no visible Church of Christ has a right to make any other terms of admission to its full membership, than such as are requisite to belong to the Universal or Invisible Church. This is what Robert Hall calls his ^' leading position,^' i. e., " that no Church has a right to establish terms of Communion which are not terms of salvation; and that properly, a particular Church differs from the Universal Church, only as a part differs from the whole. '^ If this were true, it would effectually destroy the Bap- tists as a denomination, This Eobert Hall expressly concedes. ^'Were that practice universally to prevail,'^ says he, " the mixture of Baptists and Pedobaptists in Christian societies would probably ere long be such, that the appellation Baptist might be found not so properly applicable to Churches, as to individuals.'^ It would be not less destructive of all other denominations than of our own. It is as much opposed to the Methodist Book of Discipline, the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and the Thirty-nine Articles, as it is to our own views of Church membership. The experience of the whole Christian world of all ages is against it. 12. This " leading position,'' however, is founded on the palpable error of confounding the nature of Visible Churches with that of the Invisible Church. It is demon- strable that these two must be different. For it is admitted 140 COMMUNION. by all who hold these views, that true faith in Christ alone is necessary to a state of salvation, or membership in the Invisible Church. This may and does include a willing- ness of heart to confess Christ, but it cannot necessarily include the act of confessing him in any way before men. But some hind of credible and visible confession of Christ, or profession of piety to man, must be a prerequisite to visible Church membership. Consequently, that must be essential to the latter, which is not to the former. So far therefore from this position being true, that no Church has a right to establish terms of Communion which are not terms of salvation, the truth must be exactly the reverse. No visible Church can possibly establish itself, even for a day, without terms of membership that include things not essential to salvation. Instead of this being the case, that a particular Church differs from the invisible " 07ily^' as a part differs from the whole, nothing is more certain, than that they must and do, and were designed to differ essentially in other respects besides. Each visible Church must adopt such terms of member- ship, as seem to it most in accordance with the principles and precepts of the New Testament, and the practice of the first Christians.* That our plan of Church member- ship, admitting only those whom we consider baptized, was the primitive plan, is conceded by Robert Hall him- self: who admits that any one offering himself without baptism, would have been " repelled as a contumacious schismatic. ''f All other denominations hold this as much as we. This is shown by the writings of their standard authors. 13. The only point, therefore, in which we can ever be * Presbyterian Form of Government, Book 1, chap. I. t Terms of Communion, Part 1, sect. 3. OCCASIONAL PARTICIPATION. 141 supposed to differ from other denominations, is upon the subject of OCCASIONAL communion; or the admission of those who are either members of no Church, or of other Churches, to the participation with us, in the sacramental elements, when present in our assemblies. This we grant cheerfully, so far as the members of other Churches, simi- larhj constituted uith our own, are concerned ; because the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance, and we are willing to consider those, who, but for local circumstances might be members of our particular Churches, for the time being as actually such. Thus far, all are agreed. With regard to persons, however sincere their piety, who are members of no Church, we, in common with all other denomina- tions, have no hesitation in declaring that they should not be admitted to the occasional participation of the Lord's Supper. "With us, this also is founded on the principle, that this is a Church ordinance. 14. But now in regard to members of the Churches of other denominations. Many do invite those to occasional participation, who are not members of Churches of a similar constitution to their own ; and who could not unite with them in a regular and permanent Church fellowship; their views of its order, doctrines, and government being so diff'erent. In this way, Methodists, Presbyterians, and even Episcopalians will thus occasionally partake together. It is true that no denomination would be willing to carry this so far, as to admit any persons they consider unbap- tized, even to occasional Communion. But if the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance, and indicates a Church fellowship among all those who par- take together, it is a violation of truth in symbols to invite to occasional Communion, those whom our consti- tutional principles would forbid to be members of our 142 COMMUNION. Churches. Indeed there is a palpable inconsistency in adopting one set of principles for admission to Church fel- lowship, and another to occasional Communion; one for admission to the Lord's Supper considered in the former point of view, another for it, considered in the latter. Such discriminations cannot produce real unity and fel- lowship } a sophism lies at the bottom of them. As it is taken for granted in this discussion, that Chris- tian baptism essentially involves an immersion of the body in water, as a profession of personal faith in Christ, so it follows that this whole discussion must be founded on the acknowledgment that our Pedobaptist friends are without valid baptism. Nor can it make any abatement from this conclusion, or any alteration in regard to our receiving them at the Lord's Table, that they do not perceive this. For Baptists to admit the validity of baptism to depend, in whole or in part, not upon the New Testament, but upon what each one chooses for himself to consider bap- tism, would destroy our principles at once. 15. It has sometimes been objected, however, that it is only the mode of baptism that prevents us from uniting with others at the Lord's Table. This is an error. It is not only, nor even chiefly the mode. For the baptisms of the Greek Church, which are performed in the same man- ner, are not regarded by us as valid, because not profes- sions of personal faith ; nor could we invite the members of that body to partake with us. 16. It is urged however, that at least the difference be- tween us and pious Pedobaptists is merely ceremonial, and that it is merely because we do not esteem their bap- tism valid, that we do not unite with them at the Lord's Table. It is unquestionably true that we do not admit the validity of their baptism, and that this is the chief HOW FAR WE ARE SEPARATPCD. 143 point of difference between our Churches and some others, as for instance those of the Congregationalists, with whom, as to doctrine and form of government, we agree. But it must not be forgotten that the Lord's Supper is as much a mere ceremony as baptism. It is just as little a matter, to debar from the former, as to refuse the latter. The two must go together. Consistency requires Ceremonial Com- munion with those only with whom we ceremonially agree ; Spiritual Communion with those with whom we are spiritually united. Nor must it be forgotten that origi- nally these Churches with whom we most nearly coincide, thrust us out, and made us a separate denomination. If there were any schism therefore in the separation, it is theirs, not ours. But while between our Churches and some others, bap- tism is nearly the only point of difference; there are principles as distinctive, connected with our views of this one ordinance of baptism, as those which form the basis of any other denomination. Dr. Bushnell, in his works on Christian Nurture, if he has shown nothing else, has shown this. But while there is so little difference between us and the Congregationalists, it is not so with the most. Differ- ences in doctrine, and in the whole system of Church government; differences in the terms of admission to the full privileges of Church membership ; besides those as to the mode and subjects of baptism, separate us from most others. Nor is it accurate to say that it is either baptism alone, or any single thing that is the cause of our practice in regard to the Lord's Supper, save this only ; that we regard it as a Church ordinance, the symbol of Church relations, and consequently to be united in by those only who agree as to Church relations. Otherwise, we should 144 # COMMUNION. not only be required to invite all whom we were not pre- pared to declare beyond the pale of Church fellowship, to partake with us, but we must participate with all bodies claiming to be Christian Churches, on their invitation, whatever may be the state of their doctrine or discipline, unless we intended to denounce them as having so apos- tatized, as not to deserve that appellation. 17. It has frequently been urged that by our course, we at least unchurch all other denominations. But this again is a complete error. It certainly does not follow from our practice in regard to the Lord's Supper. For we do not pretend to commune with all whom we esteem Christians, nor with all that we consider Christian Churches ; only with such as are similarly constituted with our own. While we know that baptism was originally, and now is, essential to the regular constitution of a Christian Church, and therefore we have no right to dispense with it from our own, yet as the term Church (sxx^yjaia) is often used, even in Scripture, for assemblies irregularly formed, so any orga- nized body of professing Christians, assembling from time to time for worship, may be justly considered a Christian Church, though, if it be without valid baptism, an irregular Church. 18. Our Churches are formed upon the primitive model. In our mode of celebrating both Baptism and the Lord's Supper, we feel sure that we conform to primitive usage. In the relative order, and relation in which they stand to each other, we do the same, even by the concession of our opponents. Thus did the Apostles, and thus do we. We find fault with none. We excommunicate none. We are saved from all this by .our views of Church independence, and by not professing visible Church relations where they do not exist. We respect the rights of others too much OUR AIMS JUST AND CHARITABLE. 145 to interfere with their ecclesiastical arrangements. But our regard for truth and harmony forbids us to carry union in profession further than any would be willing to carry it in practice. We aim simply to keep the ordinances as they were delivered unto us, without unchurching any, or denying their Christianity. Nor would we see ceremonial and spiritual Communions so confounded, that by not in- viting persons to partake with us at the Lord's Table, we should be supposed to express any want of fellowship with them as Christians. We only feel that where any symbol is complex, and indicates several different relations, all of them must exist in truth as indicated by the symbol to render its use appropriate. 13 PART III. THE ARGUMENTS OF ROBERT HALL CONSIDERED. INTKODUCTORY KEMARKS. CLASSIFICATION OF ROBERT HALL's WRITINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF COMMUNION. Although in the former part of this treatise, we have stated the principle on which Mixed Communion was so ably advocated by the late Robert Hall, the arguments by which he has attempted to sustain that principle, deserve a separate and special notice. His writings on this sub- ject, were comprised in three tracts : 1. ^' Terms of Com- munion :'' afterwards abridged and called " Reasons for Christian in opposition to Party Communion,^' by the Author. 2. ^' The Essential Difference between Christian Baptism, and the Baptism of John.^^ 3. " A Reply to the Rev. Joseph Kinghorn, being a further vindication of the plan of Free Communion.'^ It is chiefly in the fii'st of these works, that the arguments in favor of the author's views are contained; the other two being rejoinders to the replies of his opponents. It will only be necessary to take so much notice of these latter, as that when an ob- jection similar to any which Mr. Hall has noticed in his rejoinder is brought against the reasoning contained in the Terms of Communion, his further explanation, or vin- dication, shall be presented to the reader, and fairly con- sidered. This will in each case be done. As that re- markable man has confessedly advanced all that is to be said on that side of the question, it will be a thorough and final proof of the truth of our positions, if they are capable 150 COMMUNION. of resisting the attacks of this ablest advocate of Mixed Communion; while it will also enable those desirous of comparing opinions on this subject, to have the arguments of both parties placed side by side, and the whole subject thus brought in review before them. The work, entitled ''Terms of Communion/' consists of two parts, — Part I. '' The Arguments for Strict Commu- nion considered/' — Part II. '' The Positive Grounds on which we justify the practice of Mixed Communion. '^ The First Part, divided into four sections, considers 1st. " The Argument from the Order .of Time in which Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper are supposed to have been instituted ;" 2d. '' The Argument for Strict Communion, from the Order of Words in the Apostolic Commission ;'^ 3d. '' The Argument from Apostolic Precedent, and from the different Significations of the two Institutions ;'^ 4th. '' Our supposed Opposition to the Universal Suffrages of the Church.'^ As it will be at once evident that, in the first Part, no attempt is made to establish any positive argument, in favor of Mixed Communion, but only to remove difficul- ties, and reply to objections; and as none of the argu- ments there considered, lead to the discussion of what we consider the radical fallacy of Mr. Hall's views, i. e., confounding Communion with the symbols of Communion, and Church fellowship with Christian fellowship; as they do not lead him to touch the principle that lies at the bottom of all we advance, i. e., that the Lord's Supper symbolizes relations subsisting only between the members of a particular Church, it will not be necessary to consider here the '' plea in abatement," offered under each of the four heads above specified. What is said by our Author in regard to "the Universal Suffrages'^ of Christians, has ROBERT hall's SIX AR(JUMENTS. 151 been noticed incidentally in our Second Part^ where that subject was considered. In Part XL, Mr. Hall advances to what he terms " The Positive Grounds on which ice justify the Practice of Mixed Communion." Here he presents us with six distinct arguments, in as many sections. They are as follows : - 1. Free Communion urged from the Obligation of Bro- therly Love. 2. The Practice of Open Communion argued from the express Injunction of Scripture, respecting the Conduct to be maintained by sincere Christians, who differ in their Religious Sentiments. 3. Pedobaptists, a part of the true Church, and their Exclusion on that ac-count unlawful. 4. The Exclusion of Pedobaptists from the Lord's Table, considered as a Punishment. 5. On the Impossibility of reducing the Practice of Strict Communion to any general principle. 6. The Impolicy of the Practice of Strict Communion. We will consider the force of each one of these Argu- ments, in the same order in which our Author has advanced them. CHAPTER I. ROBERT hall's FIRST ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. Ambiguity as to the use of the word Communion. 2. Applied to the Lord's Supper proves nothing. 3. Robert Hall's view of the signifi- cation of the Lord's Supper considered. 4. His illustration of chil- dren refusing to eat at the same table. 5. Symbolic feasts. 6. The anguish of separating from Christian friends at the Lord's Supper considered. 7. Illustration. 1. The first consideration of our Author is thus enti- tled : ^' Free Comnnmion urged from the Ohligation of Brotlierly LoveJ' There is not only in this title, but running through the whole argument of this section, and indeed of the whole work, an ambiguity, arising from the different senses in which the word Communion is employed. To this we have before alluded. Sometimes Mr. Hall uses this term as equivalent to {christian fellowship, sometimes for Church fellowship, habitually sustained, and sometimes for that symbol of Church fellowship " the Lord's Supper.'' However our Author might consider each of these as uni- formly proper, where any of them was, yet in arguing on this very question, he had no right so to use them, as to take for granted the very point in dispute. Using the term in the first of the above senses, we should fully agree with him, that it was our duty to cherish a warm Christian Communion with all whom we esteem Christians, Roman Catholic or Protestant, Baptist or Pedobaptist. Thus far the passages he has quoted on the duty of loving one another bear him out, and no further. A PETITIO PRINCirn. 153 But if by " Communion/^ he intends Church fellowship, (See Part I., eh. 4,) and from the obligation of brotherly love, would urge that it is our duty to maintain habitually this particular fellowship for all whom we esteem Chris- tians, then must all the family feeling of Church member- ship be broken down. (See p. 35.) For any general ex- hortations of Scripture however, to Christian and brotherly love, to be brought in proof of this, it must be taken for granted that the terms of visible membership in a parti- cular Church, ought exactly to correspond to those of membership in the invisible Church Universal. This Mr. Hall does take for granted throughout his whole work. But this is just the point in dispute. In Part I., ch. 4, we have shown the distinction between these two, and there, more particularly alluded to this ?>mgv\^Y petitio principii. 2. In the latter part of this section, at least, it is clear that our Author distinctly intends by ^'Communion," nothing more nor less than the Lord's Supper. It is here that he concentrates his argument. " In order to place this part of our subject in its strongest light, it is neces- sary to recur to what we have suggested before, respecting the twofold import of the Eucharist, that it is first a feast upon a sacrifice, in which we are actual partakers, by faith, of the body and blood of the Redeemer off"ered upon the cross. Considered in this view, it is a federal rite, in which we receive the pledge of reconciliation, while we avouch the Lord to be our God, and surround his table as a part of his family. In its secondary import, it is in- tended as a solemn recognition of each other as members of Christ, and consequently, in the language of St. Paul, ' as one body and one bread.'* Now we either acknowledge * For another view of the passage above qixoted, see Appendix G. 154 COxMMUNION. Pedobaptists to he ChrlstianSj or we do not. If not, let us speak out without reserve, and justify their exclusion at once, upon a broad and consistent basis. But if we reject a sentiment so illiberal, why refuse to unite with them in an appointment which, as far as its social import is concerned, has no other ohject than to express that fra- ternal attachment, which loe actually feeV^ When any symbolic act necessarily embraces a reference to two or more distinct relations, as we have seen in a former Part, all the relations must exist as indicated, to render the sign proper. Thus, for instance, it is true that the Lord's Supper is first of all a symbol of our participa- tion in the benefits of the death of Christ. But this will not, upon our Author's ground, justify a Christian in cele- brating this feast, in connection with those who make no profession of faith in Christ; because, according to him, the Lord's Supper symbolizes not only our union with Christ, but is also '^ a solemn recognition of each other as mem- bers of Christ.'^ Thus far, our Author will admit. 3. It is in regard to his ^^ secondary import' ' of the Lord's Supper, that we desire to remark ; for here in truth the whole controversy turns. If indeed it is, as between the parties celebrating it, " a solemn recognition of each other as members of Christ,'^ and nothing more ; if "so far as its social import is concerned, it has no other ohject than to express that fraternal afi"ection" which subsists between all true Christians, then there can be no doubt, that all who recognize each other as members of Christ, ought to be willing to celebrate the Lord's Supper together. But in all this assumption, the author is begging the very point at issue. We contend that the Lord's Supper * Works, vol. 1, p. 324. A MISCONCEPTION OF RELATIONS. 155 has other objects, than to express that fraternal attachment which we feel to all Christians as members of Christ. In Part II., ch. 4, we have shown that the Lord's Supper is not merely a solemn recognition of each other as members of Christ, but as those between whom and ourselves, particu- lar Church relations exist. The dilemma, which is put before us, therefore, with such an air of triumph, is founded upon an utter misconception, as we believe, of some of the relations indicated by the Lord's Supper. ^^We either acknowledge Pedobaptists to he Christians, or we do not," says our author. ^'If not, let us speak out without re- serve." We really do not see why we should be called upon to pronounce upon this question here, or what it has to do with the point in dispute. Pedobaptists certainly do not acknowledge Church relations with us, nor do we with them. Indeed, one would think that these relations, to subsist profitably at all, should be mutual. But as we have no wish to avoid '^speaking out without reserve," we frankly take the other horn of the dilemma, and acknow- ledge them, many of them at least, to be Christians, per- haps better than ourselves. But what then ? " Then why refuse to unite with them" in the Lord's Supper ? Simply because we believe that the Lord's Supper, if united in, would symbolize much more, than that we consider them ^Christians. It would symbolize that they were willing to unite in Church relations with us, and we with them ; nei- ther of which is true. It would say to the world that our views of Church order and discipline, and ordinances, and government, were mutually so much alike, that we could consistently consider ourselves members of the same Church. This is a principle upon which neither our Pedobaptist brethren, nor we, would like to act, and which therefore we ought not to express; and we have before 156 COMMUNION. seen that where a symbolic act embraces reference to two or more distinct relations^ all of them must subsist in truth as symbolized, to justify the use of the sign. 4. As an illustration is often remembered, when an argument is forgotten ; and as we wish to present all that our author would advance on his side of the question, we would add the following passage. ^^Were the children of the same parent, in consequence of the different construction they had put on a disputed clause in their father's will, to refuse to eat at the same table, or to drink out of the same cup, it would be ridiculous for them to pretend that their attachment to each other remained undiminished; nor is it less so for Christians to assert that their withdrawing from communion with their brethren, is no interruption to their mutual harmony and affection.' '* The illustration of children of the same parent refusing to eat at the same table, would be applicable, if the Lord's JSiqyper were to he regarded as an ordinarij and not a sym- bolic meal. But that this is not the case is shown by the fact, that the very parties who decline to unite in it, will join as freely as brothers in any other meal, and in any other token of Christian regard. If then the Lord's Sup- per is a symbolic meal, the only question is, of what is it the symbol? If of Christian fellowship and nothing more, then all who esteem each other as Christians should be willing to celebrate together ; and were they to refuse, the consequences pointed out by Mr. Hall would ensue, and even more. But if the Lord's Supper is also a symbol of Church relations, then those who cannot and do not sus- tain these relations to each other, cannot consistently unite in the symbol. * Works, vol. l,p. 323. ILLUSTRATIONS. 157 5. It is quite common in Europe, and in this country, for political dinners to be given, in order to assemble and unite the chief members of a particular party, and promote its objects. To unite in one of those feasts, would pub- licly symbolize that those who partook, were all agreed as to the political party or object, to promote which the feast was given. So on the other hand, to decline an invitation of this kind, would not be a refusal to meet the same per- sons as gentlemen or friends ; it would not indicate any want of confidence in them all as true and patriotic citizens, supporters of the same national liberties, all sworn friends of a common constitution, but simply a nonconcurrence in all the measures which it was the object of that particular association to promote. Brothers often refuse to partake of these symbolic feasts together, without the least diminu- tion of fraternal regard. 6. The author of the ^^ Terms of Communion'^ eloquently pictures '^ the uneasiness and anguish felt on sacramental occasions, by good men, seeing their most intimate friends, and persons of exalted piety, compelled to withdraw from the Lord's Table. ^^ That cases do occur, in which such feel- ings arise, we doubt not. But this is either from forget- ting the symbolic character of the institution altogether, or at least from forgetting it to be the symbol of Church relations, or of anything more than our fellow-citizenship with the saints in light. Upon any other supposition, the pain could only be occasioned by being reminded that such excellent Christians had not yet been buried with Christ in baptism. But that not keeping distinctly in mind the reference of any symbolic feast, may occasion the uneasi- ness and even anguish, which a slight attention to that circumstance would remove, is not doubtful. The follow- ing anecdote will in part illustrate what we wish to convey. 14 158 COMMUNION. 7. Many years ago, a venerable friend travelled about two hundred miles to attend the funeral of an aged widow and relative, for whom he had entertained the highest regard. But the day before the departure of this lady, which was sudden, her only daughter had been married. The body committed to the grave, the mourners, who were from various parts of the country, returned to the house, according to the custom of the times, to dine together, before reading the will and dispersing, perhaps to assemble no more on earth. But the friends of the deceased were friends also of the newly married pair; and several, forget- ting the sad occasion that had brought them together, took the opportunity to congratulate the young people on their recent marriage. Before the cloth was removed, instead of the solemnity of a funeral, the gaiety of a marriage feast was exhibited by many of the company, and one of the guests rising, formally proposed to the whole company as an opening toast, '^ The health of the bride and bride- groom.^' Wounded at what would so evidently change the nature of the assembly, the old man rose, and address- ing the newly-married ones, said, ^'Mj children, I cannot drink this health on this occasion. I love you both, and freely give you my blessing ; but I came here to-day not to attend the marriage feast of young friends, but the funeral feast of an old friend. '' That pledge, given at that time, would have been the symbol, not merely of friendship for the young couple, hut that the occasion of assembling was a marriage, and not a funeral feast. The parties had no right to feel hurt with their friend, as though he ^^ would not drink of the same cup with them,'' or not symbolize by any consistent means, his wishes for their happiness. Not to partake was no token of this. To partake, would in his view have been disrespect to APPLICATION. 159 the particular occasion that had brought them together. Those who proposed the toast, by failing to perceive all that would have been expressed by that symbol, i. e. that this was a wedding and not a funeral feast, were the true causes of whatever pain was occasioned. To apply the anecdote to the case in hand. The pain and the uneasiness occasioned, by feeling debarred from uniting with other Christians in the bread and wine of the Supper, arise from not fully comprehending its symbolic import; — that it is a token, not merely of Christian, but also of Ghurcli fellowship. And moreover, declining ^^to eat at the same table, or to drink of the same cup,'' if it be not a common meal, but symbolic of any relation between the parties not actually subsisting, ought not to give pain, even though some of the relations indicated may actually exist. Or, if grief should be felt, it is not those who take proper views of the relations which the Lord's Supper in- dicates, who are the occasions of this grief, but those who do not see what is requisite before they can be appropriate. CHAPTER II. EGBERT hall's SECOND ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. The toleration of all errors consistent -^'ith Salvation, considered. 3. No Christians practice thus. 3. The Scriptures forbid this course. 4. Consequences of Kobert Hall's views. 5. EiTors generally de- structive, may not be so in every case. 6. Persons holding almost every species of error might become Church Officers on the Mixed Communion plan. 7. The cases of John Milton and others. 8. This system would permit Eoman Catholio priests to perform their cere- monies in Baptist Churches. — Ariaus. — Polygamists. 9. Rom. 14th and loth, considered. 10. The command to receive, only applies when the individual is complying with the whole revealed wiU of God, in the matter in hand. 1 1 . The case stated in another manner by Robert Hall, considered; 12. Each Church must be allowed to de- clare its own terms of Communion. 13. Why Pedobaptists should not be admitted to Baptist Churches. 14. Effects of Pedobaptism as a system. 1. ^^The practice of open Communion argued from the express injunction of Scripture, respecting the conduct to he maintained hy sincere Christians, who differ in their reli- gious sentiments." "Wb are expressly commanded/' says Robert Hall, at tlie opening of his remarks under the above caption, " to tolerate in the Church, those diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with salvation. We learn from the New Testament, that a diversity of views subsisted in the times of the Apostles, between the Jewish and Gentile converts especially. '^ That it is the duty of Christians to tolerate some diver- A SINGULAR ASSUMPTION. 161 sity of opinion in their churches, none will question. But our author asserts, and intends to assert, in the above quo- tation, that -we are commanded to tolerate in the same Church, all those diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with salvation. Not only do we dissent from this singular assumption, but there is perhaps no denomi- nation of Christians who would practically agree with him. Such a plan of Church membership would lead us to tolerate Roman Catholics and Protestants, members of the Greek Church, and members of all the nominal Christian sects that have produced one good man ; — would lead us to tolerate them all as of equal standing and authority in our own churches with ourselves, whether as lay members or ministers, and however erroneous their sentiments and mischievous their course of action ; unless we were prepared in each case to declare their particular opinions or lives to be ^^ inconsistent with salvation." But of this more here- after. 2. Where is the denomination that does not require of its members many things not necessary to salvation ? The Pedobaptist symbols require infant baptism ; why should we be stigmatized for requiring true baptism ? 3. Robert Hall would probably reply that this may be sufficient as an argumentum ad hominem, when replying to Pedobaptists, but does not meet what he asserts to be the New Testament rule; by which he thinks "we are expressly commanded" to tolerate in the same Church all those diversities of opinion, not inconsistent with salvation. On the contrary, we assert that so far from any such command being producible from Scripture, we are even commanded not to tolerate, nor give place by subjection for an hour, to many errors both of faith and practice in the Churches, which may yet be quite consistent with the 14* 162 COMMUNION. possible salvation of the individual holding them. From " every Sro^/ier that walketh disorderly/' we are commanded to ^^withdraw'^ ourselves. The mode in which this com- mand is worded is exceedingly strong. ^' Now we com- mand yoU; brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walk- eth disorderly :'' 2 Thess. 3:6. "A man that is an heretic/' (ttt^ET'tpcos',) literally, one who creates dissensions or intro- duces errors, ^a factious person^ (see Robinson's Lexicon,) "is to be rejected after the first and second admonition :'' Titus 3: 10. " He that will not work, neither may he eat." Indeed, this principle is taught in many passages, that the extent of the error of the individual, or the extent to which it may be supposed to endanger his salvation, is not alone that by which the Church is to be governed in re- taining or rejecting an individual, but the effect also of his error upon the discipline of the Church, and upon the world, is also to be considered. One tainted sheep may infect a flock. One disorderly soldier tolerated, will break up the discipline of a regiment. Enough this to show the error of Robert Hall's principles, for which alone it is here introduced. 4. That none but those who make a credible profession of personal piety can properly be received into regular Christian Churches is unquestionable. But that each visible Church of Christ is to tolerate in its own members every conceivable diversity in practice from what the Divine law prescribed ; that those who hold and practice thus in regard to any errors, not absolutely inconsistent with their own final salvation, however destructive to thousands, shall be allowed to agitate and proselyte, and vote in the Church with equal authority as the regular and orderly members; must lead to consequences so sub- CONSEQUENCES OF THE PRINCIPLE. 163 versive of all the ends for which Churches are valuable, that we might be quite sure d priori, that such could not have been the New Testament plan of Church membership. Yet such is the toleration for which Robert Hall pleads. That Church membership would be of little worth, which permitted all errors possible to good men to receive its sanction ; and those who held them to vote in their favor, and to teach and propagate them with as much zeal as others uphold truth. And yet, that no doubt may remain as to the meaning intended, our author yet more explicitly states his views thus : " Having paved the way to the conclusion to which we would conduct the reader, we have only to remark, that in order to determine how far these apostolic injunctions oblige us to tolerate the supposed error of our Pedobaptist brethren, we have merely to consider whether it necessarily does exclude them from being of tlie number of those whom Christ has received to the glory of the Father; whether it be possible to hold it with Christian sincerity ) and finally, whether its abettors will stand or fall in the eternal judg- ment.'^* It may here be observed, on this and the preceding ex- tract, that the author applies his remarks equally to full and permanent Church membership, as to occasional par- ticipation at the Lord's Table. All that he advances in favor of the latter, he considers as making equally for the former. There is with him no shrinking from conse- quences. He who is to be admitted to the Lord's Table at all, is to be admitted to all the rights and privileges of full Church membership. His vote is to have just as much influence in calling a Pastor, in deciding what doc- * Works, vol. I, p. 326-7. 164 COMMUNION. trines shall be maintained^ wliat allowed and what insti- tuted. He is to be equally eligible to all the offices of the Churchj and may be elected Deacon, or chosen Pastor. 5. Unquestionably, many errors, of a tendency fatal to the Church, as a body, and utterly subversive of all that is vital in Christianity, may not be pronounced necessarily so to every individual holding them; and they have actually been held by good and pious men. This is particularly the case with many errors of the Church of Rome. But unless we are ready to pronounce that an error " necessarilj/ excludes the person holding it from being of the number of those whom Christ has received to the glory of the Father," or that it is " impossible to hold it with Christian sincerity," or that " its abettors will certainly fall in the eternal judgment," — unless, I say, we are prepared to assume the prerogative of Deity, and determine that the error in question necessarily involves one at least of the above consequences, if not all, we are then ^^ expressly commanded" in Scripture, our author would assert, to tolerate in the Church, of which we are members, these ^diversities of opinion;" that is to say, we are to admit the holders of them to perfect social equality in voting, speaking and preaching. We repeat it, the error in ques- tion may be of the most deadly general tendency, it may be the ruin of thousands of souls ; but unless we are pre- pared to decide that it necessarili/ excludes the individual promulgating it, from the number of those whom Christ has received, we must regard it (the error) as one of those diversities of opinion, which are to be tolerated in the Church, as not inconsistent with salvation. That all these consequences legitimately and necessarily result from our author's views, no one can deny. So far as their applica- tion to Pedobaptism is concerned, he admits them ; and so BESULTS OF KOBEET HALL'S SYSTEM. 165 far, in Great Britain, our Mixed Communion Cliurclies practice fully up to all that lias been stated. Robert Hall himself predicted, that should these views prevail, "the Baptists and Pedobaptists, in Christian societies, would probably ere long be such, that the appellation of Baptist might be found not so properly applicable to Churches as to individuals.' ' — (" Reasons,'^ &c., HalFs Works, vol. II., p. 228-9.) 6. This is, indeed, evident. Pedobaptist Churches, espe- cially Congregational, might be as well expected to adopt Ptobert Hairs plan of Church membership, as our own. If they did, the Pedobaptist pastor, deacons and mem- bers, would be members of Churches of precisely the same class as those of Mixed Communion Baptists. Baptists would have equal rights, equal authority to teach j and whichever party had the majority of members in any par- ticular Church, or in the body of the Churches, at any time, would have a right to consider their sentiments as the prevailing ones of the Church or denomination ; other views would exist only by " toleration,^^ if there was any difference. These results have been actually realized to a certain extent. The preaching of Baptism, or even speaking on the subject in private, has been forbidden. Pedobaptist deacons and pastors have been elected to Baptist Churches ; and, we believe, instances have occurred of infants being sprinkled for the accommodation of the Pedobaptist por- tion of the communicants in the same Church, where believers were immersed to suit the other portion. What- ever may be thought of this, so far as Pedobaptists are concerned, Robert Hall professes himself ready to act upon the same principles in regard to all other errors and error ists ; nay, even that the Scriptures " expressly com- 166 COMMUNION. mand" tlie adoption of this principle in every case. He com]3lains elsewliere that our course is reducible to no general principle. But the general principle on which he bases his Terms of Membership, is pregnant with such con- sequences, that we should be pardonable if we were even to prefer none to such. 7. According to his theory, no one of our Churches could be distinctively Calvinistic, unless we were j^repared to say that Arminianism necessarily excludes men from being of the number Christ has received. John Milton argued in favor of Divorce. None would be prepared to say that this error necessarily excluded him from being received of Christ, or that it was not held with all sin- cerity ; consequently, this must be placed on the list of tolerated errors. He, also, was an Arian. The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, is no longer to be deemed a funda- mental doctrine. Dr. Bushnell is understood to deny the proper vicariousness of the Atonement. Yet, unless we are prepared to pronounce that he is necessarily excluded from being of the number of those whom Christ has received, (which those who have the best means of know- ing his personal character shrink from doing,) the rejection of vicarious Atonement is to be placed on the list of those ^^ differences of opinion'^ that are to be equally tolerated with correct views upon Baptism. It is proper here again distinctly to recall to the atten- tion of the reader, that according to the plan of Church Membership, which we are here told the Scriptures " ex- pressly command,'^ if any error may possibly be held by some individuals without ^^necessarily excluding tliem'* from salvation ; whatever may be its general tendency, the holders of it are none of them on that account to be refused full social equality in the Church, unless we are TENDENCY OF ROBERT HALL'S SYSTEM. 167 prepared to pronounce them individually, not true Chris- tians. They are to have as much liberty to consider and declare that their error is sanctioned by the voice of the Church, as we have concerning the opposing truth. It is to be preached against no more than Baptism, and the Minister holding it is to be allowed the same liberty we claim in our own Church. So far as Pedobaptism is concerned, Mr. Hall actually adopted these sentiments. Augustine, one of the most pious of all the Christian Fathers, (as his ^^Confessions" will show,) held to praying for the dead, and baptismal regeneration ; Fenelon was a Roman Ca- tholic ; Neander and Arnold hardly believe in infallible inspiration ; John Foster shrunk from the doctrine of endless punishment. And must we, then, be driven to the dilemma of either declaring such men as these ^^necessarily excluded," by the errors we have named, from salvation; or else of being " expressly commanded" by Scripture to receive them as members and ministers of our own Churches, not repelling them in any numbers on this account, if we do not see some special reason to feel assured of their not being in a gracious state ? We must thus, in fact, permit the Roman Catholic on the one hand, and the deniers of inspiration on the other, to mix so freely and equally in our Churches, that we shall not be known as favoring any views in preference to these, until the name of Baptist ^' might be found not so properly applicable to Churches as to individuals;" and ministers of every shade of opinion, from Roman Catho- licism to Arianism, claim a perfect equality of sanction with our own, as a thing expressly commanded in Scrip- ture from every one of our Churches. Thus must we surrender the ancient and apostolic motto, on which our Churches are at present based; and instead of " one Lord, 168 COMMUNION. one faitli^ and one baptism/^ inscribe '^ many Lords, many opinions, and many baptisms/^ Our Mixed Communion brethren do not shrink from all these consequences, so far as Pedobaptism is concerned ; and they declare that the same general principle will apply to all other cases. 8. But even this is not the whole. We are, according to the Mixed Communion theory, to tolerate not only speculative differences of opinion, but actual differences of practice, until we reach that point at which we are pre- pared to decide that they necessarily exclude those who practice them from the favor of Grod. Thus we are not only to tolerate a speculative belief in Infant Baptism, but to allow the Pedobaptist to practice what lie helieves. This is, we admit, necessary to consistency. But observe to what it must lead. We are to tolerate John Milton's ^^ difference of opinion'^ about divorce, because we are not prepared to say that it necessarily excluded him from a state of grace. It is not to be preached against in the Church, so as to give offence or hurt the conscience of any weak brother holding such views. But suppose he had practised what he believed, must we tolerate divorce at option ? We must permit pious Boman Catholics to pray to the Virgin Mary, to adore the Host, and kneel in con- fession to a priest, and at the same time be full undisci- plined members, perhaps ministers of our Churches ! It is a difference of opinion not " necessarily excluding'' from salvation. It is not many years since a Minister of the Gospel, by all esteemed most pious, wrote a work to prove that every seducer should be compelled to marry his victim, even were he a married man; thus advocating compulsory poly- gamy, in certain cases. Suppose that opinion to be con- scientiously acted upon by some penitent adulterer, must PASSAGES URGED BY MR. HALL. 169 we tolerate practices in the Church, that the good of society requires to be punished by the law of the land ? 9. Enough has been said to show that no such plan of Church Membership could be "expressly commanded/' or ought to be supposed to be, from any process of infer- ential argument, from isolated passages. The passages, however, quoted by Robert Hall, in sup- port of these views, are Rom. 14: 1 — 5. "Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputa- tions,'' &c. ; and Rom. 15 : 1, 6, 7. " We, then, that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves," &c. On these Robert Hall argues thus : " A moment's attention to the connection will con- vince the reader that the term weak in both these passages denotes persons whose conceptions are erroneous. . . . It behooves us to examine the principle on which the Apostle enjoins toleration, and if this is applicable in its full extent to the case of our Pedobaptist brethren, no room is left for doubt. The 'principle plainly is, that the error in question was not of such magnitude, as to pre- clude him who maintained it from the favor of God. ^ Let not him who eateth, despise him who eateth not ; and let not him who eateth not, judge him who eateth ; for God hath received him.^ If such is the rea- son assigned for mutual toleration, and it is acknowledged to be a sufficient one, which none can deny without im- peaching the inspiration of the writer, it is as conclusive respecting the obligation of tolerating every error which is consistent loith a state of salvation, as if that error had been mentioned by name Hence, we have only one alternative, either to deny that those who difi"er from us on the subject of Baptism are accepted of Grod, or to receive them into fellowship on exactly the same ground^ 15 170 COMMUNION. and on the same principle that Paul enjoined the tolera- tion of sincere Christians/'* 10. It is sufficient to remark on these passages, that they only prove what all admit, that some differences of opinion and practice, are to be tolerated in the Church, when we have reason to believe the weak brother, a per- son accepted of God. What the nature of the difference is, in regard to which the command to receive the brother applies, we are particularly informed ; i. e., as to matters in regard to wMcJi, there is no inspired direction^ one way more than another. In such cases, the individual was com- plying with the whole will of Gody as revealed by inspira- tion, whichever way he might act. The Apostle, it will be observed, then places the recep- tion of these weak brethren, distinctly on these two grounds. 1st. That whichever way they might act, they violated no command of inspiration, but were complying with the whole revealed will of God, in regard to the mat- ter in dispute. This is most expressly stated in the 14th verse : ^' I know, and am persuaded of the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself ;'' but it is also im- plied, and taken for granted, in the 2d, 5th, and 6th verses ; " one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak, eateth herbs,'' (but both equally fulfill every Divine command on this subject). 2d. This being the case, and, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ having received them, not only in these respects, but also gene- rally as the children of grace, it was fitting that they should be tolerated by the Church at Rome. ^^ Wherefore'^ (on account of the principles of toleration in the Church of the different customs of those persons, not violating * Works, vol. 1, p. 325-6. INCONSEQUENTIAL REASONING. 171 any inspired command,) ^^ receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of Grod/^ But to argue from the command in relation to those, ho, as to the matters in question, had fulfilled the whole revealed will of Grod, to tolerate their harmless whims, because " Grod has received them,'' that, therefore, we are bound to tolerate all opinions of persons living in acknow- ledged errors, and without having fulfilled the whole re- vealed will of God, in regard to the matters in question, but whom Grod has received as Christians ; that we are bound to receive them, not as Christians only, which we do, but in other respects also, will perhaps remind the admirers of Coleridge of what he aptly terms " the ever- widening spiral ergo^ from the narrow aperture of a single text," '^ the inverted pyramid, of which the apex is the base." (Aids to Reflection, on Baptism.) 11. And yet, with a fii-m conviction of its being unan- swerable, our author triumphantly recurs to it again and again, in language like this. " From these premises, we argue thus. Since St. Paul assigned as a reason for the mutual forbearance of Christians, that they were equally accepted of Christ, it was, undoubtedly, a sufficient one, and admitting it to be such, it must extend to all who are in the same predicament, (who are in the same state of acceptance)."* We desire to make but two remarks on the above. 1st. Instead of saying, ^^ since St. Paul assigned as a rea- son for the mutual forbearance of Christians," he should have said, ^^ of those Christians who, in regard to the mat- ters in question, have complied with all the requirements of insj^irationJ^ 2d. That correction being made, we may * Eeply to Kinghorn, part 3, cli. 7. Works, p. 457. 172 COMMUNION. grant that Ms conclusion in regard to mutual forbearance will apply to all who are ^^in the same predicament,^' that is, not merely all who are ^^ in a state of acceptance/' but ^' the same state of acceptance," i. e., those in whom the two conditions meet, of complying with all the Divine commands in regard to Church Membership, and being received of Grod. Can it be claimed for Pedobaptists, however, (to say nothing at all of those who are permitted to hold errors of any and every description, except such as ^^ necessarily exclude from salvation,'^) can it be claimed for them we ask, under these passages, that we are expressly commanded to receive them, not as Christians only, but to all the rights and privileges of our own par- ticular Churches ? Suppose, in order to put a case as exactly fitted to bring out the force of the text quoted by Robert Hall as pos- sible, and at the same time, as closely to illustrate the question on hand, as we know how, — suppose that two con- ditions are necessary to visible Church Membership, in any denomination, one is, that the individual be profess- edly in acceptance with God ; and the other, that he com- ply with the requirements of the Inspired Volume, in regard to the ordinance of Baptism : might not a Pastor, speaking of such as had complied with these latter require- ments, say, ^' Wherefore, since these brethren have com- plied with the command, receive them, for Christ has received them V and would it be fair to infer from such an address, that the Pastor had taught that persons who had acted contrary to the Divine requirements, in regard to Baptism, were to be received into visible Church Mem- bership, if only Christians ? 12. And here we might rest, contented with having destroyed the plan of Church Membership advocated by CHURCH DISCRETION. 173 Robert Hall. But for ourselves, we have no hesitation in saying, that we think these passages about tolerating Jewish scruples, held modestly and without disputation, when put in connection with those which speak of with- drawing from the disorderly, and rejecting the factious, show that a discretionary power is, to a certain extent, left with each particular Church, in different states of the world, and in different ages ; to declare not only what is a credible profession of piety, and what are the divinely appointed requisites of visible Church Membership, but (so that they do not dispense with what is thus made re- quisite,) also to determine for itself, to a certain extent, how high a standard of Church Membership it is best^br the promotion of Divine truth in the world that they should adopt. A Church is a voluntary association. Each Church has a right to propound a summary of its views, and every candidate for admission can state that he receives or re- jects it. This is the origin of all Confessions of Faith, and so far they need not be objected to. The whole his- tory of revealed religion in the world, shows that many things, rightly tolerated in one age and situation of the Church and of the world, would be injurious if tolerated in another. In bodies like the Churches of Christ, formed not only for the good of the individual, but of the whole, and not only for the edification of the Church itself, but to carry on the aggressive warfare of Christian holiness upon the world, they must often require of the individual, a very much stricter compliance with the rules of disci- pline, than might be essential to his individual salvation ; or the whole array of Christian discipline would soon be overturned. 13. If now it should be asked, whether, upon these prin- ciples, our churches might not well use their discretionary 15* 174 COMMUNION. power, in favor of admitting to their membership unbap- tized persons, we reply, No. And for these reasons, because it would be contrary to acknowledged Apostolic usage, and contrary to the sentiments of all Christians, in all places and at all times ; because practically it must destroy all liberty of speech and action upon the subject of Baptism, for fear of giving oifence ; stifling all that inquiry and discussion, through which truth, though at first in the minority, soon gains adherents ; because, with the present vast numerical majority of Pedobaptists, it must mix up and destroy Baptist Churches as such, and so obliterate Baptist senti- ments 'j because the plan we adopt allows more liberty and freedom of discussion; because it is adopted by all deno- minations in this country, and by all churches in relation to other difierences of opinion, as in regard to Arminian- ism, Calvinism, and even the sale and use of ardent spirits ; and because the plan of Church Membership, pro- posed by Robert Hall in the place of our own, cannot be carried out to its legitimate results, without the most per- nicious annihilation of all the distinctive features of Chris- tian truth. 14. Besides all this ; while far be it from us to suppose a belief in Infant Baptism necessarily incompatible with the most sincere and exalted piety, yet as the peculiar harmlessness of Pedobaptism is the great plea, urged in favour of Mixed Communion ; it is proper to observe, that Infant Baptism, as a system, has been fraught with the most destructive effects to Christian piety, and a regene- rate Church Membership, for the last fifteen hundred years, of any system equally prevalent. To perceive this fully, we must look at it, not where, from its close contact with Baptist systems, it has lost most of its distinctive features; but we must observe it, where it is followed to its legiti- EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 175 mate results. We must behold it in Papal countries^ for example, and see how it has at once swept the world into the Church, obliterating entirely the distinction between the converted and the unrenewed. Has it not led to the belief, in the Roman Catholic, the G-reek, and in many Protestant Churches, that the application of a little water to an unconscious babe, can make it ^^a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven ? " Has it not, by a natural consequence, in regard to those dying in infancy, led to the belief, wide-spread, but most intolerable, (and as Coleridge declares, one that alone came near making him reject Infant Baptism alto- gether,) i. e., that " the want of it may occasion their eternal loss?^' Has it not, so far as acted upon, destroyed the possibility of keeping up Church discipline, and by mix- ing up the worldly with the pious in the Church, brought all the evils of an unconverted Ministry upon whole nations ; so that when Wesley arose, he could find but about three, whom he thought converted Ministers, even in the Established Church of England ? From this source sprang in New England that superficial morality, in place of evangelical repentance and obedience, which not unnat- urally resulted in wide-spread Unitarianism.* So too, on the other hand. Infant ' Baptism has formed the chief hiding place and proof of that doctrine of Tradition, which is now exerting such a fearful influence in the * The Author has alluded to the condition of the EstabUshed Church of England, in the time of Wesley. The Church of Scotland was but little better when first visited by Whitefield. It is also worthy of special remark, that Geneva, the birthplace of modem Presbyterianism, and Boston, the cradle of modern Congrega- tionalism, have both been saved from utterly sinking into the vortex of Socinianism, by the blessing of God on the labors of zealous Baptists. See Appendix L. j. n. b. 176 COMMUNION. Episcopal and Koman Catholic Cliurclies. It is impos- sible here to trace out half the pernicious effects^ both in doctrine and in practice, which have resulted from Pedo- baptism, as a si/stem. Doubtless, all of them have not been felt in any one case. And many of the most evan- gelical spirits have been reared in Pedobaptist Churches. We cannot forget that an Edwards, and a Pay son, not to mention a long catalogue of others, held to Infant Bap- tism ; but a distinguished Pedobaptist, Dr. Bushnell, in his Defence of Infant Baptism, has shown that these men were all " Baptists in Theory," in proportion as they held to the very sentiments for which we revere them ; indeed, to that they owed it, and the Churches to which they belonged, that in them Infant Baptism has produced so little of the very consequences we deplore. CHAPTER III. ROBERT hall's THIRD ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. Two senses of the word Church. 2. Assertion of the Author that they differ only as a part from the whole, considered. 3. The true distinction destroys his argument. 4. ' Those who commune with God fit to commune with us,' considered. 5. ' Presumptuously to aspire to greater purity than Christ,' considered. 6. The same rea- soning applied to the Passover. 1. The title of tliis argument is^ ^^ Pedobaptists a part of the true Church ; their exclusion on that account un- lawful.'' Under this head, our author commences by remarking, that (' If we examine the New Testament, we shall find, that the term Church, as a religious appellation, occurs in two senses only : it either denotes the whole body of the faithful, (as where Christ is declared to be Head over all things to the Church, which is his body), or some one assembly of Christians, associated for the worship of God,^' (as the Church at Corinth, at Ephesus, or at Rome). "It is never used as in modern times, to denote the aggregate of Christian assemblies throughout a province or a king- dom, nor do we ever read of the Church of Achaia, Galatia, &c., but of the ChurcJies." 2. So far (as we observed, p. 36,) we fully agree with our Author, as to the technical uses of the word Church in the New Testament. There are but these two distinct senses, in which it is employed as a religious appellation 178 COMMUNION. The point at which we differ from Robert Hall; as shown more fully (Parti., ch. 4.) than it will be necessary here to repeat, is, where the Author takes for granted, that " it is manifest from Scripture, that these two significations of the word differ from each other, only as a part from the whole." If he means to assert, that this is manifest, be- cause the same term (sxx'krjcila) is used in both cases, it would be equally proper, to argue for this reason also, that the tumultuous assembly of the worshipers of Diana, at Ephe- sus, in regard to whom the same original term (sxx^ada) is also used, (Acts 19. 32), differed from the Universal Church, the whole body of Christ, " only as a part differs from the whole." So far from it being a manifest truth, therefore, that it is only a difference of numbers, that con- stitute the distinction between a particular Visible Church and the Universal Church, which is invisible ; there are at least two obvious points of distinction as to qualification, necessarily arising from the fact, that the one is a visible, and the other an invisible body; i. e. 1. That he who possesses true piety without any profession, becomes at once a member of the invisible Church, while he only who makes some credible- and appropriate profession, (without here determining what it is) is eligible to visible Church fellowship. 2. That a credible profession of faitli in (Jfirist, in some particular way or ways, is all that can be required for admission to the one, while no conceivable profession without the reality admits to the other. After the remarks made on the subject in Part I., it is unneces- sary longer to dwell here, on a distinction so evident. 3. It remains but to be observed, that it is only from overlooking this distinction, that the argument which we are now considering, can be supposed to have the least weight. Let it be granted that Pedobaptists are a part THE TRUE DISTINCTION OVERLOOKED. 179 of the true Cliurcli, Our Author must mean by this, that they are a part of the true invisible or Universal Church, which is the body of Christ. And what follows from this ? That, ^^ their exclusion on that account is unlaw- ful.'^ Their exclusion from what? From the invisible Church ? No. None but ^^ He who has the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth,^^ can admit into, or exclude from that great spiritual body. Their exclusion from what, then ? From the symbols of membership in the invisible Church ? No ; for we have before seen, that the Lord's Supper is the symbol of something quite distinct from invisible fellow- ship or communion, i. e. visible fellowship in particular Church relations. Besides ; in what sense do we exclude them from the Eucharist? In no other sense than as every Jew might be said to exclude every other Jew from the Passover, whom he did not invite to participate in it, with his own family. But passing this by, for the moment, we ask, where is the force of the argument ? Pedobaptists, it is urged, are a part of the true invisihle Church of Christ. Let it be granted ) and what would follow ? Therefore, we are bound to invite them, as such, to participate with us in all the symbols of visible Church relationship, while they are not members of our visible Churches ! We grant most fully that many Pedobaptists are mem- bers of the Spiritual Church Universal. We do not ex- clude them from that. We extend to them all the tokens and symbols of Spiritual Communion. We unite with them in prayer, the great symbol of antiquity ; and (as was shown. Part II., ch. 3,) in all religious services, that do not imply visible Church relations. Then their Con- 180 COMMUNION. fessions of Faitli forbid them to have fellowship with us, (see Part II., ch. 8,) as ours with them. 4. Whoever bears in mind this distinction, will experi- ence no difficulty from the following passage, in which our author, with his characteristic urgency, argues in this chapter. After stating that there are certain propositions which produce, on the unprejudiced, instantaneous convic- tion, he gives the following as one of these obvious truths. Those whom the Divine Founder of the Church " actuates by his Spirit, and admits to Communion with himself, are sufficiently qualified for Communion with mortals. What can be alleged,'' asks our author, "in opposition to a truth so indubitable and so obvious V It is not necessary for us to determine, as we have no disposition to dispute the truth of the proposition. Nor could Mr. Hall have been led into the mistake of supposing that we did dis- pute it, unless he had not only lost sight of the difference between fellowship in the invisible and in a visible Church, but also confounded the literal and the symholic uses of the term Communion. We do admit to our Com- munion, that is to our spiritual fellowship, fully and heartily, those whom we have reason to believe the Great Head of the Church admits to his ; and what is more, we liold with tliem the same hind of Communion which loe sifj^pose him to do. With those He admits to a purely spiritual Fellowship with Himself, we have and symbol- ize a purely spiritual Communion. With those whom we consider to observe correctly his will in the ceremonial or the visible part of Church relations and worship, we sym- bolize our fellowship by a ceremonial or visible union in the Lord's Supper. 5. In regard to what is urged in the same connection, NOT PRESUMPTION. 181 " that it is presumptuous to aspire to a greater purity or strictness, in selecting the materials for a Church, than are observed by its Divine Founder," we need only re- mark, that Visible Churches are equally founded by him with the Invisible Church, and their respective terms of membership. That these terms in the former case should embrace what we know is not always embraced in the lat- ter, a public profession of his name, is so obviously neces- sary to the idea of visihility, that the absurdity would be in supposing the terms of admission to the two identical in these respects. Nor does it follow that, according to our plan, " greater purity and strictness" are made requisite for the member- ship of Visible Churches, than of the Universal Church. The fact is exactly the reverse ; for, while a credible profession is all that is required in the one case, a right state of heart is alone accepted in the latter. It is only that the terms are necessarily distinct, as the object of the two organiz- ations is different. Does it follow, because none but those who are citizens by birth or naturalization are permitted to vote for the President of the United States, that we suppose every one excluded by that provision of the Con- stitution, every person not naturalized, all those who in Europe are permitted to vote for their respective govern- ments, are not equally good citizens of the world, and have not equal knowledge of the principles of political sci- ence, with each and any one who is permitted, by that clause, to vote in this country ? Could it be justly said, ^* we presumptuously aspired to a greater purity and strict- ness in selecting the materials " of a republic, than was necessary for the rest of the world, and that, by passing naturalization laws, we had indicated that opinion ? 6. But the most obvious method of exhibiting the fal- 16 182 COMMUNION. lacy of this species of reasoning, is to show, in such a case as the following, the false consequences to which it would lead. It is admitted by all, that under the Jewish dis- pensation, such was the connection instituted between cir- cumcision and the Passover, that none could, without violating the Divine command, partake of the latter sym- bol of belonging to the Jewish Church, without being first circumcised. But, is it necessary to contend that circum- cision was always essential to salvation; or that there were no individuals in the world, accepted of God, and in Communion with Him, by means of " that faith which Abraham had, being yet uncircumcised,'^ (Rom. 4 : 12.) who had not submitted to this ceremony; and, conse- quently, could not partake with the Jew of that Paschal Lamb, which was the great antitype of the all-atoning Lamb of God? Unless Mr. Hall would be prepared to deny this, his remarks would accuse the divinely inspired lawgiver of the Mosaic dispensation, of '^ presumptuously aspiring to a greater purity and strictness, in selecting the materials'^ of the Jewish Church, ^^than had been observed by its Divine Founder in adjusting those of His own.'' Surely, this is a sufficient refutation of such an argument. CHAPTER lY. ROBERT hall's FOURTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. 'The exclusion of Pedobaptists a punishment,' consirJered. 2. The Lord's Supper a family feast. 3. The Evangelical Alliance excom- municate, on Robert Hall's principle 4. The charge of excommuni- cating considered. 5. Mr Hall would excommunicate all Churches whose invitation to Communion he declined. 6. ' That our views make the approach of Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper criminal,' considered. 7. The difficulty of Mr. Hall's system on this point considered. 1. ^^Tlie exclusion of Pedohaptists from the LorcVs TabUj considered as a punishment.^' Such is the title of this argument in favor of Mixed Communion, and it is supported by the following opening assertion. ^' The refusal of the Eucha^rist to a professor of Christianity, can be justified only on thiB ground of his supposed criminality, of his embracing heretical senti- ments, or living a vicious life." If by refusing the Eu- charist to a professor of Christianity, is meant simply our not inviting him to partake with us in that ordinance, (which is all that we do,) we might reply, by simply asking how much truth there would be in the assertion, if it had been applied to the Passover instead ? Or would our Au- thor have ventured to say, that, for a Jew not to invite any other member of the Jewish nation to celebrate the Passover with him, could be justified only on the ground of the supposed criminality of the party, that he must be 184 COMMUNION. esteemed such a heretic, or a man of so vicious a life, as to have forfeited all title to be considered a member of the Israelitish nation, or entitled to any of its privileges ? If a Jew had been thus charged, might he not appropri- ately reply, that his not inviting his fellow-Israelite, did not in the least exclude him from the Passover, or pro- nounce him to be no child of Abraham ; that it was not necessarily any punishment, and not so intended, but that as strictly only members of the same family, or, at most, neighbors, by special invitation and agreement, were com- manded to celebrate that institution together, so not to extend the invitation, indicated simply that he was not regarded as one of the parties included in the terms of that regulation ? 2. We regard the Lord's Supper in the light of 2. family feast, i. e., a Church ordinance, to be celebrated together by members of the same Visible Church, or at most, in company with persons whom they could consistently receive as such by special invitation. There is no more idea of punishmenty in not inviting others or partaking with them in the case of the Lord's Supper, than of the Passover. 3. It is well known, that of late years a society has been formed of various denominations, both in England and America, termed the Evangelical Alliance, formed of the TQembers of various denominations. We believe, it has never yet at any of its meetings celebrated the Lord's Supper. This has probably arisen, more than anything else, from the feeling, that it would seem to unite them more in Church relations than all parties could agree to, however willing to unite with each other as Christians. But we see not why an advocate for Mixed Communion, would not be bound in all consistency, to rise in such NOT A PUNISHMENT. 185 bodies and proclaim, that unless they were prepared to assert, that some at least of the parties uniting held to errors of such a nature, as would "necessarily exclude them from being of the number that Christ has received to the glory of the Father/^ it would be contrary to " the express command of Scripture/' for the Alliance to omit to celebrate the Eucharist together ; that " such a refusal could only be justified on the ground of the sup- posed criminality of a portion, at least, of the Alliance, that is of their embracing heretical sentiments, or living a vicious life." That the exclusion of the Lord's Supper from such a body of men could be " considered in no other light than as a punishment/' as an " excommunication," and therefore as a declaration, that those with whom they had refused to commune had " forfeited their right to spi- ritual privileges, and were henceforth consigned to the kingdom of Satan."* 4. No more erroneous statement can be made as to our course in regard to the Lord's Supper, than that which declares, that "it is unquestionably of the nature of a punishment'' inflicted upon all others, unless it be that contained in the next paragraph, where it is supposed to be identical with " Excommunication." On the faith of this, we are charged, in regard to Pedobaptists, with " pro- ceeding with a high hand and attempting to terminate the dispute by authority," after which we are earnestly re- minded, that "the solemn decision of a Christian assem- bly, that an individual has forfeited his right to spiritual privileges, and is henceforth consigned to the kingdom of Satan, is an awful proceeding, inferior only in terror to the sentence of the last day." * Works, vol. 1, p. 341. 16* 186 COMMUNION. Tliis is all very true, but where is its application to tlie case in hand ? It should he remarked, that although less in degree, yet of the same nature with the error of un- warrantably excommunicating, is that of unjustly implying such a charge as this upon a fellow Christian. How can it be pretended that we excommunicate ? This would in the mildest terms be, to separate from Church relations those who had once sustained them. But the individuals in question are those with whom we never have sustained Church relations, who have not sought them, who would not be willing to comply with our terms of membership, and who have agreed upon terms of their own, with which they know we cannot comply. As we hold to the strict independence of all Churches, this does not imply any- thing like excommunication, or even unchurching, on the one part or the other. If it did, however, it would equally imply it on the part of Pedobaptist Churches, as of our own. Yea, on the part of Mixed Communion Churches also ; since they profess that their terms of Church Mem- bership are so "expressly commanded,'^ that they will not dispense with them, they are as much the means of excluding lis, as our requiring Baptism is of excluding Pedobaptists. But in truth, no Church can excommunicate another Church, nor indeed any members of another Church, nor any person, not of its own body.* Nor is it the duty of * This, we are surprised to observe, Kobert Hall, in his reply to Mr. Kinghorn, attemps to deny ; perseveringly charging us with excommu- nicating, and stating that he " will not descend to a tedious logomachy, further than to remark that" 'Mv. K. "has fallen into an error" in saying " how excommunication can take place in [regard to] one who never was in a Society, we have yet to learn." Suffice it to say that the definition of excommunicate., in such dictionaries as Richardson, Johnson, Walker, and Webster, contains the words to " f/ec^," to " eay^e^ ;" j^et ■who would think it possible to ex2)el a young man from College who had never entered? (See Keply to Kinghorn, ch. 9, p. 475.) RASH JUDGMENTS AVOIDED. 187 a Church, presumptuously to sit in judgment upon all others, and pronounce whether they are or are not true Christian Churches. 5. What is essential to a visible Christian Church, and, when a Church so far apostatizes as to forfeit all claims to the title, — are questions, in their application to such bodies as the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, and many others, known only to Him who searches the hearts ; but upon which no earthly tribunal is competent to sit in judgment, and from which we are entirely saved the un- pleasant necessity of making a decision only by our posi- tion. It must certainly be as great a violation of Chris- tian Charity to refuse to commune with other Christian Churches upon their invitation, as not to invite their members to commune with us. Hence it has always been the custom of Mixed Communion Baptists, to participate in the Eucharist freely in Congregational Churches. If then these same persons refuse to participate with Epis- copalians or Roman Catholics, it must be because they do not esteem them true Christian Churches ; and we see not why they must not in every case decide that the Church inviting them to its communion holds errors of such a nature, as " necessarily exclude them from being of the number of those whom Christ has received,'^ or else we are "expressly commanded,^^ for aught we see, on Mr. Hall's principles, to accept their invitation. The Presby- terians, we believe, have undertaken to decide for them- selves that the Roman Catholic was a true Church, all through the dark ages, and up to the time of the Reforma- tion, but that, since then, the candlestick has been removed out of its place. Unless we believe that our Churches are not only entitled, but bound, thus to assume the pre- rogative of Deity, and sit in judgment upon each body 188 COMMUNION. calling itself a Churcli of Christ, (with the danger on the one hand of ^ eating and drinking with the drunken/ or upon the other of ^smiting our fellow-servants') — unless we are prepared for all this, Robert Hall's plan is utterly impracticable, and ours the only consistent one. It is true, our Author seems to suppose that there is a distinc- tion between communing in other Churches, and inviting the members of other Churches to commune with us. Speaking of the Church of England, he says, " our dis- sent from the Establishment is founded on the necessity of departing from a communion, to which certain corrup- tions, in our apprehension, do inseparably adhere ; while we welcome the pious part of that community to the cele- bration of the Eucharist, which we deem unexceiDtionable ; we recede from their communion from necessity, but we feel no scruple in admitting them to ours. . . . On him who has not discernment to perceive, or candor to acknowledge the difference between these methods of pro- ceeding, all further reasoning would be wasted." Notwithstanding some danger of being thought to pos- sess so little discernment or candor, that argument would be wasted on us, we confess that we do not see all the dis- tinction that Robert Hall would like to establish ; espe- cially, since he aims throughout to maintain the same terms of permanent and full Church fellowship that he does for occasional participation at the Lord's Table. The plan he proposes, must, as he admits, if carried out, do away the denominational character, of every Church, so that all would be Christian, none denominational. To refuse therefore to commune with any Church, could only be justified by not considering it a Christian Church. To this there could be but two exceptions, 1st, when such was the mode of celebrating this institution, that some ANOTHER CONSIDERATION. 189 erroneous practice was required of tlie communicant in order to celebrate, and 2nd, where by partaking with a Church a general agreement with their errors would be symbolized by so doing. This last would however imply almost the views we are advocating, i. e., that the Lord's Supper indicates such relations between those uniting in it, that the errors of the majority are considered as there- fore acquiesced in by the rest. This indeed might lead to a more restricted than even a Church fellowship in the Lord's Supper. 6. There is another consideration, which our Author deems so important that, but for multiplying divisions, he would have treated it as a separate argument. '^Are the advocates of Infant Baptism," he asks, ^^ criminal in ap- proaching the Lord's Table?" ^^Upon the principles of our opponents, their approach is not only sinful, but sinful to such a degree, as to communicate a moral taint, to what in other circumstances would be deemed an act of obedi- ence." Against this he argues as follows : ^' Whatever blame we may be disposed to attribute to the abettors of infant baptism, on the score of previous inattention or prejudice, as there is nothing in their principles to cause them to hesitate respecting the obligation of the Eucharist, it is unquestionahly their immediate duty to celebrate it; they would he guilty of a deliberate and wilful offence, were they to neglect it If my reader be disposed to gra- tify his curiosity by making a collection of all the un- candid strictures which have been passed upon the advocates of Pedobaptism, it is more than probable the charge of profaning the Lord's Supper would not be found among the number." He admits that Baptists are not heard " to breathe a murmur against" Pedobaptists on 190 COMMUNION. this account^ but maintaius that in all consistency they ought. According to the principles we have laid down, there is no reason why we should " breathe a murmur'^ against others, because they take the Lord's Supper in their own Churches. We do not unchurch them. It is not our duty to decide for others, how many errors a religious assembly may hold, and yet be a true Church. All we say is, that such are their views and practices, that we cannot pronounce them prepared to unite in Church rela- tions with us ; that we only unite in Church relations with those who are baptized ; that these, not being baptized in our view, we cannot unite with them. If we err in mak- ing baptism a prerequisite to membership in our Churches, we err in company with Christians of all ages. The not inviting them to our Communion, does not pronounce that those religious societies, not founded upon our views of Baptism, are not Christian Churches, any more than an Israelite pronounced all other families beside his own, in partaking the Passover, not true Jews. 7. On the other hand, it is the infelicity of the Mixed Communion scheme, that every individual embracing it must be prepared at once, and on every occasion, to pro- nounce against each Church professedly Christian, or else to express before all the world, the Church fellowship manifested by uniting with them in this ordinance. With regard to individuals, the case is worse. Either we must be prepared to exclude any person whatever, desirous of joining with us in the Lord's Supper, and pronounce that he has " forfeited his right to spiritual privileges, and is henceforth consigned to the kingdom of Satan,'' or else, on his claiming to be a Christian, we must be prepared to A DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCE. 191 express, not only our confidence in his piety, but our readiness to unite in full Church relations with him, by celebrating this ordinance. Yet who would be prepared to do this, in regard to all Pedobaptist Churches or indi- viduals, unless he had a greater faith in infant baptism than even the Roman Catholic professes. CHAPTER Y. ROBERT hall's FIFTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. 'The impossibility of reducing Strict Communion to any general principles,' considered. 2. The Lord's Table to be governed by the same rules as our Church Membership. 3. Baptism a prerequisite to Church Membership, a rule semper^ nbique, et ab omnibus. 4. Every visible Church must have some visible profession of Christianity. 5. Visible Churches aggi*essive in their nature. 6. The * general principle ' of Mixed Communion, considered. 7. The distinction between tolerating imperfection and endorsing it. 8. The distinction taetween errors fundamental and not fundamental, considered. 9. Baptism formerly deemed necessary to salvation, admitted by Mr. Hall. 10. A further difterence as to Mr. Hall's ' general principle.' 11. Some visible profession must be necessary to Church Menber- , ship. 1. "On the impossibility of reducing tlie Practice of Strict Comrnunion to any general ^rincijiile.^^ On this subject, Mr. Hall urges the following : "We both admit that some indulgence of the mistakes or imperfections of the truly pious is due, from a regard to the dictates of inspiration and the nature of man. The only subject of controversy is, how far that forbearance is to be extended : we assert, to every diversity of judgment not incompatible with salvation ; they [the strict communionists] contend that a difference of opinion on baptism is an excepted case.^ .... If it be found impossible to fix a medium between the toleration of all opinions in religion, and the restriction * Works, vol. 1, p. 345. THE CONSISTENT GENERAL PRINCIPLE. 193 of it to errors not fundamental, the practice of exclusive Communion must be abandoned, because it is neither more nor less than an attempt to establish such a medium. By errors not fundamental, I mean such as are admitted to consist with a state of grace and salvation. (Vol. I., p. 344-5.) In considering this section, we will first of all show that our practice in regard to the Lord's Supper is reducible to a principle at least consistent with itself ; and then venture to inquire how far the same can be said of that advocated by the Author of the Terms of Communion. 2. Whoever has attended to the former portions of this Essay, will, we think, be at no loss to discover, that we have all along attempted to reduce the rule, by which we make Baptism a prerequisite to uniting with our Churches in the Lord's Supper, to a general principle, simple and obvious to the last degree, (one not so ambiguous as the diflference between errors fundamental and not fundamen- tal ;) ^. e., that our uniting with Christians at the Lord's Table, or as it is commonly called, our " Occasional Com- munion,' ' shoidd he governed hy the same rules as our Church membership. Upon this we uniformly act. Those whom we invite to partake with us, we would be willing to see all of them, just as they are, members of our Churches. We arrogate not the superiority over those whom we invite, of refusing to accept the invitation of their Churches in return, but arfe happy to reciprocate upon perfect social equality in the ordinance. We draw no subtle distinction that enables us to " recede from their Communion'^ while pressing ^Hhem to oursJ' (Works, Vol. L, p. 479-80.) As we have already sufficiently reasoned in regard to this principle, and as it is so clearly based on the simple 17 194 COMMUNION. fact that this ordinance is a divinely appointed symbol of Church Communion as before explained, it is enough here that we have shown that our course in regard to it is based upon a consistent general principle. 3. But if it is intended that the practice in our Churches of making Baptism prerequisite to their membership, is based on no general principle, then we have to remark, first, that if so, we are at least in company with all Chris- tian Churches of all ages, (save only our modern Mixed Communion brethren,) who have ever adopted the same rule : so that we should at least have the principle of sem- 2'>er, iihique, et ah o^nnihus, to fall back upon ; one, if not infallible, of no little conservative value, when novel spe- culations are in question. 4. But this rule is based on the general and obvious principle, that every visible Christian Church mvstj in the very nature of things, have some visible profession of Chris- tianity, among the prerequisites to its membership. Ours is, as Robert Hall acknowledges, the Scriptural profession prior to membership. Any other, therefore, in its place, must be admitted as an exception, not as the rule. 6. And further, as our visible Churches are organized by their Divine Founder, with special reference, not only to their own edification, but to the carrying out of an aggressive spiritual warfare upon the world, many of their requirements of membership must be supposed to be de- signed for that object. Hence some things, not necessary for personal salvation, are properly made terms of the membership of a particular visible Church. And as Churches are independent bodies, each of them is " en- titled to declare for itself the terms of admission to its Communion -," and this both as to those things it deems essential to salvation, and those it regards as requisite to ROBERT hall's PRINCIPLE. 195 its accomplishing all the ends of its existence as a visible Church, whether on account of its peculiar situation, and duties to the world, or the universal commands of the Word of God. Enough this in reply to the alleged " impossibility of reducing the practice of strict communion to any general principle/' Enough to show that every part of our course, in this respect, is reducible to principles so general, ob- vious, and fundamental, that it would be impossible to overturn them without uprooting everything like a visible Church on earth. Even could it be shown, therefore, that we erred, it would only be in the particular application of sound general principles ; while, from the very independ- ence of our organizations, we do not thereby unchurch, nor " infringe upon the liberties and rights of others. '' (See Presbyterian Form of Grovernment, Book 1, ch. 1, sec. 1.) 6. Let us now turn for a moment to examine the nature and consistency of the principles on which are based those ^' Terms of Communion ^' proposed in lieu of our own. That upon which Mixed Communion rests, is thus stated by our Author. ^' When the necessity for tolerat- ing imperfection is once admitted, there remains no point at which it can consistently stop, till it is extended to every gradation of error, the habitual maintenance of which is compatible with a state of salvation If we impartially examine the reasons on which we rest the toleration of any supposed error, we shall find they inva- riably coincide with the idea of its not being fundamen- tal ;" or, in brief, we have " no right to establish terms of Communion which are not terms of salvation.^' 7. If in the above extract, by "tolerating imperfec- tion," not denying a man to be a Christian on account of 196 COMMUNION. imperfection, were alone intended, we should have no con- troversy ; but when by tolerating, is meant admitting him ,to all the privileges of full visible Church Membership, inviting him to the Lord's Table, and thus, before men and angels, affirming our belief and confidence that he is in all respects, both a Christian and duly qualified for visi- ble Church Membership, it is a very different matter. And when we not only do this in an individual case, but lay down as the basis of a full membership in our own particular Church, the toleration of every error, the ha- bitual maintenance of which, by any one individual, is compatible with his salvation, and that with the full right on his part of voting in favor of, and every way sustaining it, — then unless a Church should choose to think almost every error "incompatible with salvation," it must be prepared to see each peculiar and cherished doctrine of Scripture swept away from the number of those to be maintained by the Church. We are to tolerate in our Churches, we are told, every error " not fundamental.^^ Thus, we must admit it to be preached in favor of, and voted for, as much as our own distinguishing truths : for "there remains no point at which we can consistently stop," short of this, on Robert Hall's plan. 8. Wherein, however, consists this distinction, between errors fundamental and errors not fundamental, on which the whole Mixed Communion system is essentially based ? If we mistake not, it will be found that the distinction lies not in the character of tlie error ^ but of the man who holds it. So that, in fact, there are few errors that can be pronounced to be fundamental, in all cases ; and none that can be said not to be so in any. This distinction is precisely like the Roman Catholic doctrine in regard to mortal and venial sins. There is, indeed, this difi"erence, WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO SALVATION. 197 that as " errors " may take a wider range than " sins/* it must be proportionably more difficult to decide between those that are fundamental or mortal^ and those which are not. If nothing is to be thought a fundamental error which can be and has been habitually maintained, even for a whole life, by some truly pious Christian, then there is hardly a single error that is fundamental, in doctrine or in practice ; and the Church must tolerate everything most pernicious in the former, as '^a diiference of opinion upon points not incompatible with salvation," and almost every vice and crime in the latter, because there have been pious men who have not thought it wrong. A Church could not take a firm stand against any prevailing sin, be- cause doubtful if it might not be compatible with salva- tion ; or boldly and unitedly advocate any duty, for fear of offending some weak brother. The same faltering and wavering course which Mixed Communion pursues in re- gard to Pedobaptism, must be extended to Universalism and Campbellism, Popery and Arianism, Polygamy and Divorce. (See Part III., ch. 2.) 9. Or, if to escape these consequences, the opposite ground should be taken, and every error be deemed fun- damental, in doctrine or practice, which has occasioned the loss of any persons holding it ; then, what error is not fundamental ? Shall any one venture to say that the very point of a willingness to submit to the commands of Grod as to Baptism itself, may not often be the very turning- point on which man's salvation shall depend? Robert Hall himself, so far from denying this, says, '^ I embrace, without hesitation, the affirmative side, and assert that in the Apostolic age, baptism tvas necessary to salvation,'^ al- though, in that connection, he says, that he thinks it needless to prove that " it is not necessary" now.'^ (Vol. 17* 198 COMMUNION. I., p. 417.) Elsewhere, however, lie puts the case of a man, knowing it to be his duty to be baptized, but from indifiference to the will of Grod, or some worldly motive, declining } in which case, he himself would refuse him the Sacramental elements. Here, then, is an instance, in which an error as to Baptism is fundamental, even now. Those who have tasted that the Lord is gracious, know that the point as to the rejection of, or surrender to Christ, generally turns upon embracing or rejecting some appa- rently trifling error in doctrine or practice, that, however harmless in its consequences to others, is a matter of life or death to him whose spiritual state is at a crisis. It is the last feather that turns the scale. It may seem a para- dox, but it is not the less true, that the error which costs a man the salvation of his soul ever seems to him a small one. Since, then, there is no error but what may be funda- mental, none could be excepted from that class, according to the latter mode of computation. There is certainly no error that may not be fundamental. The refusal to be baptized, may be, and often is. Yet is Mixed Commu- nion founded essentially upon the principle that it is not. In truth, the distinction between errors fundamental, and not fundamental, is an unreal distinction ; and all calcula- tions based upon it, must ever vary according to the cir- cumstances of him who presumes to judge by it, and will often be erroneous, decide whichever way he will. Yet this very distinction is one of the radical terms of that ^^ general principle" upon which Mixed Communion boasts of resting itself. Nor is it any small infelicity of this general principle, that it is not only erroneous, but essen- tially embraces one of the worst errors of Popery; one that, uprooted under its ancient form of the distinction INCONSISTENCIES EXPOSED. 199 between mortal and venial sins, has here sprouted anew with a deeper root, a firmer stem, and a broader leaf. 10. But further, were we to admit everything that Mr. Hall asks, in regard to this distinction between funda- mental and non-fundamental errors, and thai an error in regard to Baptism is never fundamental, then should we still have to inquire, if the rest of the '^ general principle" were correct, that in our own visible Churches, we are under the necessity of tolerating every gradation of error not fundamental, or, (since the term is so ambiguous in its general application,) that " does not necessarily exclude those who hold it, from being of the number whom Christ has received V^ (p. 326.) Now, we maintain that this general principle, so far from being true, is utterly incon- sistent with the very nature and objects of a visible Church. To suppose, that because a thing is not universally necessary to salvation, it therefore cannot be made a pre- requisite to visible membership, can only have any speci- ousness from confounding the nature of the Invisible Church and our Visible Churches. But as the latter are intended by their Divine Founder, to carry on the aggres- sive warfare of holiness, as one chief object of their organiz- ation, it must be presumed that those things required in order to its membership, must have special reference to this fact, and, consequently, that things not necessary to personal salvation may yet be properly necessary to visible Church Membership. Yet are Robert Hall's ^' Terms of Communion'^ based on the general principle, that in no case can anything be requisite for membership in a visible Church, that is not in the Invisible. 11. But, to exhibit this in a more obvious and unan- swerable point of view still, if it be possible, it surely 200 COMMUNION. cannot "be denied that the very constitution of a Visible Church must demand as a prerequisite to its Communion, some visible profession of Christianity :^if not Baptism, something in lieu of it. Now, as this profession of reli- gion, whatever its nature be, must properly come after the religion itself, it cannot be identical with, nor essential to it.* Consequently, a person may be in a state of vital piety, and yet not fit for membership in a Visible Church. Many, whose piety we cannot doubt, delay a public pro- fession for years. Some, from an extreme modesty and doubts of their acceptance. The world, and perhaps the Church, and even the pastor under whom they sit, know not their true state. Here is an error, — one, however, not fundamental in these cases, — even that of not confessing Christ before men. But would it be right to admit these, or any others, to the Lord's Table, and into a perfect membership in a visible Christian Church, until they had first of all made some credible profession of having passed from death unto life? That would destroy the evangelical character of our Churches. Such are some of the "general principles" upon which Mixed Communion is essentially based. Such is their consistency. Is any one prepared deliberately and practically to adopt them? * See Appendix J. CHAPTER VI. ROBERT hall's SIXTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. 1. ' The Impolicy of Strict Communion.' 2. How far policy should weigh, considered. 3. Mr. Hall's statement as to its impolicy. Eflects of "party," considered. 5. The comparatively rapid ' extension of sci- entific truths,' considered. 6. Distinction between the extension of specidative and practical truths, considered. 7. The speculative preacher of Baptist sentiments described. 8. The Baptist reformer described. 9. The question at issue between Robert Hall and ourselves. 10. The peculiar power of social organizations. 11. Shall the p«wer of the Churches be applied to restore the obsolete practice ? 12. Singular shift of Mr. Hall. 13. Practical test of his views. 14. Comparative progi-ess of the Baptists in England and America. 15. Effects of Bap- tist sentiments on other denominations in America and Europe. 1. The last consideration wliich Robert Hall urges in favor of his views^ is entitled, ^^ The Impolicy of Strict Communion^' It is but just to remark at the outset, that he is as far from mixing up prudence and duty, or sup- posing that because a particular course seems politic, it must therefore be right, as any advocate of Strict Com- munion could desire. It is only where it is acknowledged that we are at liberty to follow either of two courses, that he supposes policy rightly to be consulted. 2. But although we cannot say that a particular course is right because it is prudent, the course which is right, so generally, not to say universally, produces the most agreeable and useful ultimate results, that this fact, where it can be observed on a sufficient scale, often becomes a test of no little worth in doubtful matters. Thus, for in- stance, the amazing effects of Revelation upon society for 202 COMMUNION. good, form one, and not the least evidence of its divine character and authority. It is not improper therefore to contemplate the comparative effects of the two systems of Mixed and Strict Communion, upon the promotion of Baptist sentiments. 3, Upon this subject, Robert Hall remarks in substance thus, that ^^ whatever retards inquiry, is favorable to error; that nothing has a greater tendency to obstruct free inquiry than the spirit and feeling of a party, since it erects its peculiarities as a standard round which the adherents rally, and which it becomes a point of honor to defend. Scientific truths make their way in the world with more ease and rapidity than religious, owing to the comparative absence of this combination, and because there is no class of men who have an interest, real or imaginary, in obstructing their progress." ^^The infer- ence we would deduce from these facts" he continues, ^'is, that if we wish to revive an exploded truth, or to restore an obsolete practice, it is of the greatest moment to pre- sent it to the public in a manner least likely to produce the collision of party. But this is equivalent to saying, in other words, that it ought not to be made the basis of a sect; for the prejudices of party are always reciprocal, and in no instance, is that great law of motion more appli- cable, that ^reaction is always equal to action, and con- trary thereto.' While it is maintained as a private opinion, by which I mean one not characteristic of a sect, it stands upon its proper merits, mingles with facility in different societies, and in projDortion to its evidence, and the attention it excites, insinuates itself like leaven, till the whole is leavened." We do not know how such a plan as that proposed might answer to revive an ^^ex])loded triUhj' but it seems SECRECY AND OPENNESS COMPAEED. 203 to US not unlikely tliat this would sometimes be the most insidious, and therefore effectual way to revive an ex- ploded error, or propagate an imaginary system, that the least touch of experience would prove fallacious. Certainly it would not by such a course have the same scrutiny and opposition to face; its merits would not be so closely ex- amined ; and it might in some way be connected with other feelings and interests, than those strictly belonging to it, so as to obtain a currency, which its own merits would never have secured. It is thus, for instance, that Pusey- ism has been propagated in the Episcopal Church. Truth, however, on the other hand, having a solid basis, can resist opposition, and only demands vigorous investiga- tion for its merits to be fully known. The efforts of its enemies to oppose, will only lead, first to its discussion, and then to its dissemination. 4. True, the spirit of mere party, is a base and blinding thing. But while, on the one hand, to love truth only for the sake of its bearing upon our particular party, shows both a narrow and immoral mind; on the other hand, to form a party openly, and exposed to the fire of its enemies, in support of some obsolete truth ; to cheer its ranks, and head the column, and lead it onward through all dis- comforts, amid the frowns of its foes, and the lukewarm- ness and desertion of the timid, is truly noble. Much that is decried as mere party spirit is, after all, neither more nor less than that practical courage which results from a consciousness of truth, and produces changes, the most judicious and abiding. It prefers to encounter inquiry and opposition at the outset, rather than gain cur- rency by more insinuating means. The progress thus affected is slow at first, but solid and progressive. If, by way of illustration, we should compare the national charac- 204 COMMUNION. teristics of tlie French and the English, there is infinitely more of this spirit in the latter than the former nation ; and correspondingly we find, that the political reforms of France are more scientific in form, and brilliant in theory, and remarkable for the insidious ^^ease and rapidity" with which they make their way. But those of England, having to be first sifted by all parties, and thus brought to the test of past experience, are the most durable and progressive. Hence it is that they are not attended with that same reaction, alluded to by Robert Hall, (Works, vol. I., p. 354) as "equal to action, and contrary thereto;", a reaction by which the reforms of France sweep to and fro, at the most rapid rate, over the whole ground between anarchy and despotism, as on a railroad constructed of human bodies and slippery with human blood. Brilliant theories, proposing to reform the constitution of all the visible Churches of Christ, throughout the whole world, need at least as much sifting and testing by practical experience, before being universally adopted, as theoretic reforms of political constitutions. Robert Hall was himself, it is well known, of a feeble organization. Bold in speculation, because there habitu- ated to conquest, he was yet backward in all that required practical energy and action. Hence it was, possibly, in part, that he, unconsciously to himself, but unduly and improperly, disliked submitting his principles in regard to our distinguishing ordinance, to the sterner test of making them a term of visible Church Membership, and sought a more " easy and rapid way " by which Baptist sentiments, like " scientific speculations," should brilliantly mount, as rockets, at once to their perihelion, though carrying with them the materials of explosion and downfall. We wish rather to see our principles, like a star, in some remote A TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR. 205 portion of tlie lieavcns, wliicli, thougli it less attract the momentary gaze of the curious, shines calmly, quietly and eternally above, guiding the far-oif mariners, one after another, in their heavenly voyage over the stormy deep. Every conceivable motion of mind has its correspond- ing motion of the body; every principle, its legitimate expression in action. It may be called party spirit, or anything else, but that spirit, which impels a man to act out a principle boldly to all its legitimate results, to remove it from the airy region of theory and speculation to the terra Jirma of practice, is one of the most noble and useful dispositions that can actuate any man. There is nothing more dangerous to the cause of truth in gene- ral, as there is nothing more perilous to the character of an individual, than to hold opinions speculatively, without reducing them to practice. The most decisive test of truth and error is, that the former is capable of being acted out to all its legitimate consequences, and can never lead the party doing so astray; while the other, the further it is pursued, conducts only to the more complicated and gross inconsistencies. If that shall be called a party spirit, which induces our Churches, as such, to make use of their influence, and engage actively in spreading, (in connection with other truths,) Believers' Baptism; which induces them to refuse being trammelled by subjection, even for an hour, to any compromise that shall tie their tongues, or prevent them from using the whole weight of their influence on this subject, just as earnestly as their consciences bid; such a spirit is right and proper none the less. But our Churches, as such, must bind themselves not to meddle with the subject of Baptism, or make use of an iota of their influence, as an organization in favor of it, according to the plan of Robert Hall. Baptist individuals, but not 18 206 COMMUNION. Baptist Churches, is the beau ideal of Mixed Communion- ism. But how it ever can be a stroke of policy in favor of Baptism, for such powerful social organizations, as the Churches of Christ, to resolve not to favour or propagate it, is not easily perceived. Enough this, in regard to the charge of party spirit. 5. In regard to what Eobert Hall says, as to the rapid extension of scientific truths compared with religious, and which he attributes to " the absence of combination, in there being no class of men closely united, who have an interest, real or imaginary, in obstructing their progress '' —it is true that these combinations to spread particular opinions, may seem for a moment to confirm those engaged in spreading them, and so render them more difficult of conviction. But eventually, there is no way so certain to let all the world see that an error is an error, and a truth is a truth, as to bring it to the light. Free discussion must lead ultimately to the establishment of truth ; but there will never be any discussion at all, when all the arguing is on one side, and no party thinks it worth while to oppose. Combination on the one side will be balanced by combinations on the other, and Truth will eventually turn the scale; for it will be sure to win the greatest num- ber of adherents, and the most important combinations. It is chieflj^ by means of these very '^ combinations/' that what moral truth we have, is spread as widely and rapidly as it is, and thus forms the basis of advancement to higher degrees of light and knowledge. The more " easy and rapid extension '^ of scientific than moral truth, to any degree that such is the fact, may therefore be traced to more natural causes, than the absence of a class of men to oppose progress of the former. To some of the causes we will advert : THE TRUE DISTINCTION DEVELOPED. 207 Scientific truth requires only a lower and more gener- ally diffused class of mind and knowledge to be appre- ciated, and is capable of a more exact and obvious demon- stration. It needs only correct intellectual perceptions; and is, by the aid of these, more easily reducible to indis- putable facts. The latter requires, in addition to the above, coxYQct moral perceptions, possessed and cultivated only by the few. Hence, as there are here more sources of error, the progress of this kind of truth must be slower, to be safe. 6. It is proper to remark, however, that the chief dif- ference, as to rapidity of adoption, is not between sa'en- tific truth and moral, but between scientific or specidattve truth and practical. It is not so difficult to spread moral and religious opinions as practices. That opinions do even- tually show themselves in action is unquestionable, but not immediately ; often very slowly. Account for it as we may, the fVict is certiiin, that it is easier to change twenty of the current opinions of a people, than to reform one prevailing habit. One popular preacher, one book full of curious speculations on matters of religion, will win thousands of theoretical converts. Religious ojmnous ebb and flow like a tide, or like a current at sea, which, sweeping with an unseen and incalculable force, bears the mightiest navy, with its ponderous burdens, easily and smoothly on its surface. But while it is not difficult for a popular preacher to change a whole congregation from one set of vieivs to another, — to alter a custom, whether it be the posture of the congregation in prayer or at the Lord's Supper, to change the order of services, to intro- duce or exclude an organ from the choir, or a gown from the pulpit, is often an occasion of schism or revolution. 7. To apply now these remarks to our present case. If 208 COMMUNION. we merely wished to change the speculative opinions of the Christian world upon the subject of Baptism, to make them believe that nigh two thousand years ago, Baptism was administered only on a profession of faith, and always by immersion, then, in certain circumstances, Robert Hall's plan would be the^most ^^ politic^' way to revive the obso- lete opinion.* Let a few influential and popular preachers introduce it occasionally into their sermons, never contro- vert, but exhibit perhaps a vivid picture of Christ descend- ing into the plastic tide, the swelling water of the sacred stream yielding to Him a liquid and emblematic grave. The scene of Phillip baptizing the Eunuch might even be dwelt on ; and the preacher occasionally declare, that he would even baptize those who wished it in the same way; but that whatever might be their differences of opinion or practice, the whole subject of Baptism was one of indif- ference, a non-essential ; and therefore its performance in any way, or its total neglect, made not the least difference as to all the privileges of full Church Membership or Ministry. Few would question, and none would oppose, what practically affected them so little, and without oppo- sition or discussion, a verdict might in time be obtained in favor of this speculation from any and every congrega- tion. If few had sufficient knowledge to assent, fewer still would have inclination to deny ; so long as it was con- ceded that either sprinkling or immersion were enough to admit to full Church Membership, and they were permit- ted to infer, that whichever was most customary and con- venient should now be followed, to avert controversy. 8. But if the object proposed be, to change the practice * lu Hct, to this extent our views ai'e already received by men of science. Any standard work on Cliristian Antiquities, Cliurch History or Encyclopajdia, will show this. j. js. b. THE TRUE REFORMER. 209 of Christians in regard to Baptism, then the more proper, candid and successful mode will be, not to profess neutra- lity and indifference, but openly to form our Churches upon the basis of their being distinctly Baptist, and the members pledged to uphold and spread, and act up to Baptist sentiments. Action alone produces action. It alone produces a deep conviction of the sincerity and earnestness of those who undertake any reform, as well as of the importance of the reformation itself. The preacher who would produce a practical alteration upon the subject of Baptism, must come like a second John the Baptist, not with an effeminate softness and timidity, but with a certain roughness and uncompro- mising sternness to those who are indifferent to what they know or might know, if they would, to be the will of God. He must be prepared to stand aloof from the sympathies of the world, and even of the religious world. He must tell men, that the time for controversy on such a subject is past; that it is really a very plain matter for him who takes the Bible alone for his guide; that, prejudice apart, few things can be more clear ; that when Grod has called a man's attention to the subject, real doubts can alone remain, either from regarding the opinions of Christians as a more authoritative guide than the New Testament, or from not having examined the matter carefully, and in an unprejudiced manner; either of which, in regard to Baptism, cannot be presumed to be a matter of indiffer- ence, even as to visible Church Membership. He must tell them that this is not a mere speculation, but a prac- tical matter, one that requires action, reformation ; that infant sprinkling is not Christian Baptism; that those who have received no more than this, have never been ''buried with Christ by Baptism;" and that however excellent lb* 210 COMMUNION. their piety may be in other respects, they are in fact living unbaptized. He must assure not only Christian individuals, but Churches, that it is their duty as such, — even as bodies to whom the ordinances of Christ's house are solemnly given in charge, — to make use of their influence not as individuals alone, but as orgmiizations, as Churches, to promote this reformation. He should propose to form Churches upon the primitive basis, each individual being prepared to exert his active influence and example, in favor of restoring Baptism to the position, in every respect, which it ori- ginally occupied. 9. The question at issue between Robert Hall and our- selves in this chapter is, in substance, neither more nor less than this ; whether the former or the latter of these preachers would be the more successful in ^' restoring the obsolete practice '^ of Believers' Baptism ? Who sees not that indifi'erentism in a reformer, never yet roused the sluggish and torpid mind into action. If the question were to be settled by a mere intellectual acquiescence in a metaphysical truth, the plan of the first preacher might succeed, in those few cases where the mind was already sufficiently interested to pursue the investigation. But where most are too indifierent to examine; and where the course of duty will often be contrary to relatives and friends, to the religious as well as the sinful world ; and will perhaps awaken hostility and persecution, as the prac- tice of Believers' Baptism has often done; then one would suppose, that a decided and constant course in the Church, would be most likely to give firmness to the timid and resolution to the wavering. In such case the sympathy of a Church, united and warmly interested for their suf- ferings, would strengthen them, and the example of breth- POWER OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION. 211 ren who have gone through the same struggle, would decide them in favor of action. It is an unquestionable fact, and one that the present general decline of Infant Baptism in Pedobaptist Churches abundantly proves, that it is not so much want of light, but the want of a proper feeling of the importance of living up to the light they have, that makes a very large proportion of our brethren in Christ live without true Baptism ; and were they only to step forward and pursue a decided course, according to their convictions upon this point, it would occasion such inquiry, that even the most indifferent would be awakened, and the most doubtful see it clearly. To accomplish this, the importance of personal action must be enforced. We have admitted the evil of a mere party spirit. But the power of organized party action is immense, and where only used to produce truth, proper; and not only proper, but imperatively demanded. It is the great fulcrum by which a truth, downpressed and crushed by the masses, is elevated by its few friends to its just level. Surely every member of a visible Church of Christ is specially bound to throw the weight, not merely of his individual, but of all the social influence he possesses from the organ- ization of the C-hristian Church, in favor of an ordinance, especially committed to the care and maintenance of the Churches. The peculiar power of a social organization arises from two sources. First, thatjt is truth in action, not in theory; an opinion reduced to practice, not resting in vague, un- tested speculations. Second, from the combination of eflbrt and influence on one point, many persons acting in concert. It is from the first of these causes, that one drunkard signing the pledge, will often do more to con- vince the enemies of Temperance, than a hundred lectures 212 COMMUNION. or arguments. It is from the second that in a Temperance Society each member strengthens the other. 11. This two-fold power of social organization is sanc- tioned in its proper use, and was indeed originally applied by Divine inspiration in the formation of Christian Churches. Baptism is the peculiar pledge to a Christian life, adminis- tered by the Divine command and sealed by the Holy Spirit. Herein is one great source of power in every Christian Church, i. e. the moral force which it possesses as a social organization, over and above the strength of the individuals ; the whole bound together and actuated as one living body, by the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost. The nature of our inquiry at the present moment precludes us from asking if it be riyht for such a body as this, to whom and to whom alone on earth the ordinances of the G-ospel are committed, to enter into such a compact of indifierence in regard to one of these, that ^' the appellation of Baptist shall not be so properly applicable to Churches as to individuals." But strange to say, the question we have to settle is, whether such withdrawal of its whole social influence by the only body to which the support of these ordinances is committed, is not ^'politic,'" as the most effectual means of ^'restoring the obsolete practice'' of Believers' Baptism. This is the very point which Robert Hall labors throughout the whole of this section to prove. 12. It is indeed singular at times, to see the shifts to which the author is driven, in some of his attempts to support this position. For example, he paints in very strong language the unfair attacks of other denominations upon us, and speaks of " the prejudice displayed by that class of Christians, to whom we make the nearest ap- proach," but attributes all this to the want of Open Com- COMPLAINTS URGED BY MR. HALL. 213 munion. He complainS; that " a disposition to fair and liberal concession on the point at issue, is almost confined to the members of Established Churches;'^ but that '^ our dissenting brethren are displeased with these concessions, deny there is any proof that immersion was ever used in primitive times, and speak of the extension of baptism to infants with as much confidence, as though it were among the plainest and most undeniable dictates of Reve- lation/^ " To such a height,^' he proceeds, " has this animosity been carried, that there are not wanting per- sons who seem anxious to revive the recollection of Mun- ster, and by republishing the narrative of the enormities perpetrated there, under the title of the History of the Baptists, to implicate us in the infamy and guilt of those transactions. While we must reprobate such a spirit, we are compelled to acknowledge, that the practice of Exclu- sive Communion is admirably adapted to excite it in minds of a certain order.'^* This picture is drawn, not by us, but by the champion of Mixed Communion. \Ye could not have drawn it. But what is the remedy he proposes for this slander, by which he complains that our Churches are assailed ? To put all the power of our Churches into the hands of those who assail us. Only let these persons commune, and vote, and manage everything their own way, and then we shall see the obsolete practice of Believers' Baptism restored ! This would surely be like giving the lamb to the wolf to suckle, that she may learn not to devour it. 13. But it is needless to spend time on such theories, while facts invite our attention. The point to be ascer- tained, is, which practice is most favorable to the spread * Works, vol. 1, p. 356. 214 COMMUNION. of Baptist sentiments, — open or strict Communion; the plan adopted in this country or that proposed by Robert Hall? 14. If we should decide this question by the compara- tive increase of the Baptist denomination in Grreat Britain, where Mixed Communion generally prevails, and in this country, where the opposite practice is almost universal, we shall find such facts as the following : There are 982,101 members of Baptist Churches in the United States to 148,179 in Great Britain, or nearly seven to one. Or if we compare the number of Churches, we find in the United States 14,078, in Great Britain 1,881. If we contrast the number of ordained Ministers, we find in the United States 8,826, in Great Britain 1,382.* This comparison of present numbers appears to us a fair test. The rise of the Baptists as a denomination, in England and in this country, was at about the same time, under circumstances even much more favorable to their progress in the old than in the new country. On the one hand it is true, that the more free toleration of religious opinions, and the absence of an Established Church, might seem most favourable to their increase in this country ; but on the other, the comparative smallness of the popu- lation, until within a few years, the difiiculty of changing the sentiments of a nation scattered remotely, the poverty of a young people, all make it a matter of surprise that Baptist sentiments should have spread as they have. Un- der God, this has originated in their assuming an indepen- dent and uncompromising basis ; — in their Churches being formed, not on Robert Hall's plan of Mixed Membership, but upon that derived from the Apostolic practice, of * The figures are taken from the Baptist Ahuanac for 1649. RESULTS OF ROBERT HALL'S SYSTEM. 215 making Baptism a prerequisite to membership in their Churches. It might at least have been expected that, owing to the disadvantages of the Baptists of this country above allud- ed to, that our denomination, here at least, would have been far behind it in England, in point of Ministerial education. The reverse however is the fact. Such is the effect of habits of self-reliance and independent energy, fostered, in part at least, by the principles upon which the denomination in this country has acted in regard to their Church fellowship, that instead of five Colleges, with seventy-eight students, which they have in Great Britain, there are in the United States fifteen Colleges, with 1,409 students, and seven Theological Institutions, with 152 students. If we compare the active piety of the Baptists of Eng- land and of the United States; while owing to the com- parative poverty of a new country, the greater demands for the supply of destitute sections at home, and other causes, American contributions for Foreign Missions are not all that might otherwise have been expected from our large number of members ; yet in active piety and bene- volence, fairly computed, they perhaps hardly come behind any denomination in any country. That inertness, which is the characteristic symptom and ultimate destruction of all bigotry and narrowness, certainly fails to show itself. Let the traveller go into the most remote settlements of the far West, and as he passes along, he will every now and then meet with a Baptist house of worship. It may be of rude construction, a log hut perhaps, but this is as good as the surrounding houses. Let him go into the cities of the New Continent, and he will find costly houses 216 COMMUNION. of worship, which in point of comfort, neatness, architec- tural beauty, the respectability of the worshipers, and excellence of the arrangements, will compare favourably with those of our denomination in the older and wealthier cities of the Mother Country. 15. If now we consider the hold which Baptist senti- ments have taken upon the mind of the public at large in this country, even upon other denominations of religion; we shall find the most striking proof of the fallacy of Robert Hall's opinion, that it is only by mixing in all Church relations with Pedobaptists, that our sentiments would ever find their way to their hearts, or even attract their attention. The practice of immersion in the Metho- dist Church has become quite common. The disuse of Infant Baptism by Presbyterian and Congregational mem- bers is now so general, and the decline of it every year becoming so much more rapid, that it is evident, the sys- tem is fast losing its hold upon the faith of those deno- minations. In the Episcopal Church in Kentucky, a section of country where our mode of Baptism prevails extensively, the Bishop of the Diocese has jDublicly ac- knowledged immersion to have been universal (semper, uhique, et ah omnibus) in the earlier ages of Christianity, and has strongly urged a return to that practice. Indeed, there is hardly a denomination in the United States, that has not been powerfully impressed by Baptist sentiments. Even the vagrant Mormons have found it politic to institute a counterfeit Baptism like ours. If we look forward to the future, there appears every probability of a very general, if not universal spread of our views of this ordinance, both as to its mode and subjects. Under God, this seems to have been brought about by the decided THE TRUE POLICY SETTLED. 217 stand taken by the denomination. To have been less uncompromising, would have diminished the importance and prevalence of Baptist sentiments. The question to be discussed in this chapter, was as to Policy alone; — which was the most successful method of reviving the true but obsolete view of Baptism, which is characteristic of our denomination ? We conceive that no doubt upon this subject can rest on any mind. 19 CHAPTER VII. REVIEW OF PART HI. 1. Review of Robert Hall's first argnment. 2. Of ths second. 3. Of the third. 4. Of the fourth. 5. Of the fifth. 6. Of the sixth. 7. Of Mr. Hall's ' leading principle.' 8. Mr. Hall's leading position clearly traceable back to the fundamental eiTor of the Papacy. 9. Counsels of Sir James Mackintosh to Robert Hall. 1. We have thus examined, argument by argument, all that has been brought against our practice in regard to the Lord's Supper by the ablest of our opponents. We have endeavored to omit no idea advanced by him, that could affect the conclusion. If we mistake not, every candid reader will perceive, that his arguments utterly fail to prove anything against our principles in regard to that ordinance. Indeed, these very arguments are many of them capable of being turned with the greatest force against his own positions. He urged the ohligations of hrotlierljj love, as a reason for Free Communion. We have shown that the word Communion may be used either literally or figuratively; that literally we do hold Christian Communion with all whom we consider Christians, of whatever denomination. But it is obvious, that no argument can be derived from the general obligations of brotherly love, to extend the symbols of Membership in a particular Church, to those to whom the relations symbolized do not apply. On the contrary, Christian faithfulness and candor, indeed a com- AMBIGUOUS USE OF TERMS. 219 mon regard for truth, would seem to dictate an opposite course. In fact, the whole of this argument derives its plausibility from an ambiguous use of the term Com- munion. 2. He urged the obligation, to receive into the Mem- bership of our Churches all who give credible evidence of piety, from the express injunctioii of Scripturej to tole- rate those errors not inconsistent with salvation, on the ground that Christ had received those who held them. We have shown, that the injunction to toleration in ques- tion, was expressly based on two conditions, first, that they should be such persons as Christ has received; and secondly, living in compliance with all the revealed will of God, in regard to the points as to which special forbearance is urged. Every inference drawn from such passages, must be adverse to receiving into the full membership of our own Churches, those persons, who are avowedly living in the neglect of so conspicuous and plain a part of the revealed will of Grod, in regard to Church Membership, as Baptism. 3. He argued that Pedohaptists being a part of the true Church, their exclusion was on that account unlawful. We have shown that there is here an ambiguous use of the term Church. It is, indeed, as he rightly allows, used in two senses ) either to denote the whole family of the redeemed, in heaven and on earth, which is a spiritual body, or par- ticular organizations of Christians, which are visible bodies. From membership in the Invisible Church, we do not, by thought, word or deed, exclude any Christians. This, however, is quite distinct from inviting all such to mem- - bership in our particular Church, which is a local matter. It is indeed impossible, in the very nature of things, that a visible Church should not embrace at least some things 220 COMMUNION. in the terms of its membership, not embraced in those of the Invisible Church. A credible and visible profession of faith must belong to the former. This being essen- tially distinct from that faith, which alone is essential to membership in the Invisible Church, makes the terms of membership, in the two bodies, necessarily different. Hence it follows, that the whole of this argument, being founded on an ambiguous use of the word Church, or rather on confounding the terms of membership in two distinct bodies, falls to the ground. 4. He argued, that the exclusion of Pedobaptists from the Lord's Table, could be considered onJy as a punish- ment, as tantamount to excommunication. Here again we detect a fallacy in principle, as well as in the use of terms. We have shown, that by not inviting those who are not members of our Churches, to participate with us in the symbols of such membership, we do not exclude them from participating, and least of all do we excommu- nate persons who never belonged to our body. That the non-extension of this invitation is not intended as a punish- ment, and has no more right to be considered such j than the non-extension of an invitation by every Jew to every other, to participate with him in the Passover; or, than the course of the Methodists in regard to their Love Feasts; or, than the course of all other denominations, in not invit- ing to their Church Membership those Christians who are unwilling to comply with their articles of Covenant. 5. He urged the impossibility of reducing the practice of Strict Coynmunion to any general principle. We have shown that it is reducible to the very simple and obvious principle, that our ^' Occasional Communion,'^ or partici- pation at the same table, should be governed by the same rules as our Church Membership. We further showed THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE AND POLICY. 221 that the general p inciple on which Mixed Church Mem- bership and Ccmmiinion are together based, i. e. that the visible Churches ought to tolerate all '^ those diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with salvation/^ or that the " Visible Church differs from the Invisible onli/ as a part differs from the whole/' and consequently, that the terms of admission to the one were properly the same as those of admission to the other, overlooked and denied the obvious fact, that every visible Church must, in the nature of things, have some visible profession of Chris- tianity among the prerequisites to its membership ; and that any other plan is contrary to the principles of all Christians, of all ages and of all climes, and one impos- sible to be acted upon. 6. He urged the impolicy of Strict Communion, con- tending that it retarded the progress of Baptist views and practices. In opposition to this, we have shown that whatever may be the case with mere airy and impracti- cable speculations, that the energies of voluntary organ- izations are among the most powerful means by which the erroneous practices of society are reformed and obsolete virtues revived; that to the visible Churches of Christ the custody of the ordinances is specially committed, and consequently the duty of using their energies and influ- ence to restore them to their primitive position and lustre. We have shown what would naturally be the effect of such organizations as Christian Churches using their energies to reform the abuses of the ordinance of baptism, and to revive the primitive method of its observance. We have also shown, from the comparative progress of the denomi- nation, not only in numbers, but in everything which evinces true denominational prosperity, that where the results of Mixed Communion and our own practice are 39* 222 COMMUNION. capable of being fairly compared, tlie results show, as clearly as statistics on the largest scale can show anything, that the plan of Mixed Communion palsies the strength, and prevents the growth of our denomination, and even retards, as in Great Britain, the spread of our principles. The plan which we follow is avowedly the primitive plan. It is in all respects consistent for ourselves, re- spectful to our opponents, and best calculated to subserve the cause of truth ; by throwing open our principles in re- gard to Baptism, without reserve, to the gaze and scrutiny of the whole Christian world. By such means they would the sooner be discarded if they were erroneous; and by these means, being confident of their truth, we feel sure they will be most rapidly extended. 7. With regard, therefore, to that system for which Ro- bert Hall contended, as a whole, (and especially what he calls his '' leading position,'^ i. e. that '^ no Church has a right to establish terms of Communion [in the Lord's Supper] that are not terms of salvation,'') whether this be considered as a theory or a rule of practice, a divine com- mand or a human expedient, it is novel, visionary, and quite unsatisfactory. While we must admire the sincerity and ability of the author, we cannot hesitate in pro- nouncing the theory he proposes a sophism. The plan, if it were applicable to our denomination, would equally re- quire the most complete revolution in all others; but as yet no other body of Christians has for a moment thought of adopting it. That it is based upon an error we think incontrovertible. At the same time, whether we consider the exalted sentiments to which it appeals, or the bril- liancy and piety with which it is maintained, it must be pronounced the most enchanting of all visions that are mere visions. The practical Christian, when he remem- ASPIRATIONS AFTER UNIOX. 223 bers that he is at present placed at an appointed post of duty and of usefulness in the militant, and not the tri- umphant portion of the Church, is forced to lay these terms aside, as incompatible with the orders of the great Captain of our salvation ; as sublime, but unsuited to the present state; as affording elevated contemplations, too elevated to be realized on earth ; or, to express ourselves as briefly as possible, he is forced to regard the whole scheme as a splendid fallacy. 8. All the most pious and elevated of mankind have, indeed, sighed over the divisions of Christians, longed to see the whole family of believers more fully and com- pletely united ; and some, perhaps, have formed projects for the accomplishment of so desirable an object. Their visions, however, have generally subsided into an antici- pation of that period when in a future state these most elevated aspirations would be fully satisfied. But the attempt too suddenly to realize these hopes on earth, has led most who have attempted it, to seek some shorter road than that appointed by Grod, and to overlook and overleap barriers which He has planted. Who shall tell how much all true unity has been defeated thus far, by the errors of the very persons who have made the greatest efforts to promote it ? Anciently, it was sought to be attained by that most splendid of fictions, as it lay in the visions of the early Fathers, a visible Catholic or Universal Church. And yet to this all the most conspicuous features of the Popish system are easily traceable. It would not be diffi- cult to show that the fallacy of the Eomish plan for uniting all the members of the Invisible Church in one Visible Communion, is traceable to the same original source as that of the more modern one of Eobert Hall, i. €., confounding the terms of invisible and visible Church 224 COMMUNION. MemhersMp. They are, indeed, both countei*parts of the same error. The extremely opposite tendency which they exhibit practically, arises thus. The ancient theory alters the terms of Invisible Church membership, to make them correspond with those of the Visible. The system of Robert Hall, commencing at the opposite point, and with true views of the only prerequisites of membership in the Invisible Church, alters the terms of Visible membership, to make them coincide with those of the Invisible. 9. It is dangerous for any man to live too exclusively in the world of imagination. ^' Nothing,^^ says Sir James Mackintosh, in one of his letters to Robert Hall, '' is so difficult as to decide, how much ideal models ought to b combined with experience ; how much of the future should be let into the present, in the progress of the human mind, to ennoble and purify, without raising us above the sphere of our usefulness.'^ A man's writings reflect his own character. Nor can we close this section of our work better, than by quoting, for the study of those whose ten- dency is to frame ideal churches, or ideal worlds, the judi- cious remarks made to this great author himself in regard to the tendencies of his noble mind, by perhaps the only human being who knew him through life, with the ability rightly to estimate his exalted character. " I exhort you, my most worthy friend," he says, " to check your best propensities, for the sake of attaining their object. You cannot live for men, without living loith them. Serve God then by the active service of men. Contemplate more the good you can do, than the evil you can only lament. Allow yourself to see the loveliness of virtue amid all its imperfections; and employ your moral imagination not so much by bringing it into contrast with the model of ideal perfection, as in gently blending seme VIEWS OF SIR J. MACKINTOSH. 225 of the fainter colors of the latter, with the brighter hues of real experienced excellence; thus heightening the beauty instead of broadening the shade, which must surround us, till we awaken from this dream in other spheres of exist- ence/^* * Robert Hall's Works, Vol- 3, n. 51. PART lY. THE ARGUMENTS OF REV. BAPTIST W. NOEL ON FREE COMMUNION, CONSIDERED. INTRODUCTORY. REASONS FOR REVIEAVIXG MR. NOEL's REMARKS. 1. Recent appearance of his book on Baptism, and its claims to* general regard. 2. Shortness of the section on Communion. 3. Not many new ideas, but in general follows Mr. Hall. 4. Yet some differences in method and spirit. 5. Analysis of his remarks. 1. Since the preceding pages were completed, the work of the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, on Christian Bap- tism, has been published in this country. This respected Author, and admirable Christian, devotes the second Sec- tion of Chapter V. of his volume, to the discussion of '' Free Communion,^' arriving at a conclusion exactly opposite to that to which we have been led. The deserved reputation of Mr. Noel ; the extent to which his opinions will be circulated ; the earnest Christian spirit which guides his pen; and above all, the publication of these sentiments, in connexion with his manly and decided views on Bap- tism, make it appropriate to add a few remarks, showing how far the principles we have laid down apply to his arguments. 2. The observations of Mr. Noel, on the subject of Com- munion, do not occupy a twentieth of the entire work, and are comprised in less than fifteen pages — i. e., pp. 287 — 301 of the Harpers' edition. To this edition, for convenience, the pages being the same as in those of Mr. Colby and Mr. Fletcher, reference will be made in the following remarks. 20 230 COMMUNION. 3. No person, who has studied Kobert Hall's writings on this subject, will find in the pages of Mr. Noel many new ideas or illustrations. He makes the same concessions, urges the same arguments, and arrives at the same con- clusions, even on points in regard to which open Commu- nionists disagree among themselves. Consequently, his section on Communion has far less the air of his own in- dividual thinking, than any other part of his work. The problem of Christian Baptism, he has evidently wrought out for himself; he has "not received it of man." But in his views on Communion, he has followed others. 4. In one or two respects there is a difference. We see less of that lucid arrangement of ideas, which so emi- nently characterizes Eobert Hall, and makes his argu- ments perspicuous, forcible, and easy to be weighed. On this account, it is a more arduous task to reply to Mr. Noel in any consecutive order. The observation which Mr. Hall made, as to the difficulty of answering Mr. Kinghorn, is in no small degree applicable here. " The perpetual recurrence of the same matter, the paucity of distinct and intelligible topics of argument, together with an obvious want of coherence and of dependence of one part upon another, render it difficult to impart that order and continuity to a reply, in the absence of which, argu- mentative discussions are insufferably tedious.'' But, on the other hand, the spirit in which Mr. Noel writes, is certainly less that of an intellectual combatant, and more eminently that of an earnest follower of Christ, than Robert Hall's. He gives the reasons which have induced him to embrace lately acquired knowledge of Christian truth, so far as he has received it, prayerfully and affectionately. It is this which imparts the chief ANALYSIS OF MR. NOEL. 231 interest to our Author's character, and to his views on all subjects. 5. In the pages we are now reviewing, Mr. Noel first states, (p. 287), what he conceives to be the question at issue, between the advocates of Free Communion and those Baptists, who hold the same views in regard to the right- ful priority of Baptism to the Lord's Supper, which all other Christians entertain. He then advances two argu- ments in favor of his own opinions ; one from the nature of things, the other from Scripture, (pp. 288—290.) The remainder of the Chapter is devoted to the consideration of arguments, sometimes used on the other side. (pp. 290 to 301). This last part occupies eleven out of the fifteen pages, and exhibits but little system. We will follow our Author, as nearly as possible, in his manner of treating the subject. CHAPTER I. MR. Noel's statement of the question. 1. In this he agrees with Robert Hall — Regards Pedobaptists as unbap- tized, pleads for their admission as such. 2. Tendencies of this course — Mr. Noel's inconsistency. 3. Concedes too much to the sincerity with which Pedobaptism is upheld. 4. Yet in effect yields the very point at issue. 1. Asto his Statement of the Question. In this he precisely concurs with Robert Hall, and thus narrows the point at issue. Pedobaptists seem usually to suppose, that where persons smcerely think they have been baptized, it is the same as though they had been. On the contrary, our Author saves much trouble here by admitting, (p. 287) "Like the strict Baptists, I believe, each person, who has been merely sprinkled in infancy is unbaptized, be- cause the external act of Baptism is immersion, and that act is meant to be a profession of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The person sprinkled in infancy has neither been immersed, nor has he made, through his reception of the sprinkled water, any profession whatever, of discipleship ; he is therefore wholly unbaptized; audit is regarding him simply as an unbaptized believer, that I advocate his right to a place at the Lord's Table, in a Baptist Church.^' 2. His argument, therefore, would lead to the extinction of all Baptism, as a term of Church fellowship or Commu- nion, even in what he still, (unlike Robert Hall,) would TOO MUCH CONCEDED. 233 call a '^Baptist Clmrcli.'^ Indeed, at the close of his remarks, (p. 301,) he appears to deny the right, to require ^^ other terms of Communion than such as are terms of salvation, and to consider this the more brotherly course, demanded by the plain precepts of Scripture/^ Unless he were to suppose Baptism essential to salvation, we do not see, how Churches formed on such principles, could be in any sense* ^' Baptist/^ But it is not our duty to reconcile these statements, only impartially to record them. Churches formed throughout the whole Christian world on such a basis, would contain at present so vast a numer- ical majority of Pedobaptists, that it would be absurd and arrogant in us to claim them. 3. On page 288, however, Mr. Noel concedes too much in regard to the spirit in which Pedobaptism is upheld by those who practise it; and as the same sentiments are even more strictly implied and asserted on another page, we notice it at once. He is indeed correct, in saying of all pious persons, that they are the '^ servants, soldiers and friends " of the Lord Jesus Christ, and as to everything beside Baptism, it may also be the case, that they ^^ copy his example and obey his precepts," (p. 288); but this certainly is not true in regard to that ordinance, according to the whole tenor of Mr. Noel's work. In this respect they certainly do not " copy the example ^' of their Saviour, and they certainly do disobey his precepts ; some by severing the ordinance from the profession of faith, some by substituting sprink- ling for immersion, and some, like John Joseph Gurney, by treating all Baptism with open and utter neglect. Yet, on page 294, Mr. Noel carries his language so far, as to de- clare, that these very persons (he probably has special refer- ence to Pedobaptists) are admitted by the Churches which 20* 234 COMMUNION. practise Free Communion, on the ground that they are ^' believers lolio keep the commands of Christ , honor Bap- tism, and believe that they have been baptized." Does a Quaker honor Baptism and believe that he has been bap- tized ? Or, with what consistency can Mr. Noel say, that he admits a Pedobaptist to the Lord's Table, ^^ because he honors Baptism ? '' 4. Indeed, unconsciously to himself, h» shifts his whole statement of the question, or else concedes the very point at issue, when he says, '' If indeed to admit him [a Chris- tian] to the Table, were to dispense with the command of Christ, and to sanction the neglect of Baptism, he must not be admitted ; but this cannot be, because he is admit- ted by the Churches who practise Free Communion, on the ground that he is a believer ''who keeps the commands of Christ, honors Baptism, and believes that he has been baptized/' CHAPTER II. MR. Noel's arguments considered. I. Argument from the nature of things. 1. En'or in illustration. 2. Con- founds the Visible Church with the Invisible. 3. Assumes identity of qualifications. 4. Pedobaptists are not disowned as brethren, but as unbaptized. 5. The Lord's Supper belongs to visible churches. 6. The question resolves itself into this, Is it the duty of Chiu'ches, as such, to uphold Christian Baptism ? II. Arguments from the Scriptures. \. The main reliance here. 2. («.) John 13: 35, and 17: 20, considered. 3. Nature of Christian union. 4. On whom rests the blame of breaking the Visible Church fellow- ship. 5. (&.) Kom. 14: 1—7, and 15: 7, considered. 6. Mistakes and their consequences. 7. The proper grounds of Church toleration. 8. The proper grounds of exclusion. Gal. 5: 12, 1 Cor. 5: 11 — 13, Rom. 16: 17, 2 Thess. 3: 14, compared with v. 6. 9. Result— There are other terms of communion than such as are terms of salvation. 10. Prac- tical importance of this principle. 11. A fundamental distinction explained. 12. (c.) Mr. Noel's concessions ;— 1. Of an instituted connec- tion between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. Of the close Scrip- tural connection between Regeneration and Baptism. We now proceed to consider the Arguments by whicli our Autlior sustains his position. They are two; first, from the Nature of Things ; and secondly, from Scripture. I. The reason for Free Communion drawn from the Nature of Things. " It is according to nature and grace too, that the sheep of the same flock, under the same shepherd, should walk together, and feed together in the same pasture,'^ (p. 288). It is seldom safe to argue very closely from an illustration. If it were allowable here, we should reply, that in precisely the same sense, in which 236 COMMUNION. all evangelical Christians are sheep of the same flock^ and under the same shepherd^ they do feed in the same pas- ture. Do not all the various evangelical denominations of Christians feed upon the same spiritual food^ upon the same great truths of the Bible ? Is not Christ the one shepherd of all ? What does our Author mean, when he speaks of sheep of the same flock ? — Members of one Church ? But the term Church, in Scripture, is used in two senses; — sometimes for the One Universal Church, which is invisible; sometimes for any single congregation of professed Christians, in the habit of assembling for worship, and for the maintenance of Christian ordinances, as the Church at Antioch, Smyrna, or Rome. Mr. Noel does not mean to say, that all Christians are, or ought to be, members of the same flock or Church in this latter sense, nor that they ought to be all united under one earthly pastor. But where then is the value of his illus- tration ? What would he show by it ? Ordinances belong clearly to visible Churches, not to the One Invisible Church of all Earth and Heaven. Christians are not, and are not in- tended to be all of the same visible Church or flock. They are under different earthly shepherds, and this arrangement is of God and not of man. Each Church is an indepen- dent body ; and according to our Author it would seem (p. 295) that each '' Church must be the ultimate judge of the qualifications of all who seek communion with it.'' 2. The illustration, we believe, would rather militate against our author's views than in favor of them, unless it should be first proved, that the terms of Invisible and of Visible church membership are necessarily the same, so that the qualifications which are sufficient to admit us to the former, entitle us without any thing further lohatever to the latter. This he quietly takes for granted without the WE OWN ALL CHRISTIANS, AS SUCH. 237 least warrant, and contrary to all just views ; for while the disjjosition to confess Christ may be and is essential to true piety, and to invisible membership ] the actual confession of Christ, which in some way must be a prerequisite to visible church membership, never can be essential to mem- bership in the Invisible Church, since properly it can only take place after true piety. To assume, therefore, that membership in the Invisible Church alone, necessarily im- plies a perfect title to all the peculiar privileges of each Visible Church is quite unwarrantable and erroneous. 3. And yet Mr. Noel accusingly asks,' (p. 288,) ^^Why ought not Baptists to own them [evangelical Pedobaptists] as brethren ? All who are the servants of Christ ought to be owned as such. If he honors and loves them, it is not his will that their fellow-servants should dishonor them. God has made them His children by adoption and grace, and cannot be pleased to see that while they are owned by Him, they are disowned by their brethren.^' 4. The answer to such an accusation is obvious. We do not disown them as Christian brethren. We do not own them as Baptists. They do not even wish to be so con- sidered. All Christians we are willing to own ^' as such,'' that is, as Christians, but not as members of Baptist Churches. 5. The Lord's Supper is not only the symbol of our Com- munion with Christ, or with Christians as such, but also of Visible Church felloicship, among those who thus unite, for as we have said, this being a visible ordinance belongs to visible Churches as such, and not to the Universal Church, If this were not so, we ought like the Boman Catholics to celebrate Communion Service, (i. e. Mass) with departed saints. But if the Lord's Supper is an ordinance belonging to 238 COMMUNION. visible Churclies as such — so is the other great ordinance, Baptism. Hence it must follow that to the A^isible Churches of Christ in that capacity, is specially entrusted the duty of upholding Baptism in its primitive mode and position. If they neglect, who shall preserve it ? 6. And the question of Communion really resolves itself into this, whether it is the duty of the Churches of Christ as such to uphold baptism. If Pedobaptists are to be ad- mitted to perfect membership ; if there is to be no distinc- tion between their churches and ours, if their ministers are to be ordained over Baptist Churches, and Baptist Ministers over theirs, as it may happen ; in fine, if, as Ro- bert Hall contended, " the mixture of Baptists and Pedo- baptists in Christian societies should be such that the ap- pellation of Baptist might be found not so properly appli- cable to Churclies as to individuals,^' then we submit that Baptism would thereby be declared not to be an ordinance belonging to the Visible Churches at all. Quakers or Pe- dobaptists might be the only officers to administer it. In fact, it would be obviously improper that it should be per- formed in the Church in any case, as all the Church, often a majority of the members, could not unite in it. But if Christian Baptism is to be driven out of these bodies, where is it to be upheld ? If not by their Pastors, by whom can it be administered ? The Saviour committed it in charge to his visible Churches, and to them alone. If they refuse to celebrate it, it must become extinct. The question is, therefore, really not so much one of Communion, as of Baptism ', whether there ought to be Churches in which Baptism is administered ; whether the ministers of Christ's visible Churches on earth have any right to practise or to preach upon Baptism. In admitting, (which Mr. Noel does frequently,) that there rightly are NATURE OF CHRISTIAN UNION. 239 and ought to be Baptist Cliiircbes ; in being, as Mr. Noel declares himself, ready to administer the rite of Baptism, as the Pastor of a visible Church, he virtually overturns Robert HalFs theory. Thus much in regard to the ar- gument drawn from the Nature of Things. II. We now turn to consider Mr. Noel's appeal to the Scriptures. It is on this that he seems mainly to rely, and on this we also are willing to rest the decision of the whole case. 2. (a.) He first quotes John xiii. 35, and xvii. 20, pass- ages in which Christ enjoins and prays for the mutual love and union of all his followers. On these texts, he justly remarks, that " their union must be so manifested by bro- therly fellowship, that the world may see and be converted by it.'' (p. 289.) 3. Our first remark is, that the Saviour could not have intended this union for which he prays, to extend so far as to bring all Christians into one Visible Church. If he did, the Roman Catholics are right, and we are all wrong ; for this is their boasted Unity. But it has ever proved the most deadly enemy to that union which Christ inculcated. The Apostle established hundreds of distinct visible Churches. The oneness which these injunctions and prayers inculcate, so far as relates to Church fellowship, must be a felt and acknowleged union in the One Invi- sible Church. Now we are as ready and forward as other denominations, to testify our regard, by all consistent means, for pious Pedobaptists, as members of the Universal Church. We unite with them in prayer, in great moral and religious enterprises as freely as do Methodists, Epis- copalians, and Presbyterians of the Old and New School do amongst themselves. 4. But if it should be urged that it would add greatly to 240 COMMUNION. the obvious union and brotherly fellowship of all true Christians, if they were to celebrate together the symbols of visible Church fellowship ; then obviously the fault of not doing so must rest with those who by their wrong- views of the nature, duties, and sacraments of visible Churches, render such symbols inappropriate. The blame cannot fall upon those who " keep the ordinances as they were delivered/^ It may also be remarked, that Pedo- baptists could certainly conform to our mode of baptism, which they all admit to be valid, and which would do much to settle this difficulty; but we could not adopt their mode, not esteeming it lawful. No Pedobaptist, therefore, while unwilling to make this concession to charity, can, with any show of consistency, adduce these passages against our practice in regard -to Communion. Indeed, if all Pedobaptists were but to defei* baptism until their chil- dren were old enough to judge for themselves, and were to adopt our mode, this source of vexation would die away without any further agitation, 5. (b.) From these "general passages, Mr. Noel proceeds to those more specific injunctions as to the treatment of our fellow Christians, contained in Rom^ 14 : 1-7, and 15 : 7, " Him that is weak in the faith 4'eceiv.e je/! &c. On these, (p. 289,) he argues thus: "If Jjikewise the Pedo- baptist has not light enough to th^ow off the Jewish ordi- nance of infant circumcision, but must revive it in infant baptism, he is not to be repelled from comanunion with those to whom Grod has given more knowledge in this matter.'' AYe presume the Author means, that he is not to be repelled on account of infant baptism; a question, in regard to which we are saved from the necessity of any discussion; as it is not on that account that we decline receiving Pedobaptists as members of our Churche§,':but MISTAKES AND THEIR RESULTS. 241 simply because tliey themselves are unhaptized, — a very dif- ferent matter. 6. Biitj argues Mr. Noel, " we are called to receive all Christ's disciples, notwithstanding their errors, as Christ has received us, notwithstanding ours.'' Rom. 15 : 7. We reply that we do receive them as Christ's disciples, and have for them a warm and sincere Christian fellowship. But it is urged, that Paul must be understood here to en- join the reception of all such persons into a visible Church fellowship. Allow this, and we must be willing to receive into the full communion and membership of every Baptist Church, Episcopalians, Quakers and Roman Catholics, members of the G-reek Church or other Pedobaptists, with all their various notions of ecclesiastical government, modes of worship, their saints and images, crucifixes and beads, celibate clergy, masses for the dead and prayers to the Virgin. We must tolerate all these things in our Churches, unless we are prepared to assert that there are no true Christians among those who hold them ; and we must not inculcate Believers' Baptism in the Church a whit more strenuously than infant baptism, or than any of the above dogmas. They must either all be promoted by us equally, as majorities happen to sway the scale, or all be neutral and forbidden subjects. T. Still, by whatever the word of God says, we must abide, and Mr. Noel quotes Rom. 14 : 3. "Let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath re- ceived him." The great question is, whether this passage teaches that we are bound to receive into our visible Churches, every one of those whom Christ has received as members of the Invisible Church ; to receive them, whatever may be the nature and tendency of their errors, and what- ever the results which might ensue from countenancing sys- 21 242 COMMUNION. terns, subversive of the faith of thousands, though perhaps not excluding from salvation every individual holding them. This, which Mr. Noel seems to think, " demanded by the plain precepts of Scripture,^' (p. 301,) we do not hesitate to assert, finds in it no countenance whatever, and least of all in the 14th and 15th chapters of Romans. Whoever examines these passages will find that the Apostle Paul proceeds throughout in his argument for the reception of those scrupulous brethren, on the expressed ground, that they were complying with the whole revealed vnll of God^ in regard to those matters which occasioned the doubt as to their reception. ^' One man believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak, eateth herbs ;'^ but both fulfill all that Grod requires in this matter. ^' There is no- thing unclean in itself," except to him who believes it so. ^' One man esteemeth one day above another, another man esteemeth every day alike," but neither in any manner violates the revealed will of Grod. Such was the obvious train of the Apostle's thought. And hence he argued, that since the individual was one whom God had received as a Christian, and who, as to the doubtful point, com- plied with the whole revealed will of God, and therefore clearly received His approbation in regard to these very matters, he was to be received in the same way by the Church at Rome. Here, therefore, were two conditions on which the Apostle argued for the reception of doubtful persons ; first, because Christ has received them into the invisible Church, and secondly, because they have com- plied with all the requirements of the New Testament, in regard to the questionable point. It is difficult to see, how from such a passage, the admission of persons, who, it is acknowledged, violate one of the conditions, can be '^ demanded." REAL GROUNDS OF EXCLUSION. 243 8. Such is the amount of the argument from Scripture, ■as offered by Mr. Noel. At the close of his remarks, (p. 300,) the author does, indeed, introduce other Scrip- tural considerations, thus. After charging us, (p. 292,) with expelling pious Pedobaptists, he returns (p. 300) to this topic, and thus depicts the ^^odiousness^^ of so doing. ."For, consider,^' he says, "the real nature of this exclu- sion. Those only are ordered in the Word of God to be excluded, who are heretical in doctrine, (Gral. 5 : 12,) who are vicious in practice, (1 Cor. 5 : 11, 13,) who are schis- matical in temper, (Rom. 16 : 17,) who injure their breth- ren, (Matt. 18 : 17,) or who are openly disobedient to the commands of Christ, (2 Thess. 3 : 14).'^ Now we might ask, if the whole of Mr. Noel's book on Baptism is not intended to prove that all Pedobaptists are, however igno- rantly, openly disobedient to a command of Christ. But not to dwell on that, we join issue with our author, on the fact which he asserts. The passages he quotes, and the remarks he makes, do not fairly exhibit the only ground on which, according to the New Testament, persons were to be excluded from the fellowship of a Visible Church ; unless, indeed, the last specification is intended to include every departure, however trifling, from the revealed will of God. If 2 Thess. 3 : 6, had been referred to, as well as 2 Thess. 3 : 14, it would have been but proper. " Now we command you brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother who icalketh disorderly, and not after the traditions which he received of us." From verses 8 and 10, we learn that idlers and husyhodies, for example, were to be excluded. This passage has been so commonly alluded to, in this con- nection, that we are surprised our Author should not have noticed it. While it is, therefore, unquestionably the fact that 244 COMMUNION. persons of immoral lives, and guilty of such crimes as ex- clude men from all hope of heaven, are to be separated from the Church ; yet it is also true that errors, not in- volving such fearful and eternal consequences, hut subver- sive of Church discipline or order, may form a sufficient reason for exclusion from a Visible Church. The inter- ests of the Society, as a whole, and not those alone of the erroneous individual, are to be considered in this matter. How then can such Scripture, fairly weighed, be urged as proof that " all true believers are to be admitted to Com- munion '' with us, — or that we have a right to demand "no other terms of Communion than such as are terms of salvation.'^ It might as well be contended that in an army no man should be excluded from the ranks, who was a good, pious man, though he might be destitute of cou- rage, discipline, or strength. 9. It is an unquestionable fact, that their views of Bap- tism have made Baptists the only denomination in all Christendom, that has uniformly considered a credible profession of piety, a prerequisite to full Communion and Church Membership. Those bodies of Christians that now uphold this view, are much indebted to them for its preservation, vitally important as it is to evangelical piety. Infant Baptism may be merely an insipid and harmless thing in individual cases ; but as a system, its tendency is to break down that great bulwark of Christian piety in a converted Church Membership, and even a converted min- istry.* This cannot be a matter of indifference, therefore, in the constitution of our Churches, much less in the offi- cial character of Church Officers. 10. Other evangelical Christians possess a vast numerical * ppendix M. A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION. 245 majority over persons of Baptist sentiments. To tolerate the various opinions of all these, must eventually break down those distinctive features of primitive doctrine, that have enabled us to do good to the world, to other Churches, or even to maintain a simple existence. It would prevent Baptism from ever being treated as a Church ordinance, and alter our form of government and mode of worship, according to the caprice of fluctuating majorities. 11. But we have one further and more fundamental re- mark in regard to the passages quoted by Mr. Noel, as show- ing who ought and who ought not to be expelled from the Church. There is a vast deal of difference between ex- pelling persons once regularly received into any voluntary society, and not being willing to admit them to member- ship. The former can only be done on the ground of some change on their part ; usually some grave overt act ; but negative considerations, and even a simple want of sufficient favorable evidence, fully justify the latter as a precautionary measure. Now we never expel, or in that sense exclude any persons for not being baptized ; they never being members of our Churches. It is conceded by all, that in this we act precisely as did the primitive Chris- tians. They never admitted the unbaptized into their Churches. Now it is doubly unfair to charge us with ex- pelling persons because we decline to admit them, and to turn round and say, the Apostles never excluded, ex- cept for heretical doctrine, vicious practice, schismatical temper, &c. The answer is obvious ', the Apostles never had occasion to expel for any but these things, because they took precautionary measures, and never deliberately received in those who were doubtful characters. But if the word exclude is to be used in the sense of declining to receive, then the Apostles did exclude for the simple want 21* 246 COMMUNION. of baptism, just as we do ; and this should have been added to Mr. Noel's list of causes. 12. (c.) We have thus considered the whole amount of Mr. Noel's argument, drawn from Scrijjture, upon which he chiefly relies. But we may here notice some concessions which occur in the course of the work, as to the teachings of the Word of Grod, on the connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. On pp. 280, 281, he admits and urges that, "As there is no instance in the New Testa- ment of any person who was converted to Christ, after he commissioned his disciples to baptize, coming to the Lord's Table unbaptized, a person who should do so now, would place himself in a situation unlike that of all the Chris- tians during the ministry of the Apostles. It is safer to conform to the Apostolic custom, and to attend the Lord's Table as baptized, rather than as unbaptized. A person sprinkled in infancy may, indeed, have professed his faith in Christ by coming to the Lord's Table, and in other ways, but he has never made a baptismal profession of faith, according to Christ's commands, both implied and expressed. Matt. 28 : 19 ; Mark 16 : 16 ; John 3:5; Acts 2:38." He even admits, (p. 292,) that there is an insti- tuted connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. " That there is an instituted connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supj^er, I freely admit, and it is no less clear that after the institution of Baptism by our Lord, no person who refused to be baptized was ever admitted in any Christian Church to that Supper." We will here- after notice the special analogy by which he apologizes for a departure from this rule. To us, it appears, that in ad- mitting an " instituted connection," he admits everything. For an instituted connection must mean just the opposite of an accidental connection. The word from in and statuere MR. NOEL'S CONCESSIONS. 247 has primary reference to laws, which are said to be insti- tuted or in-statuted — fixed, made to stand, ^^ established/' ^^ enacted/' '^prescribed/' '^ appointed." (See Webster's and Richardson's Dictionaries, and Crabbe's Synonymes.) If, then, the connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper is not an accidental one, but one enacted, in-s'a- tuted by the very Head and Lawgiver of the Church, into the laws of administering these ordinances, what room is there for further argument as to inviting those to partake with us in the second ordinance, who have not and never intend to partake of the first ? The only question that could be raised, is, whether in a Christian Church, we are bound to be governed by the laws of Christ. 13. To prove still further how freely Mr. Noel concedes this instituted connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and how strong a hold it has obtained over his mind, we quote from the published account of his address at the water's edge, which has every appearance of being verbatim. In giving his reasons for submitting to Bap- tism, he is represented to have said : '' In the first place, there is no instance in the New Testament, of any person unbaptized, after the institution of Christian Baptism by our Lord, coming to the Lord's Table ; and, therefore, if we should continue to attend the Lord's Table without being baptized, knowing that Pedobaptism is not the Bap- tism appointed by Christ, we should he doing contrary to all the precedents of the New TestamentJ' This language seemed so strong, and its whole bearing so entirely against open Communion, that it at fii-st led many Baptists in this country to the premature conclusion that Mr. Noel's views of the Lord's Supper were more akin to those of the Bap- tists in this country than in England. Indeed we believe that this is the case, so far as his personal duty is con- 248 COMMUNION. cerned. It is true, lie does not liere use the words ^^ insti- tuted connection/^ but why did he put the two ordinances together in so remarkable a manner, unless he intuitively felt that there was an appointed and special connection be- tween them ? 14. The very strong view which the Author takes, of the Scriptural connexion between Baptism and Regeneration, render his practical denial by free Communion, of the instituted connexion between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which he verbally admits, still more surprising. In commenting on Titus 3 : 5, he explains ^^ the washing of regeneration,'' by which, with the renewing of the Holy Ghost, we are saved — to mean Baptism. ^' The Spirit,'' he says, (p. 113,) "imparts new life. Baptism ma- nifests it; and both complete the new birth. As a child first lives, and then comes into the world, and thus is born ; his entrance into the world not giving life, but manifest- ing it ; so the child of Grod receives life, and then is bap- tized, and thus is new-born, his baptism not giving spiri- tual life, but manifesting it ; and therefore Baptism is the washing of regeneration, or the washing, which is the manifestation and completion of regeneration. By these two things, the washing and the renewing, the spiritual renovation, and the Baptism which manifests it, God saves His people. All the passages respecting Baptism are ex- actly in harmony in this matter." Now if Baptism is "the manifestation and completion of regeneration," then in Free Communion, we invite to the Lord's Table those, not manifestly or completely regenerated ! And with a full consciousness, that he could not himself approach the Lord's Table unbaptized, without " violating all the pre- cedents of the New Testament," even believing Baptism necessary to " the manifestation and completion of rege- EXCESSIVE GENEROSITY. 249 neration/^ and freely admitting, that ^Uhere is an insti- tuted connexion" between it and the Lord's Supper, Mr. Noel yet contends, that we ought to admit to the latter, and this even in Baptist Churches, those who reject the former. Is it not at least plain, that such a course must destroy them as Baptist Churches, especially, as neither he, nor Robert Hall, ever pretend to draw any distinction between admitting to the Lord's Table, and to full Church Membership. That Mr. Noel is sincere, none can doubt ; but when he proposes to form the terms of fellowship for Baptist Churches, upon supposed possible exceptions, in direct opposition to ''all the precedents of the New Testa- ment;" he exhibits a spirit of extreme concession — an excessive generosity to those who differ from him, utterly subversive of instituted ordinances. CHAPTER III. CONSIDERED. 1. These might be passed over. 2. State of the case. I. Prohibitory asjject of the system. — 1. Each visible church independ- ent. 2. No conscientious Christian is forbidden to commune at the Lord's Table with those who hold similar views. II. Implied usurjmtion over conscience. — 1. Peculiar impropriety of this objection from Mr. Noel after his concessions. 2. Supposes two serious misconceptions. 3. Singular reasoning. 4. Results to Avhich it tends. III. Apparent inconsistency. — 1. It is not real. 2. Evidence of this. 3. The first Christians worshipped with the Jews in the Synagogiies. 4. Unique relation of Baptism and the Supper, intuitively felt. 5. The alternative forced upon us. 6. Acknowledgment of Drs. Ypeij and Dermont of Holland. 7. Remark of Andrew Fuller. 8. Illustrations. IV. Impolicy of exclusiveness : especially where a doctrine is unpopular, though true. — 1 . The Author's theories. 2. They strike at the root of investigation, by denying its necessity. 3. Action is here more necessary even than investigation. 4. Action pi-oduces action. 5. Such exem- plary action does not diminish spirituality. Comparison of United States and England shows this. 6. Mr. Noel's grand concession. 7. It amounts to the surrender of his Avhole argument. 1. We have now only to review that portion of Mr. Noel's remarks, in which the arguments of Strict Communionists are discussed. But as we have not professed to urge all that can be said in favor of strict communion ; hut merely to carry out a single consistent line of argument to its legit- imate results, we might here with propriety conclude ; not being necessarily required to notice any remarks which do not bear upon the particular train of thought to which we have confined ourselves. OBJECTIONS ESTABLISH NOTHING. 251 2. The state of the case so far is in brief this. Mr. Noel admits that the system of inviting the baptized alone to our Church membership and its symbols, is by virtue of an instituted connexion, the only plan '^ conformable" with " the instances of the New Testament ;'' but he puts in a plea of special exceptions to the letter, in favor of what he considers the spirit of Scripture. This he attempts to sup- port by an appeal, first to the nature of things, and then to the Word of Grod. We have considered his reasoning in favor of both these appeals. It has, we submit, utterly failed to establish what he proposed. All his objections, therefore, to arguments sometimes urged on the other side, whatever their value, could not make good his side of the question. Objections can only demolish ; they estab- lish nothing. We touch, however, upon a few points, though at the hazard of prolixity. I. On p. 291, commenting upon some statements of Mr. Fuller and the Primitive Church Magazine,. Mr. Noel objects to our plan of Communion, that thus "the saints of Jesus are put out of Communion with any of His Churches." So also (on p. 294) he urges that it says in effect, " Because you cannot confess Christ in one way, we will hinder you from confessing him in another." 1. There certainly is nothing in our plan of Communion that involves any such consequences. Mr. Noel, in com- mon with ourselves, considers each Church a perfectly in- dependent body. Not to receive a person into a Baptist Church does not prevent his reception into any other, regulated by different principles. But it may be urged that if all Christian Churches were founded upon our plan, large numbers of the professing saints of Jesus would be put out of Communion with any of them. By no means. 252 COMMUNION. In that case, no professing Cliristian would, npon this account, be put out of communion with any Christian Church. For then, all such persons would be baptized. Unquestionably it would produce confusion to adopt half our plan, but not the whole ; Strict Communion, but not Baptism. For such confusion, those must be answerable who occasion it. But it is not to be supposed that those Christian Churches that dispense with what we consider Baptism, everywhere else but at the Communion Table, will yet require it there. Such a course would assuredly be inconsistent and absurd. We do not hinder those who disbelieve in our Baptism, from joining or forming Churches not requiring it. Our principles, then, ever so fully car- ried out, if fairly acted upon, could never lead to the ex- clusion of any of the professing saints of Jesus from Church Communion, ^ye do not, therefore, " hinder them'' from confessing Christ in the Lord's Supper, because they do not in Baptism. 2. How inappropriate, then, to use the mildest term, is the language in which Mr. Noel characterizes our views of Communion, (p. 297,) where he says that by us, '^eminent Christians are treated as heretics, disobedient to the law of Christ, and aliens from his Church." Disobedient to the law of Baptism, Pedobaptists certainly are, if our views are correct; many of them.ignorantly no doubt, but many more from purposely avoiding the study of the subject, like Mr. Noel. (Pref. p. 1.) But our views of the indepen- dence of Churches would alone be sufficient to prevent us from treating such persons as " heretics ;" least of all from regarding them as " aliens" from the Church of Christ. There is but one body in all earth and heaven, entitled to the appellation of The Church or "His Church," 2. e. The ITniversal Church, which is invisible. There is. EQUAL LIBERTY. 253 a wide difference between the proper terms of Visible and Invisible Church membership. That is implied in the distinction of the names. The Lord's Supper is a symbol of Visible Church membership. Not partaking of it to- gether, therefore, implies no want of fellowship in the In- visible Church. II. Mr. Noel, (p. 291-2,) quotes the following as a state- ment of our sentiments : ^' We are willing to receive all who appear to have been received of God to the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but we cannot divide the one from the other." This he declares to be no re- ception of them, but as saying in effect : " Unless you will forego what you believe to be a duty, — the baptism of in- fants, and accept us as authoritative expositors of Christian doctrine, we must expel you from our Society, when we commemorate the dying love of our Lord." 1. These remarks refer to a course of reasoning, not strict- ly within our line of argument. But the objection seems to come with peculiar impropriety from one, who, in the next sentence, '^ freely admits" that there is " an instituted con- nection'^ between Baptism and the Lord's Supper; for how then can we divide them ? But he says he does not wish to divide them himself, but only to permit Pedobaptists to do so if they will. This is just what we do; allowing all other Churches the same liberty that we use, but wishing ourselves to ^^keep the ordinances as they were delivered unto us.'^ Hence we cannot constitute our own Churches upon the basis of separating those two ordinances, which appear in all Scripture precedents to be connected. Each Church is the authorized expositor of Christian doctrine for itself,— it has to decide what is Christian Baptism ; whether there is, according to Scripture, an instituted con- nection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper ; or in Mr. 22 254 COMMUNION. Noel's own words, it must be the ultimate judge of the qualifications of those who seek communion with it. We concede to others the same right to judge for themselves; but it seems to us utterly incongruous for Mr. Noel, after freely admitting that there is an instituted connection be- tween Baptism and the Lord's Supper, to complain because we simply act upon the principle of not dividing them in the constitution of our Churches. 2. So obvious is this fallacy, that we think it could not have imposed upon Mr. Noel, long enough to have written it down, had it not been coupled in his mind, as it is in the passage we have quoted, with one or two misconcep- tions of so serious a character, that we cannot even, at the risk of repetition, pass them without notice. (a.) He speaks as though we first received pious Pedo- baptists into our Churches ; and then, '^ when we commemo- rate the dying love of our Lord,'^ " expelled them from our Society." To expel is to drive out. It is impossible to drive out of a Church those who never were in it. But we have already discussed this point. (5.) But the cause for which we are represented as expel- ling those who do not and will not join us, is as erroneous as the charge itself. We are represented as saying, ^^ Unless you will forego what you believe to be a duty, — the bap- tism of infants, and accept us as authoritative expositors of Christian doctrine, we must expel you." But it is not for anything which Pedobaptists feel called upon to doj not even for baptizing infants, that we refrain from invi- ting them to visible Church membership, or its symbqls. It is, because they do not submit to Christian Baptism. 3. And yet the same sentiment is repeated (p. 300) even more strongly. ^' You do this," says our author, speaking of our not inviting Pedobaptists to commune, " because SINGULAR REASONING. 255 thej^ do just what you do yourselves, since you will baptize believers alone, because you think that Christ requires it, and they will baptize infants, because they think that He requires it. You do this, therefore, on a principle that would justify their exclusion of you, which proscribes all communion among believers," &c. This is truly singular reasoning for a man like Mr. Noel. He first assumes that it is for baptizing infants, that we do not invite them to our Communion Table ; and then, by a most unheard of logic, would prove that in this, they only do just what we do ourselves, because they are sincere, and so are we. 4. According to this, anything which a person erroneously thinks to be the will of Christ, is just as acceptable as if it actually were his will. The Roman Catholic thinks that the worship of the Virgin Mary, and prayers and masses for the dead are the will of Christ ; yet does the sincere but idolatrous worshipper of the Virgin, when he prostrates himself before her image, " only do just what we do,'^ when we baptize or are baptized as believers, because we both think that Christ requires our respective acts of worship. What kind of reasoning is this, by which idolatry and Christian Baptism are placed upon a moral level ; each represented as equally agreeable to Christ, because both are sincere. Carry this a little further. The Hindoo, as he kys his head beneath the rolling car of Juggernaut, and the mother, as she smothers her child in the mud of the Ganges, are also sincere, and think themselves performing the will of heaven. Shall we then say that they only do ^^just as we do ourselves," because they think they are performing the will of heaven in murder and suicide, and we can do no more in Christian Baptism? He erroneously complains that our plan " proscribes all communion among believers."" His would assuredly embrace idolaters, mur- 256 COMMUNION. derers and suicides as "doing just wbat we do ourselves/' acting sincerely. According to this reasoning, Paul, when lie persecuted the saints of God, and imbrued his hands in their blood, " only did just what we do,^' because he " verily thought" that God required it : and this is, why we baptize. III. On pp. 292-3, after admitting that originally "no person who refused to be baptized was ever admitted in any Christian Church to the Lord's Supper," he wishes to show that this can be no guide for us now, because the same was then as true of preaching or leading in public prayer, as of the Eucharist. — We shall not here particularly inquire how early and to what extent the Christians separa- ted themselves from those Jewish synagogues that did not exclude them; though until that period they did sit under the preaching and prayers of unbaptized persons. 4. It is sufficient to remark that his parallel doe^ not hold good, because these two special ordinances of Chris- tianity sustain a unique relation to each other. It is but consistent, therefore, that there should be prior ceremonial agreement, where there is ceremonial communion, as there must be prior spiritual agreement where there is spiritual communion. We need not here recur in proof of this, to our author's admission not only of a natural, but of an " instituted connexion" between these two ordinances, nor to the fact that he seems in his own case to feel the con- nection to be very strong. On p. 280 he says, that " a person who should come to the Lord's Table unbaptized, would place himself in a situation unlike that of all the Christians during the ministry of the Apostles." Now, why does he intuitively speak of the Lord's Supper so par- ticularly in connexion with Baptism ? That occurs but occasionally, — worship to G d, daily. Why did he not DANGER OF LAX NOTIONS. 257 say that for a person to come daily to God in prayer, or to preach in his name, and yet remain unbaptized, would be to place himself in a situation unlike that of all the primitive Christians during the ministry of the Apostles ? Plainly, because he instinctively felt that there is a natural connection in the one case, that there is not in the other. 5. But from these germs in p. 292, a plan of communion is developed, (p. 293,) upon which it would be impossible to refuse Roman Catholics as such, the right to flock in any numbers to our Churches, and alter them by their votes to whatever shape they please. ^^ What upright and earnest believer was ever in those days excluded ?" asks our author. Must we then be driven to the extremity of either deny- ing that there are any upright and earnest believers among the Roman Catholics and the Puseyite Episcopalians, or else be forced to receive all such into full membership, and to the Communion Table, its chief symbol, — permit them to come in as equally entitled to all the privileges, and even direction and of&ces of our Churches ; confer on them the right to preach their doctrines, to worship after their forms, to introduce their system of Church govern- ment, to baptize those whom they see fit, yea, to celebrate masses for the dead, and the worship of the Virgin, pro- vided they could once secure a majority of a single Church in their favor ? Whole denominations often alter radically in a few years, even where the forms of their government and worship are far more studiously conservative than our own. Look at the revolutions which the Episcopal Church has undergone, owing to its lax notions of Communion. Fifty years ago it was mostly Arminian ; twenty years ago it had become largely evangelical ; now it is full of the worst errors of Rome. We are quite willing that the go- vernment of our" Churches should be in the hands of the 22* 258 COMMUNION. Communicants so long as the New Testament requisitions are complied with ; which make necessary a certain union of objective Christianity, in connexion with its subjective basis. Free Communion presupposes a religion entirely subjective; which is as certainly, though not perhaps as mischievously a departure from the original principles of the Constitution of Visible Church Membership, as the Koman Catholic system, which makes objective Christianity alone requisite without any mixture of the subjective ele- ment. 6. If it is desirable to preserve to future ages one denomi- nation upholding the doctrines and principles of Chris- tianity, as exhibited in the New Testament, it must be by keeping these two elements in their proper mutual rela- tion. A denomination doing this, will preserve its cha- racteristics, but no other. A distinguished German Pro- fessor of Theology has borne an appropriate testimony to the manner in which Baptists have fulfilled their part thus far. To quote this will probably be the most effectual warning against an innovation so radical in its nature, as that advocated by Robert Hall and Mr. Noel ; one which, by dispensing with objective piety from the prerequisites of Communion, must essentially alter that Church Consti- tution which is the most perfect embodiment of New Tes- tament Christianity. The extract is taken from a volume, entitled '^An Account of the Origin of the Dutch Baptists,'^ published in 1819, by Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology, at Groningen, and Bev. J. J. Dermont, Chaplain to the King of the Netherlands. '' The Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy ILLUSTRATIONS. 259 of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm tlie truth disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation was in the highest degree necessary ; and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their communion is the most ancient/^ 7. The language of Andrew Fuller, which Mr. Noel quotes, (p. 294,) as exceptionable, seems to us to contain an important truth, couched in the most exact and appropriate language. ^^ The Scriptures lay great stress upon con- fessing Christ's name before men, (Matt. 10 : 32,) and baptism is one of the most distinguished ways of doing this. When a man becomes a believer in Christ, he con- fesses it usually in words to other believers, but the ap- pointed way of confessing it openly to the world, is by being baptized in his name. If, therefore, we profess Christianity only in words, the thing professed may be genuine, but the profession is certainly defective." 8. Mr. Noel's illustrations are not more fortunate than his arguments on the point. Speaking of Baptist and Pedobaptist members in the same Church, he says, (p. 294,) ^^ Both wear the King's uniform, but the one assumed it at the earlier rite ; the other more irregularly at the latter rite. If the one in Baptism professed to die with Christ, the other in the Supper showed forth the Lord's death." Were we to form a figure to express our views, it would be somewhat different from this of our author's. Though we would not, for fear of misapprehension, compare un- baptized communicants to guests at the marriage feast without a wedding garment, yet we would liken them to soldiers, brave men, and zealous in the Christian warfare, but still out of uniform, and refusing to put it on. " So many of you," says Paul, ^^ as have been baptized into Christ, have x^ut on Christ." Good soldiers and true they 260 COMMUNION. are, but, in the matter of apparel, like Falstaff 's regiment. To mix up such in the very same company with those re- gularly equipped (baptized and unbaptized in the same Churches) and then boast of the motley and speckled ap- pearance of the regiment ; what is it but the surest method conceivable of destroying all respect for the uniform. It would be impossible that any regard for soldierly equip- ment should survive such a shock. It would then appear that Free Communion principles must give the death blow to all respect for Baptism, of every form and kind; a result quite as erroneous as Infant Baptism itself. ly. 1. After what has been said, it seems almost unneces- sary to touch upon Mr. Noel's remarks in regard to the 'policy of Mixed Communion. He argues (p. 297) thus. '' When any doctrine is at once popular and false, an ex- clusive policy upholds it. . . . But exclusiveness is ex- tremely impolitic, when a doctrine is unpopular and true. Nothing is more favorable to the progress of such a doc- trine than investigation. . . . Which course, then, tends most to encourage investigation, close Communion, or open? . . . The former must irritate and repel; the lat- ter cannot but attract regard.'' We have not space here to examine all the theories by which the Author attempts to prove his point. It must suffice to remark, 2. That Free Communion cuts at the root of investi- gation hy denying all necessity for it. By admitting both parties to be sufficiently correct, it practically says that there is nothing requiring investigation. It discourages all discussion. It has often tied the hands of pastors, for- bidden them to discuss the subject from their pulpits, or in private ; prevented them from administering the ordi- nance of Baptism in the Church on the Lord's Day; and made it now quite customary, in England, to prefer a THE PRESENT AGE NEEDS ACTION. 261 week-day evenings when the Church is not of&cially con- vened. 3. But waiving that, we ask if investigation is the only thing required, in the present age, on the subject of Bap- tism ? It is not even the chief thing. It is action that is needed. Our views lie on the very surface of the New Testament. It does indeed require a great deal of inves- tigation for a Christian to find a plausible excuse for not being baptized. But while we never fear it, it cannot make our views more certain than they are. Probably half the members of Pedobaptist Churches at this moment, have searched the Scriptures far enough to drop Infant Baptism, as useless and unscriptural. Were they only to act consistently with what they already know, it would soon produce investigation enough to enlighten the other half, and baptism would be restored to its original position in all evangelical Churches. 4. Now it is action that produces action. To tell a person that he is in error, but that it is of no importance, will rarely incite investigation, but never rouse the sluggish conscience to action, which is what is here chiefly requi- site. Pure self-denying example is all important. 5. Mr. Noel is afraid of our views of Communion ^' in- juring the spiritof the Churches which practice it.^^ (p. 298.) " At least, they must be tempted to overvalue the form of religion, and to undervalue the reality; to pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and to omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith,^' — "to overvalue themselves on account of baptism, and by im- pairing the spirituality of the Church, Mnder the conver- sion of sinners." This would be a serious charge, if true. But look at facts. In this country, for instance, where Baptist Churches are founded upon our principles; are 262 COMMUNION. revivals less frequent, are professed conversions more rare than in England among the Open Communion Churches ? Compare the statistics of our denomination in this country and in England. In every respect that marks a growing, healthy body of Christians, will it be found that the views of Communion current in this country have exerted a baneful influence ? Compare the Baptists of this country with any other evangelical body of Christians, and statis- tics will show as healthful and extensive a progress over all parts of the country as in any other denomination. 6. Towards the conclusion of the chapter, Mr. Noel, in reply to an argument of Andrew Fuller's, makes conces- sions which virtually overthrow the whole principle for which he has been contending. Speaking of the admis- sion of Pedobaptists to Communion, (p. 299,) he says, '^Nor could their presence injure these churches; and with respect to members, each Church has the means of preventing the alleged evil in its own hands; for although it may not repel from its communion Pedobaptists, as such, it has yet the right to ask from all who are candi- dates for communion, credible proofs that they are true disciples. . . . Each Church may, if it will, require from candidates the profession of this faith, and testimonials to their conduct. The profession thus required may be ex- actly that icliicli icoulcl he made in baptism / and if the Church dread the appearance of sanctioning disobedience to a command of Christ, each Pedobaptist candidate may be required distinctly/ to profess that he refuses to be bap- tized only in obedience to what he believes, after exami- nation, to be the will of Christ." Here, in the shape of . " credible proofs," " testimonials," and " professions," ^^ after examination," a great deal more is admitted, and proposed to be required of candidates for Communion, than MR. NOEL'S CONCESSION. 263 is essential to salvation ; a great deal more tlian he him- self, pious, excellent, and able minister of Jesus Christ, as he has been for more than twenty years, could have answered two years ago. (See his Preface, p. 1.) 7. And yet, after all this, he tells us, (p. 301,) that the whole point at issue between the Free Communion and other Baptists, is that the former contend that we have a right " to demand no other terms of Communion than such as are terms of salvation/^ If that, indeed, be a fair statement of the case, then we submit that he has here conceded the very point at issue. CONCLUSION OF PART IV. We had intended only to make a few observations, in regard to the latter part of Mr. Noel's remarks ; but have been led on from one page to another, until there is hardly a sentence, and not an argument which we have left uncon- sidered. In view of the whole, we think it will be evident to every reader, that Mr. Noel has certainly failed to pro- duce any just reason for departing in the constitution of our Churches from the Primitive order. Least of all, has he proved the point he undertook to demonstrate, and which is the only alternative from our plan, that no other terms of Church Fellowship and Communion are admis- sible than such as are terms of salvation. The object of this review of Mr. Noel's remarks has been simply defensive ; not to exhibit the positive argu- ments in fiivour of our system of Church Fellowship, but simply to defend our course against the strictures of one whose excellence of character makes it painful to differ from him, even in matters that, compared with the great 264 COMMUNION. points on whicli lie is so admirable, are "but of trifling im- portance. Indeed, it is but justice to add, tbat tlirougliout the wbole course, not only of these pages, but of his public life, the Author has exhibited the most earnest love of truth, and the most elevated and disinterested readiness to sacrifice everything for its promotion. The Christian reverence for the will of God, and love to all who love Christ, exhibited in the pages of his entire work, will do more, by the holy example it sets, to diffuse the spirit of charity into all parts of the controversy of Baptism, than any arguments for particular modes of exhibiting it. His address, delivered when about to be " buried with Christ by baptism," must win for his course, the respect and love of all who love Christ. Let us close these observa- tions, by expressing the hope that a new day has dawned upon Christendom, and that not only in their more social intercourse, but even in their controversies, our religious leaders will exhibit more of the meekness and gentleness of Christ, by speaking the truth in love ; and that the day will soon arrive when " Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." GENERAL CONCLUSION. 1. The bearing of these views on the Churches. 2. The po-n-er of the Churches, to spread right views of the ordinances. 4. The ordinances specially committed to the Chm-ches. 4. The relative position of the Church and the Bible to the world. 5. Duty of the Churches in view of the corruption of the ordinances. 6. Objection — part to be sacrificed to the good of the whole. 7. The duty of Pedobaptist Churches — their Baptism a nullity. 8. Position of the Baptists towards them — we ask them to defer Baptism to believing. 9. The duty of such ChurcheS: 10. The duty of such ministers. 11. Why we offer these remarks, 12. All Christians love Christ better than any symbols. 13. Fate of Sects. 14. Prevailing ideas of this age — Voluntariness. 15. Stlf-governmeni. 16. Baptist sentiments embody these. 17. Changes progressive. 18. The Home of the Christian. 19. It embodies the results of all the changes of Time. 1. Having now considered the great principles upon wliicli our views of Communion are based, we venture to offer one or two concluding reflections, in relation to the bearing of these principles upon the Churches of Christ, as such, their members and their ministers respectively. In regard (1.) to the Churches of Christ. If our views are correct, each one of these bodies is an independent organization, answerable for its whole course directly to the Great Head of the Church, and relying on his pro- mised protection and presence, for all its light, and life, and joy. From Him is derived all that renders a Church honorable to His cause, useful to the world, edifying to its members, happy in itself; just as from the rays of the same sun, wax derives softness and clay hardness, the moon her lustre, the trees their greenness, and all animated 23 266 COMMUNION". creation, its joyousness and life. Should error, or neglect, cause Him to remove the candlestick out of its place, or to withdraw his presence, but for a moment, the Church he- comes as dark and gloomy as a world without a sun. 2. To the Churches, as such, Christ has solemnly com- mitted in charge, the ordinances of his house. To neglect them must be displeasing to Him. The power of organ- ized bodies of men, to propagate any truth, or revive an obsolete opinion or practice, is naturally immense. It emboldens the timid, and decides the wavering. It incites to action, because it exhibits truth in action. Apart from these sources of power, there is in these bodies, another and a greater; the presence and indwelling Spirit of Christ. A Church therefore, is both a human and a divine institu- tion. As in man, one person is formed by the union of soul and body, of powers infinitely greater than many per- sons would possess with but one of these alone ; so is each visible Church of Christ possessed of resources, and strength, and influence, illimitable for good, and far transcending the sum of its individual powers. Its effects on the customs of society, for instance, apart from the saving results that attend its efforts and worship in the hearts of individuals, are incalculable. The morals and manners of a nation, and of an age; its intelligence; even its form of government, will generally have their archetype in the congregations of its saints.* 3. He who has given to these bodies their peculiar strength — He who first applied the power of voluntary social organization to religious purposes in His own Churches, and has, guarded, guided, and actuated that power, so far as religion is concerned, ever since — has * See Appendix K. ■1h THE TRUST COMMITTED TO CHURCHES. 267 committed two sacramental ordinances specially to their care, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These, as mere outward signs, might seem of little importance, but that He has connected with them, in a remarkable manner, a whole system of doctrines and practice, of which He has made them the symbols and exponents; to which indeed, He has united them in a unique manner, so that practi- cally, it should no more be thought of severing them, than of disuniting the body and the soul, or Christ and His Churches. He has made it the duty of these organiza- tions, as such, to convert the whole world to the system of Christianity, in all its wholeness, just as he committed it to them : the parts balanced like the various powers of man, and adjusted by His own hand. They have no right to proclaim Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, without the faith they symbolize ; nor yet, on the other hand, the faith without the symbols. The body, without the soul, is a mere carcass. But the soul without the body cannot be realized in the present state. Symbol is the appointed dwelling place for piety, as the body clothes the living spirit, with the firm bones, and the soft warm flesh. 4. To the Churches, we say, is this system, Christianity, committed, in all its symmetry. The Bible is indeed its text book, and only unfailing standard. But each Church of Christ is a living hody, to which He has given in charge, both the lively oracles, and the living ordinances. It is for these Churches to draw from the Scriptures, the sys- tem of life, and to propagate it through the whole earth, by their divine powers, energies, example, and organization. ^' Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord.'' ^^ Ye are the light of the world." The Church and the Bible stand in the same position to the guilty dying world^ that the physician 268 COMMUNION. and his books stand to the sick patient. The patient looks upon the physician usually as the living embodiment of his books. So the sinner looks to the Churchy as the true exponent of what Christianity, as a system is. Right or wrong, each Church of Christ is thus regarded by the great masses of men. Hence they derive more of their re- ligious ideas, than from any other source. These two Ordinances then, should be upheld by the Churches, m living exhibition, just in the same position in which they are placed in the New Testament, and they stand very con- spicuously in that volume. Much is said of them there. They are held up as the symbols and embodiment of many vital truths. The one is called "putting on Christ," the other, " the communion of the hody and hlood of Christ." 5. These ordinances have been greatly misapprehended and abused. It is therefore the peculiar duty of the Churches as such, above all other bodies, to exert their influence, the power of their public example, and their social organization as the appointed executors of the Will of Christ, to restore them to their original position, to reform current abuses, and to revive their primitive order. All Baptist Churches are agreed as to what those abuses are, and what that order was. The only question, so far as they are concerned, is whether they shall exert their influence to produce a reformation in the most efi"ectual manner ? They have immense powers conferred. Are they bound thus to use them? We believe that they are. We have seen that our plan of Communion practi- cally exerts an incalculable influence for the restoration of primitive Baptism. Are we at liberty to use less effectual means, because they may be less painful to our feelings ? All must perceive that this would be a solemn breach of OBJECTION— THE REAL ISSUES. 269 trust. We should not execute faithfully the Will of the Testator; and, by misplaced tenderness, we should defraud the legatees. 6. But a single objection can be urged to this, i. e., that the Ordinances are but apart of those duties entrusted to the Churches, and that they may be sacrificed for the good of the whole j as for example, to promote Christian Charity. The points at issue are in fact these. 1st. Have we, as Churches, a right, practically, to separate and disjoin sym- bols and things signified ; to invert, omit, or alter any of them ? And 2nd. If we have the right, is it one that can be safely exercised ? Can the constitution of the Churches be improved ? Will the body and the soul be better sun- dered ? Or can even a member of the body be spared without injury? Are not bone and marrow, joint and sinew, flesh and blood, nerve and tendon, so wondrously and mysteriously bound together, that all are needed, for any to perform their functions perfectly ? So are ordi- nances and doctrines, symbols and things signified, means of grace and the grace of means, things spiritual and things outward, all bound and blended together, and committed to the Churches to keep and maintain, and propagate through- out the whole earth. 7. One word more. In a former part of the work, we have said that we did not unchurch other denominations. Nor do we. We will not deny the claims of any body of evangelical Christians, organized for maintaining social worship, to be considered a Christian Church. Not a regular Church indeed. Still we do not doubt that such assemblies realize many Church blessings, particularly this, that when they gather together, though but two or three, in the name of Jesus, He is with them. 23* 270 COMMUNION. But then it cannot be forgotten that privileges and duties go together. They must not be sundered. They are both links of the same chain. To all evangelical Churches therefore, we make this appeal. We feel that a great re- ormation is needed, one wide-spread throughout Christen- dom, in regard to Baptism. Great abuses have crept into its administration, defeating its entire object. The sys- tem of Pedobaptism, as a system, has been the embodiment, and is now the main support of some of the most cardinal errors that have ever afflicted Christendom ; such as Bap- tismal Regeneration, and an unconverted Church member- ship and Ministry.* So far as its influence extends, it sweeps the world into the Church, and keeps thousands upon thousands from expecting or praying for any other regeneration than that of baptism. So completely has baptism been perverted from its original intention, which was to draw a line between Christians and the world ; so completely has it been changed in the course of centuries, both as to the mode in which it administered, and the sub- jects who receive it, that it is, as generally given, — a nullity. 8. To the Churches of Christ, as such, belongs the solemn task of restoring it to its original position. The only object of Baptist Churches, in the ground they take on the subject of Communion, is to keep the ordinances, as they were originally delivered, and to revive their pri- mitive use. If it is not the duty of Churches, as Churches, to promote this reform and restoration of primitive Bap- tism, upon whom does the obligation devolve ? Our desire to see this change, is from a love, not of names or sects, or parties, but of a pure Christianity. We are not acting * See Appendix M. j APPEAL TO CHURCHES AND CHRISTIANS. 271 in antagonism to other Evangelical Christians, of whatever name. The cause in which we are all engaged, is one. We are different divisions of the same army. We are all Christian brethren, if we are Christ's. Our position is not taken out of opposition to any who love Christ, but to pro- mote his cause, in what we believe, and feel sure is the best way. We would, in all the warmth and brotherhood of Christian affection, urge a solemn sense of the relation they sustain to this matter, upon all Pedobaptist Churches, and entreat them to examine the whole subject afresh, and defer baptism, as Tertullian insists, until it is asked for^ and can be used as a true sign of the admission of a penitent believer, into the Communion of the Church. Let it ever be administered by immersion, so that each of those who receive it will be able to say, as originally, ^' We are buried with Christ by baptism. ^^ We urge this appeal more earnestly, both because this is the only way by which this difficulty with regard to the Lord's Supper can ever be adjusted satisfactorily; and because this reformation, if it were simultaneously adopted by the Churches, would, w^e are convinced, have the most powerful effect in promoting a general revival of pure religion throughout Christendom. 9. (2.) In regard to the members of such Churches, as iTidividuals, we may be permitted to add a few remarks, for to each one, as a part of the whole, is his share of the responsibility and custody of the ordinances committed. Very many of these persons have lost all faith in Infant Baptism. Numbers even do not practise it ; or if they do, it is with much hesitation. They are ready to admit, in general terms, that the Baptists are right in everything except their Strict Communion. They are members of * Tertullian cle Baptismo, 18. 272 COMMUNION. Pedobaptist Churdaes, and yet have great misgivings that they themselves are not truly baptized. But they have been taught that Baptism is a subject of no importance, and there they rest. If this work should fall under the eye of any such, the Author trusts, it may at least induce them to regard the correct observance of religious ordi- nances as a matter of solemn responsibility, and to use their influence and example to promote the restoration of Baptism to its primitive position in the Churches of Christ. How many have been converted by witnessing this ordi- nance properly administered ! Who can say what might be the influence arising from the conscientious action of a single person ? Who will dare to keep back that influ- ence, whatever it may be ? Surrounded as we all are by a complicated network of associations and influences, per- chance a brother or a sister, a husband or a wife, a parent or a child, might be awakened by the baptismal self-con- secration of so near a relative. Let no sluggishness hin- der ; no fear of man ; no love, even of Christians, keep us from the supreme love of Christ. Were all who noAv neg- lect Infant Baptism, and hold generally to Baptist senti- ments, to act up to them consistently and firmly, it is impossible to conjecture the result. In England at this moment, one individual, by a bold avowal of his change of sentiments, by abandoning what he saw to be errone- ous, throwing the weight of his influence on the side of truth, and being baptized, has, perhaps, rendered the separation of Church and State inevitable. 10. (3.) And here, it may not be improper to add a word, finally, upon the special obligations resting on Christian Ministers, in regard to the entire subject of Or- dinances. They are their appointed administrators. To those who can conscientiously and firmly say that they APPEAL TO MINISTERS. 273 have examined this subject impartially, and have ever had undouhting conviction of the Scripturalness of Infant Bap- tism, we have nothing here to say. But what we fear in regard to this subject, is not investigation, but indiffer- ence. We are anxious that it should not be laid aside as a matter of no importance. How can a minister dip his finger into the font, and deliberately put the water on the face of an unconscious infant, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, doubting all the time, and perhaps feeling inwardly conscious that this is not a New Testa- ment Baptism ; thus helping to carry out a system, which, though now comparatively harmless in some of the more evangelical denominations, is still, not only in the dark corners of Europe, but also in this country, one of the main pillars of Romish superstition, and of all mere tra- ditional religion as opposed to that of the New Testa- ment? 11. Let not any Christian, of whatever name, feel hurt at the plainness of these remarks. They originate not in indifference to the feelings of a brother, much less in that bitterness that could regard any fellow-Christian as a foe. They are not uttered in the bigotry of a partizan, or for sectarian effect. They are made in the frankness of a sin- cere affection, one that raises all who possess it, above the atmosphere of sect or party. If we are allied to Christ, we must be allied and not opposed to each other. We are arrayed in the same army, and marching against the same enemy. The differences that separate us are as no- thing to the strong ties that unite us. For we are one in the heart of love to a common Father, in the faith of a common Redeemer, and in spiritual consecration to the interests of his Universal Church. 12. Where those interests are concerned, all true Chris- 274 COMMUNION. tians, of whatever name, liave awakened in them a love, infi- nitely more warm and glowing than their attachment to any peculiar views of ordinances. These respect the means, but that is the end. These are the symbols and instruments of Communion, but that is something higher and holier, for it is the Spiritual Communion itself. We love Bap- tism because it is an instituted symbol of union with Christ and means of grace. We love the Lord's Supper, because it is also an instituted symbol and means of the nearest Communion earth will admit with Him who died for us. But we love the Communion itself better than the symbol, the end better than the means. And as we have ourselves, so we feel confident all true Christians have love to Christ, and to His cause, so infi- nitely transcending that of all mere symbols, that we venture to speak of these latter with so much freedom. It is because we believe most fully, that our Pedobaptist brethren love the cause of Christ more than Pedobaptism, that we entreat them to reconsider and abandon the latter, for the sake of the former. What, compared with the growth of that heavenly kingdom founded by the Saviour, what, compared with the salvation of a single soul, are all names, and sects, and parties ? They are but as " the small dust of the balance.^^ Time will soon have swept the most of them away. 18. Let any student glance his eye over the list of sects presented in a text book of Church History ; how uncan- did and irrelevant to the interests of truth do their squab- bles for the most part now appear ! And what has become of the mass of these ? After dancing for a while like a bubble on the wave, they have been dissipated into thin air. So, too, when some future Church Historian writes down the history of our age, what will then be thought GREAT PRINCIPLES AT WORK. 275 of most of the parties and names and denominations which now so agitate Christendom ? Time will have killed them. Meantime, there are in each age, some one or two great principles at work among the masses. These are long treated as insignificant by those of estab- lished reputation. They work their way silently and slowly, with a force very inadequately represented, even by the progress of any party. They move along, not like the tornado that sweeps and levels everything at once, but calmly and quietly, unseen, but effectually, like a change in the seasons. As the breaking up of the frosts and snows of winter; as the opening of the buds and blossoms beneath the warm sun, so do these ideas and principles gradually prevail after many apparent reverses, and then, silently and without controversy, carry away sects, and names, and parties, just as the opening up of a river in spring, carries off, without molesting, the chips and straw that lie upon the field of ice that covered it. Thus originally did Christianity arise and sweep clean the Pantheon of its gods. Thus has every great reforming truth arisen since. In morals we have, in our own times, all beheld, in the spread of Temperance, one idea sweep before it the most inveterate prejudices, the oldest habits and customs of hospitality. 14. In religion, one or two great ideas are evidently at work among the masses of thinking men. One is what may be termed the essential voluntariness of all true Reli- gion, and, therefore, of all true Church Memhership. — That piety is not a thing of mere education, to be learned by rote simply through creed and catechism ; not a thing to be professed by proxy, or indeed to be professed at all without the surrender of a man's own heart to God; and that all forms and rites without that are worthless. It 276 COMMUNION. is evident, on a moment's reflection, that either this idea must destroy Pedobaptism, or else Pedobaptism must de- stroy it. Which does the pious Christian wish to be vic- torious ? Certain as destiny it is that the aggressive prin- ciple will here prove triumphant. 15. There is another great truth at work with progres- sive power, throughout the whole world, both in Church and State. It is the 'principle of self-government, k^ the most proper of all authorities, because resting with great- est faith and most immediately upon the universal govern- ment of Grod. To that all the revolutions of Europe are tending; to that, the peaceful extension of our own national principles. It were as useless to attempt to silence the thunder by a word, or to roll back the falling waters of Niagara, as to stay the progress of these opini- ons. The world is full of them, and the Churches are full of them. 16. We believe that whoever examines carefully will perceive that our principles, as Baptists, present the most complete living embodiment of these ideas.* Of the spread and prevalence, therefore, of our denominational views, we feel assured ; both because they are true, and because they contain just those truths which the Christian world of the present age needs, those truths for which it hungers and thirsts, which it will, therefore, surely incor- porate, and upon which it will grow and thrive. 17. These great changes, as to the ideas which agitate the Christian world, in each successive age, are all pro- gressive. They never go backward. As the revolutions and changes which the physical surface of the earth has undergone at different periods, even to every speck of * See Appendix K. THE HOPE OF TRUE CHRISTIANS. 277 granite and every layer of mica that has crumbled beneath the finger of Time, do all modify the face of the globe, and each modification exhibits progressive order and beauty ; so do these alterations and convulsions of opinion, that seem to come blindly, and that overturn and destroy creeds and systems with a ruthless hand, spring not from ohance, but from the intervention of a Higher Power. They are parts of a mighty system of beneficence and progress in the Church, and a new illustration of the truth, that ^' the goodness of God is over all his works." Each of these embodies all that went before, and is necessary to all the future developments of the glory and beauty of Christianity. Nor do we ever labor so successfully, as when in accordance with the movements and tendencies of providence and grace. That Christianity will produce effects, such as we can now hardly anticipate, changes that will alter the whole aspect of society, we may not doubt. 18. The true Christian, however, while he labors on with hope for the good and progress of the cause of Christ on earth, looks for his home and his final reward beyond all Churches of earth, even the most perfect, to the one glorious and Universal Church of God in heaven, — the New Jerusalem. The beauties of that heavenly city will increasingly fix his gaze, and fire his heart ; — that city, that has " no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God lightens it, and the Lamb is the light .thereof.'' There, the spirits of just men made per- fect are fast congregating. In that blessed assembly there are no convulsions, no barriers, no changes ; but the state of bliss which it exhibits, is the embodiment of all the most glorious results of every conflict of the people of God here below. " These are they," said the angel, describing the saints in glory, '' that came out of great tribulation, 24 278 COMMUNION. and have washed their robeS; and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." 19- The glory and honor of the whole Church triumph- ant will derive no small measure of its lustre from the perfect development of that knowledge, wisdom and love, obtained by Saints in the struggles and experiences of all ages and of all climes. To that season, and to that city, as the result, in part, of all the longings and labors of each individual after the truth, the believer looks forward, with increasing confidence and hope, and learns to bear with patience, and work on with energy, amid the jarrings and disorders of the present state. It is a comforting and an animating thought, that on this very earth, now so disfigured by the scaffolding and rubbish, so disturbed by the noise of the hammer fashioning out the stones, and the confusion of builders running to and fro ; when it has been purified by the final convulsions of the last great day, the heavenly city shall at length appear, in all the magnificence of its goodly proportions. " I saw,'* says the blessed Apostle, '^ the holy city, the New Jeru- salem, coming down from Grod, out of heaven. And I heard a great voice, saying, Beholed th tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them; and he shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain : for the former things are passed away."* *,Rev. 21 : 2,3,4. APPENDIX. APPENDIX. A.— Page 23. " The first instance that I remember of that sort of in- ward sweet delight in God and divine things^ that I have lived in since, was on reading those words, 1 Tim. 1 : 17. ^Now, unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.' As I read these words, there came into my soul, and was, as it were, diffused through it, a sense of the glory of the Divine Being, a new sense, quite different from anything I ever experienced before. Never any words of Scripture seemed to me as these words did. I thought within myself how excellent a Being that is, and how happy I should be, if I might enjoy him, and be taken up to him in heaven, and be as it were swallowed up in him forever ! I kept saying over these words of Scrip- ture to myself, and went to pray to God that I might enjoy him, and prayed in a manner quite different from what I used to do, with a new sort of affection I began to have a new kind of apprehension and idea of Christ, and the work of redemption, and the glorious way of salvation by him. An inward sweet sense of these things at times came into my heart, and my soul was led away in j^l^asant views and contemplations of them. And my mind was greatly engaged to spend my time in reading and medi- 24* 282 APPENDIX. tating on Christ, on tlie beauty and excellency of his per- son, and the lovely way of salvation by free grace in him. I found no books so delightful to me, as those that treated of these subjects I found from time to time an inward sweetness that would carry me away in my contemplations. This I know not how to express otherwise, than by a calm delightful abstraction of the soul from all the concerns of this world; and sometimes a kind of vision or fixed ideas and imaginations of being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly con- versing with Christ, and rapt or swallowed up in Grod. The sense I had of divine things, would often of a sudden, kindle up an ardor in my soul, that I know not how to express." — (Memoirs of Jonathan Edwards, by Sereno E. Dwight, chap. 1.) B.— Page 36. It has been very frequently maintained, or rather taken for granted, that the term Church is sometimes used in the New Testament, in a third sense, i. e. for tlie Church Universal Visible, composed of all those, throughout the world, who make a credible profession of true religion. This subject has been ably treated; and the idea of a Visible Church Universal, in any literal sense of the term Church, like that maintained by Dr. J. M. Mason, complete- ly refuted by the Rev. Dr. Dagg in a work of Rev. J. L. Reynolds, entitled ^'The Kingdom of God," (pp. 186-195,) to which the reader is referred. Even should it be granted that the word Church is in one or two places in the New Testament, used by an obvious figure, for the body of Professors of religion on earth as such, it would not impair APPENDIX. 283 the force of the distinction drawn from the more regular and literal application of the word, between our fellowship with a particular Church, and with all other professed believers. Of the five or six passages, (^. e. Acts 2 : 47, and 8 ; 3 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 9 ; Rom. 10 : 32,) produced by Dr. Mason, in support of his idea of an organized Universal Church Visi- ble, embracing all who profess true religion ; as Dr. Dagg has shown, three refer to the Church at Jerusalem, before the establishment of any church elsewhere, and when, therefore, it was of necessity, for a time, the only visible Christian body. Rom. 16 : 23 : Gaius, " the host of the whole church ;^^ and 1 Cor. 10 : 23 : " Grive none offence to the Church of God; "import,'' as Dr. Dagg says, " hospita- lity to saints generally, and offence to saints generally,'' i. e. not those of a particular church exclusively. He adds, that it is " not necessary to suppose that they belong to a Visible Church Catholic, in order to be entertained or offended,'' and appears to suppose that we might rather consider the term as applying to the general assembly and Church of the firstborn, entertained in the persons of those of its members who could thus be ministered to ; as the Saviour, in Matt. 25 : 45, represents himself fed, clothed and visited in the persons of his disciples. I am not pre- pared to express an opinion on this particular point. It is one of great nicety. To suppose the term Church, however, applied h^/ a figure collectively to those who were generally members of the Invisible Church, and also members of some particu- lar Visible Church, and who might temporarily, therefore, without inconvenience, be regarded as members of any body of Christians with whom they sojourned, or were even in the habit of being so regarded ; would be far enough 284 APPENDIX. from involving tlie idea of a regularly organized Church Universal Visible. Dr. Mason's theory is, therefore, un- tenable. There may be a figurative use of the word Church in two or three passages of the New Testament, without all their ideas of a regular organization being involved. In some points of view, unquestionably, those who make a credible profession of the Christian faith must be re- garded as a lohole. They are a body, distinct from the world, but operating upon it with a certain degree of uni- formity, and with immense power. This body is distinct from the Invisible Church Universal, in that all who are l^rofessors of religion, and some, therefore, who are only professors are mixed up with true Christians in the pre- sent world. It is distinct from any particular visible Church, since it embraces members of all truly Christian Churches, throughout the whole world. Such a body as this, however, cannot in any other than a merely figurative sense be called a Church, since it never can or does assemble, has no visible earthly representation, government, or or- ganization; all its oneness arises from the g-eneral same- ness of the aim, and actuating principle of all its members, i. e. allegiance to Christ. Who would think of consider- ing all the various tribes and hordes that poured from Northern into Southern Europe for successive centuries, Huns, Goths and Vandals, as one literal army ! And yet considering the sameness of principle by which they were actuated, the general similarity of course they pursued, and the oneness of result brought about, it would be quite appropriate 'for the historian to speak of them, figuratively, as the successive waves of an overflowing tide, or the seve- ral detachments of an immense army. Nor would any one think of inferring from such a figure in Gibbon, that the historian had intended to represent all the bands as APPENDIX. 285 organized into a confederate whole, acting in concert, and moving in detachments only by mutual agreement. There is another form of expression, much more fre- quently occurring in the New Testament, in such a connec- tion as to seem intended to express the oneness of all who profess the religion of Christ. It is the phrase, " King- dom of Heaven,^' or ^^ Kingdom of God," (for they are continually used synonymously.) In nearly all the cases in which these phrases occur in the four Gospels they refer to that kingdom established on earth by Christ, and which perhaps might be fairly expressed in other words by " the Christian dispensation. '^ As Matt. 3:2." The kingdom of heaven is at hand." The figure is obvious and just. This kingdom consists of all those living under the domi- nion of Heavenly or Spiritual principles, and all acknow- ledging one Supreme Head, Christ. — Col. 1: 14; Rom. 14: 17. The only point, however, in which we are here interested, is to ascertain if the phrase iSaoaela t^v ovpav^v is ever used to denote what has been termed the Visible Church Univer- sal, i. e. the professed followers of Christ on earth as a body. The word rendered kingdom, ^am-ktla, as Dr. Campbell has, with great beauty and discrimination shown, has two senses, one referring to the duration, the other to the place over which the authority is extended. The first he trans- lates " reign,'' the second " kingdom." The difference of sense is obvious in such a case as this, " The reign of hea- ven is approaching." We cannot say that a ^ kingdom' is drawing near, but we may say that a * reign^ is approaching, and thus accordingly in most cases, he translates the word, rendered in our version ' kingdom.' Sometimes, as for in- stance, when the state of perfect felicity of the righteous is intended, he retains ^ kingdom,' as more exactly expres- 286 APPENDIX. sive of the thought of the original. To apply now these principles to such a passage as Matt. 13 : 41; (see also 5 : 24 and 47,) He ^^ shall gather out of his hingdom them which do iniquity." This Dr. Campbell translates, and with apparent justice, ^kingdom/ not ^ reign.' This clause would seem to mean, not that such characters ^ shall be removed from under the kingly dominion of Christ/ but ^ removed from the society of those under professed allegiance to Christ.' It will be said, however, that all the parables of this chapter refer to the progress of the dominion of Christ in the earth, — that he claims the world as his of right, that its kingdoms shall all become his kingdom, out of which he at last gathers his enemies ; in other words, that the parables of the Tares and of the Net are intended rather to account for the Divine sufferance of sinners in the world, under the Christian dispensation, than the permission of hypocrites in the Church; and this view is probably correct. Robinson, in his Lexicon, how- ever, quotes the above, and several other passages as re- lating to ^^ the external form of Christ's spiritual kingdom, as embodied in the Visible Church, and the universal reign of the Grospel." Neander, in his Planting and Training, Book 6, chap. 1, on the Pauline doctrine of the Kingdom of Grod, (Ryland's Translation, p. 279,) says there, perhaps accurately, " the kingdom of Christ coincides with the idea of the Church existing in the hearts of men, the invisible Church, the totality of the operations of Christianity on mankind." The visible body of Christ's followers so nearly corresponded to the invisible, originally, and in the purpose for which each was intended, that it is very difficult to distin- guish where the one is meant, and where the other, distinc- tively in Scripture. Nor am I sure it can be shown that ^' the kingdom of God," or ^^ of heaven," is anywhere put APPENDIX. 287 for the visible company of Christians upon earth, as distin- guished from the invisible company of true believers, un- less in the Parables. ^^ The totality of the operating power of Christianity on mankind/' is the idea which ever accompanies the use of this phrase. The following remarks, given on the authority of Count Montholon, as uttered by Napoleon, at St. Helena, portray with singular accuracy and graphic force, the true nature and wonderful power of that kingdom. "Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and myself founded empires, but upon what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ, alone, founded his empire upon love^ and at this hour, millions of men would die for him. "It was not a day or a battle which achieved the triumph of the Christian religion in the world. No; it was a long war, a contest for three centuries, begun by the Apostles, then continued by the flood of Christian generations. In this war, all the kings and potentates of earth were on one side ) on the other I see no army but a mysterious force, wme men scattered here and there in all parts of the worlds and luho have no other rallying point than a common faith in the mysteries of the Cross. " I die before my time, and my body will be given back to the earth, to become food for worms. Such is the fate which so soon awaits him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ, which is proclaimed, loved and adored, and which is extending over the whole earth ! Call you this dying ? Is it not living, rather ? The death of Christ is the death of God.'' The foregoing remarks on the expressions ^ Church,' and ^ kingdom of heaven,' will show why the fellowship of 288 APPENDIX. Cliurches_, Denominations, &c., is not more specifically treated of in these pages. Because no collection of these bodies is in the proper sense of the term, a Church, and therefore we cannot have a Church fellowship with it as such. If any of the members of one body are brought into company with another Church of the same views, they may either permanently change their relations, or be con- sidered temporarily as having done so, if all parties so desire, and thus enjoy Church privileges. But Churches as such, being responsible to their Great Head, are essen- tially independent and separate bodies. That they may rightly, and ought to, interchange the most fraternal feel- ings with other bodies of Christians, as such, cannot be doubted ; but then it is not a Church fellowship, but something distinct from it ; it is a fellowship, closer and stronger in exact proportion, as we think we see through the pi'ofession of supreme allegiance to Christ (which all have in common) indications of conformity to the laws and spirit of Christ. It is a fellowship, therefore, of every variety and degree. With those Christians, Churches, or Denominations, most closely agreeing with our views of divine truth, it will be very near and fraternal, while with those in which truth and error, the pious and the irre- ligious, are all amalgamated, it may hardly exist at all. By this view we are saved from all trouble of deciding which are, and which are not true Christian Churches, or when a particular body so far apostatizes, as to lose claim to that title altogether. Each Church, i. e.. Christian congregation, and each Christian for himself, are left to judge how far to carry their Christian fellowship with other bodies than their own, according as they perceive in them obedience to the will of the Saviour. In proportion as such persons seem to walk according to the spirit and re- APPENDIX. 289 vealed will of Christ, they will be regarded as forming parts of that kingdom, set up on the earth ; and whose sole point of centralization, is Christ. All such will feel united in the kingdom of Christ, while quite distinct in Church relations. C— Page 42. I find the following placed as the 24th Maxim of Con- fucius, in a work labelled. Ancient Fragments from the Chinese, &c.; but called in the Title page "The Phoenix,'* published by William Gowan, Chatham Street, New York, 1835. The work does not appear to be a very respectable authority ; but as it contains some genuine and curious fragments, I insert the quotation, suspecting it will prove to be of much later date than is professed in regard to it. " Do unto another as thou wouldst be dealt with thyself. Thou only needest this law alone ; it is the foundation and principle of all the rest.'' D.— Page 68. The following account given by the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, at the water's edge, of his reasons for embracing Baptist sentiments, states this part of our views, so briefly and clearly, that I insert them here as given in a recent number of the Christian Watchman and Beflector. " Mr. Noel then pointed out the reasons why a person who is unbaptized should be baptized, even after he had made a profession of Jesus Christ in other ways, and stated 25 290 APPENDIX. the ground wliicli had led him to obey what he believed to be Christ's command. He said, that after he had fully weighed every considerable argument that had ever been adduced in favour of infant baptism, he had come distinctly to these two conclusions, Avhich appeared, to him at least, to be certain ; ^ first, that Baptism as ordained hy Christ is an immersion in water j a heing buried in ivater ; and secondly, that immersion is meant to he a "profession of faith in Christ/ Mr. JSToel observed, if those two conclusions were correct — and he believed they would completely pre- vail with the Christian world eventually — that it followed that a person, who like himself, had only been sprinkled in infancy, is unbaptized; because such a person had neither been immersed, nor had he made a baptismal pro- fession of faith, and these two things constituted Christian baptism. So that if these conclusions were correct, then he and others who had been only sprinkled in infancy, were in neither sense baptized. ^^ Among the reasons which had led him to embrace be- lievers' baptism, were these ; — that there is no instance in the New Testament of any person unbaptized, after the institution of Christian baptism by our Lord, coming to the Lord's Table ; and therefore, if we continue to attend the Lord's Table, without being baptized, knowing that Pedobaptism is not the baptism appointed by Christ, we act contrary to all the precedents of the New Testament — that Christ has required a baptismal profession of faith, — and that our blessed Lord has set us an example in this matter." — Watchman and Reflector, Sep. 6, 1849. APPENDIX. 201 E.— Page 60. There are, perhaps, more traces of the idolatry of the outward part of Baptism in the writings of Augustine than in almost any of the Fathers, certainly than in any of equal spirituality. In his account of the baptism of VictorinuS; there are expressions that show this very error. And yet who can read the account of it, which he puts into the mouth of Simplicianus, unaffected ? I insert it, curtailed of some of those expressions, as an illustration of a reverence for baptism, of which it would not hurt us to have more. " That aged man, most learned and skilled in the lib- eral sciences, and who had read and weighed so many works of the philosophers ; the instructor of so many no- ble senators ; who also as a monument of his excellent dis- charge of office, had (which men of this world esteem a high honour) both deserved and obtained a statue in the Roman Forum, he, to that age, was a worshipper of idols, and a partaker of the sacrilegious rites to which almost all the nobility of Rome were given up.'' " Lord, Lord, which hast bowed the heavens and come down, touched the mountains and they did smoke, by what means didst Thou convey Thyself into that breast? He used to read (as Simplicianus said) the Holy Scriptures j most studiously sought,' and searched into all the Christian writings, and said to Simplicianus, (not openly, but privately and as a friend,) ^ Understand that I am already a Christian.' Simplicianus answered, ^I will not believe it, nor will I rank you among Christians, unless I see you in the Church of Christ.' The other, in banter, replied, '■ Do walls, then, make Christians V And this he often said, that he was already a Christian ; and Simplicianus as often made the same answer; and the 292 APPENDIX. conceit of the ^walls' was, by tlie other, as often renewed. For he feared to offend his friends, proud demon-worship- pers, from the height of whose Babylonian dignity, as from cedars of Lebanon, which the Lord had not yet broken down, he supposed the weight of enmity would fall upon him. But when, by reading and earnest thought, he had gathered firmness, and feared to be denied by Christ before the holy angels, should he now be afraid to confess Him before men, and appeared to himself guilty of a heavy offence, in being ashamed of the Sacraments, of the humility of thy Word, while he was not ashamed of the sacrilegious rites of those proud demons, whose pride he had imitated, and their rites adopted, he became bold-faced against vanity, and shame-faced towards the truth, and, suddenly and unexpectedly, said to Simplici- anus, (as himself told me,) ' Let us go to the Church ; I wish to be a Christian.' And not long after, he further gave in his name for baptism — Eome wondering, the Church rejoicing. The proud saw, and were wroth; they gnashed their teeth and melted away. But the Lord God was the hope of Thy servant, and He regarded not vani- ties, and lying madness. ^^ In fine, when the hour was come for making profes- sion of his faith, (which at Bome, they .... deliver from an elevated place in the sight of all the faithful,) .... the presbyters, he said, offered Victorinus (as was done to such as seemed likely through bashfulness to be alarmed,) to make his profession more privately : but he chose rather to profess his salvation in the presence of the holy multitude. ' For it was not salvation that he taught in rhetoric, and yet that he had publicly professed. How much less, then, ought he, when pronouncing Thy word, to dread Thy meek flock, who when delivering his own APPENDIX. 293 words, had not feared a mad multitude !' When, then, he went up to make his profession, all, as they knew him, whispered his name one to another, with the voice of con- gratulation. And who there knew him not ? And there ran a low murmur through all the mouths of the rejoicing multitude, Victorinus, Victorinus ! Sudden was the burst of rapture, that they saw him; suddenly were they hushed, that they might hear him. He pronounced the true faith, with an excellent boldness, and all wished to draw him into their very hearts : yea, by their love and joy, they drew him hither; such were the hands where- with they drew him.'' — (Confessions of Augustine, Book 8, sect. 2.) F.— Page 77. That the Lord's Supper is here alluded to, and that the subsequent " innocent meal '' spoken of was the agape, is, it seems to me, unquestionable. '^ It is plain here," says Bingham, (Antiquities, Book 15, ch. 7, sect. 8,) ^Hhe Communion was first, and the agape sometime after.'' A passage from Chrysostom, quoted by him in another section (sect. 6,) is decisive. Speaking of the first Christians having all things common, he says, " From this law and custom there arose then another admirable custom in the Churches. For when all the faithful had met together, and had heard the sermon and prayers, and had received the Commumon, they did not immediately return home, upon the breaking up of the assembly, but the rich and wealthy brought meat and food from their own houses, and called the poor and made a common table, and a com- mon dinner, a common banquet in the Church. — (Chrys. Hom. 27 in 1 Cor. p. 559.) 25* 294 APPENDIX. a.— Pages 81, 153. Most commentators, wlio do not hold to the independ- ence of each Church, quote 1 Cor. 10 : 17, as a proof that the Lord's Supper is a symbol of that Communion which the Christian enjoys with the whole body of believers in Christ, and not as a symbol of Church Communion. How far this opinion is just, we will briefly consider. The following is Macknight's version of the passage : — ^' Because there is one loafj we^ the many^ are one body, for we all participaie of the one loaf^' Bishop Warburton remarks on the passage in question, '^ Our being partakers of one bread (or loaf,) in Commu- nion, makes us many [which we are by nature] to become by grace one body in Christ, the Communion of the body and blood of Christ uniting the receivers into one body by an equal distribution of one common benefit." ^' The loaves or rather cakes of Judea," adds Dr. Bloomfield, after quoting the above, ^^were usually, especially at the Paschal feast, of a very large size, so that a considerable number may be supposed to partake in common of one of them." The meaning of this passage must turn upon the sense we ascribe to ol Tio-k-koi- Most commentators seem to sup- pose that it means " the many," and is equivalent to " all Christians;" but on this we remark : — 1. That the article combined with the plural here, by no means necessarily gives it the sense of ^' the many," and might, perhaps, fairly be translated, '' many," as in Matt. 24 : 12, " and because the love of many (t^v TioVkCiv) shall wax cold;" or as in 2 Cor. 2 : 17, ^^ We are not as many (ol Tto'KTjoi) which corrupt the word of God." So our English translators render it in the passage we are APPENDIX. 295 considering. Tlie sense would then be fairly paraphrased thus, '^ Because every time we celebrate the Lord's Sup- per, there is one loaf used, of which all the communicants participate, loe who eat of it, and who are naturally many^ become thereby symbolically one hody with the rest of the communicants, hecause we all participate of that one loaf" 2. Even if ol Tto-KKoi be translated ^Hhe many,'^ it must still mean that we are proved to be one body, not with ^^ all Christians," but with all with ivhom ice partake of the symbolic elements. The meaning of rtavts^, ' all/ in the next clause, is in terms circumscribed to those who " par- ticipate of the same loaf.^' That by ^' all who participate'' £x tov Iv6i a^ifov is not primarily intended all who partake of one ki^id of bread — (i. e., those through the whole world who are in the ha- bit of eating the Sacramental bread, or Christians,) but rather those who partake together of the same emblems, is confirmed by New Testament usage, in regard to sms a^to?, the sense of which clearly is not " one kind of bread," as our English translators would leave the impression, but one^'' loaf" of bread. On this, I subjoin the judicious remarks of Macknight. " The Greek word o-ctIq^, especially when joined with words of number, always signifies a loaf, and is so translated in our Bibles : Matt. 16:9, '^ Do ye not understand, nei- ther remember the five (a^T'ou?) loaves of the five thou- sand 1" Matt. 4:3, ^^ Command that these stones be made (a^r'ous) loaves" (See Note 1, on 1 Cor. 10 : 17.) That there may be an indirect inference drawn from the Apostle's remark that all those who, by Divine authority, partake of the same kind of bread and wine in the Com- munion, must sustain a relation to each other as Chris- tians, we do not deny. They do ; and so far the Lord's 296 APPENDIX. Supper may be considered a symbol of the Christian one- ness or Communion of all who rightly partake, wherever or in what age soever they may be. But this is far enough from showing that this Supper does not indicate a more close, even a Church Communion between those who partake together the same loaf. This latter I believe to be the specific meaning of the Apostle, certainly no in- ference contrary to it can be drawn from this passage. In the Lord's Supper, whenever we sit down to it, we symbolize that we are of one body with those with whom we partake, by eating of the same loaf. The error so wide spread, by which the distinctness of Visible. Churches has been confounded through the Universality of the One Invisible Church, has led, I am convinced, to the popular misinterpretation of this passage. That the Lord's Sup- per is a complex symbol, we have before shown. In such cases, it is only when all the relations symbolized, have a corresponding reality, that the symbol is appropriate. H.— Page 104. The Rev. Mr. ^Yheelock in a letter from England, pub- lished in the Christian Watchman, dated December, 1847, is my authority for these last facts. He also says, *^ While in London, I casually learned that the ordinance of bap- tism was to be administered in one of the largest and most popular Baptist churches of that city. At the hour ap- pointed, about twilight, on Thursday evening, I went to the chapel to witness the baptism. The church contained rising of eight hundred members. On entering, I per- ceived the lamps were lit, but few in attendance, and the pastor addressing the people. Eleven were baptized, and APPENDIX. 297 after changing their raiment, they returned into the cha- pel, and received the right hand of fellowship. I asked the administrator why the baptism was on a week day evening, and at an hour when so few could attend. He answered, that ahout one-half of the church were Pedo- baptists ; and for the peace of the church, they were care- ful to select an evening and an hour when there was no other appointment, not even for a committee meeting, or meeting of Sabbath school teachers, or Bible class, or any- thing else, lest the peace of the church might be disturbed by the Pedobaptist members, thinking they had been en- trapped to secure their presence at the baptism. For the same reason, he told me, the right hand of fellowship was given at the Baptism, instead of the Communion, on the following Sabbath, that nothing might be said then that might endanger the harmony of the church. In some mixed churches, the Baptist members have been disciplined and excluded, because they propagated among the people, Baptist sentiments. In Bedford, one of John Bunyan's successors was permitted to retain his pastoral relations, only on condition that ' he should not introduce the con- troversy' on the subject of Baj^tism — ^ into the pulpit, nor into conversation, unless it was first mentioned by others.' '' As a further illustration of what must result from this plan, the following facts are added, also detailed in the same letter. The Bev. Mr. Kinghorn of Norwich, was the well known and able opponent of Mr. Hall on the Com- munion question. • He died, and has been succeeded by Rev. Mr. Brock. ^' After the Rev. Mr. Brock of Norwich, had revolutionized the Rev. Mr. Kinfj-horn's church, and received into it Pedobaptists, he began to discipline those members that refused to go to the Lord's Table with the Pedobaptist members. The first one excluded was brother 298 APPENDIX. Keif. The 28 th of June last, I perceive this church by a vote of 95 to 22, have for the same reason excluded ten more. The published account of it says, ^ it was strongly objected that as these brethren were worthy and tried men, they ought not to be excluded in consequence of their objections to this new practice, as unscriptural. It was said, in reply, that the church did not exclude them, they excluded themselves I by absenting themselves from the Lord's Supper.' I have a full account of these melancholy proceedings, but I forbear to give them in detail, as I have already extended this communication much beyond what I at first intended.'' ^' In a Summary of principles, for the government of a Mixed Church in St. Andrews, Scotland," the Magazine of 1841 says, " it is held to be ' disorderly' and ' subjecting to discipline,' for the Baptists to use any direct influence, either in public or in private, to inculcate or propagate their peculiar sentiments, by the circulation of tracts or books, by conversation or otherwise among the members of the church," and moreover, " that they should abstain from controverting the sentiments taught from the pulpit on the points of diiference." The Magazine adds, "We have heard of another Mixed Church in Scotland under a Baptist pastor, in which the Independent (Pedo- baptist) members have made objection to the mention of the subject from the pulpit." A Baptist Church in Dub- lin, Ireland, after having maintained strict communion, "for about one hundred and fourteen years," had open communion introduced by their pastor, Bev. Mr. Ford. He moved that six persons, holding strict Baptist princi- ples, one of whom had been a member of the Baptist denomination for thirty years, be expelled. That motion was carried, and the brother adds, "Several years have now elapsed since that occurrence, and the members thus expelled have not returned." APPENDIX. 299 J.— Page 200. In Robert Hall's ^^ Letter to a Clergyman/' Works, vol. 4, p. 630, lie says, ^' Our sentiments upon the baptismal rite exempt us from any temptations to lay undue stress upon it ; we consider it merely as the symbol of a Chris- tian profession, while you profess to believe it regenerates the partaker, and makes him a child of God.'' The disposition to submit to whatever is clearly and de- liberately perceived to be the will of God on every subject is an essential part of saving piety, and therefore is, in every case, essential to salvation. Hence it is that unwil- lingness, even to submit to baptism, or any other divine appointment, may be at times^ where known to be the will of God, fatal to the soul. But no outward act of confession (I speak of the outward act, as distinct from the act of the will) can be essential to membership in the invisible Church, while yet some outward act must he essential to visible membership. K.— Page 206. The following anecdote was communicated to the Chris- tian Watchman, several years ago, by the E,ev. Dr. Fish- back of Lexington, Kentucky. '^ Mr. Editor : — The following circumstance, which occur- red in the State of Virginia, relative to Mr. Jefferson, was detailed to me by Elder Andrew Tribble, about six years ago, who since died when ninety-two or three years old. The facts may interest' some of your readers. Andrew Tribble was the pastor of a small Baptist Church, which held its monthly meetings at a short distance from Mr. 300 APPENDIX. Jefferson's house, eight or ten years before the American Revolution. Mr. Jefferson attended the meetings of the church several months in succession ; and after one of them, he asked Elder Tribble to go home and dine with him, with which he complied. Mr. Tribble asked Mr. Jefferson how he was pleased with their Church government? Mr. Jefferson replied, that it had struck him with great force, and had interested him much ; that he considered it the only form of pure democracy that then existed in the world, and had con- cluded that it would be the hest plan of government for the American colonies. This was several years before the Declaration of Independence. To what extent this practi- cal exhibition of religious liberty and equality operated on Mr. Jefferson's mind, in forming his views and prin- ciples of religious and civil freedom, which were afterwards so ably exhibited, I will not say.'' L. — Page 175. It is a well known fact, that at the time of the com- mencement of the revival in Boston, under the preaching of Drs. Baldwin and Stillman, half a century since, there was but one Orthodox Congregational Church remaining in the city — the Old South ; and that was in so declining a state that it was unable to sustain a weekly prayer meet- ing. A few of the most spiritual members, by attending the Baptist Churches, were aroused to new sensibility, and gained courage to establish a prayer meeting, and make other efforts to establish Gospel preaching among them once more. From this came the settlement of Mr. Hunt- ington, the publication of the ^^ Panoplist/' the erection APPENDIX. 801 of Park Street Church, the call of Dr. G-riffin, aud other events connected with the revival of Orthodox Christianity in Boston. The number of Orthodox Congregational Churches in this city is now fourteen. In Geneva, the movement in favor of Evangelical The- ology dates from the winter of 1818. At that time Robert Haldane, Esq., of Edinburgh, (who had embraced Baptist principles about ten or twelve years before,) passed the winter in Geneva. This excellent man felt his soul stir- red within him, at finding the University and all the pul- pits of the city closed against the Gospel. He invited several University students to meet at his lodgings, by nights, for the study of the Bible. Some of them were converted as a consequence — and among them. Merle D'Aubigne I What followed is well known. The present Evangelical movement in Germany, which is restoring Apostolic Churches to the land of Luther, has a similar origin. It dates from the baptism of Mr. Oncken and six others at Hamburg, in 1834. Besides a Church of 500 members in that city, about sixty more, of similar scriptural purity, martyr zeal, and missionary spirit, have already arisen in Central Europe as the result, and are rapidly multiplying amid all the political storms and con- vulsions of the times. One more fact may be added. The First Congregational Church in Salem, Mass., from which Roger Williams was driven in 1636, (together with the First in Boston, which did the deed,) is now, and long has been Unitarian ; while the First Baptist Church in Providence, R. I., founded by Roger Williams, always has beun, and still is. Evangelical ; and last year, among other charities, contributed about ^•iOOO to the Foreign Missionary Enterprise. 26 302 APPENDIX. Such facts have some significance. He is a wise man who learns wisdom even in the school of Experience. J. N. B. M.— Page 244. Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, has col- lected the most melancholy and ample proof of this state- ment from the Fathers of the Third and Fourth centuries, though this was far from his design. How this matter appeared to the "Waldenses of the Middle Ages, is most forcibly and concisely expressed in the " Treatise concerning Antichrist" — a book most carefully cherished among that ancient people, and which bears date, according to Perrin, as early as 1120. The last words we shall quote are omitted by Milner, in his extracts, (Church History, Vol. 11. p. 61, Phil. Ed.,) for what reason we know not. They are, however, too memo- rable to be forgotten. We take them from Jones' History of the Church, (pp. 337-338, Phil. Ed.) After sketching the origin of Antichrist " in the times of the Apostles," and his comparative weakness "in his infancy," the Treatise proceeds to say, " But growing up in his members, that is, in his blind and dissembling ministers, and in worldly subjects, he at length arrived at full maturity; when men whose hearts were set upon the world, blind in the faith, multiplied in the Church, and hy the union of Church and State, got the power of both into their hands. Christ never had an enemy like this, so able to pervert the way of truth into falsehood, insomuch that the true Church with her children is trodden under foot J" APPENDIX. 303 After specifying tlie perversions in the objects of worship, particularly in the idolatrous adoration of the Eucharist, the Treatise thus describes that perversion of Baptism of which Antichrist is guilty, and points out its funda- mental and all-pervading evils. '^ He teaches to baptize children into the faith, and attributes to this the work of regeneration; thus confounding the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration with the external rite of baptism ; and on this foundation bestows Orders, and indeed grounds all his Christianity.'' j, j^ ^ VALUABLE BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETf 118 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA. COMPLETE WORKS OF ANDREW FULLER. THREE VOLUMES, OCTAVO. The complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller; with a Memoir of the author, and a likeness. Price $6 00 in cloth or sheep ; $6 50 in half calf or turkey morocco. " Fuller's Works might, without any very remarkable impro- priety, be designated an Encyclopedia of Polemic, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology. With giant steps he traverses the whole empire of revelation, and of reason as its handmaid. He is the Bacon of Scripture. It is a Library in itself. The Bible and these Works will suffice to make any man a first rate theologian." — Rev. Dr. Campbell in the London Christian Wit- ness. BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. BY ALEXANDER CARSON. This work contains a brief Memoir of the author, with his reply to Rev. Dr. Miller, &c. One octavo volume of .550 pages. Price $1 50 in sheep or cloth ; ^1 60 in half calf or half turkey morocco. " Let those who think that the solemn immersion of believers in water is not baptism, answer, if they can, fairly and withou' evasion, the learned, candid, and decisive work of Mr. Carson.'- —Rev. B. H. Draper, LL. D. HISTORY OF BAPTISM. BY ISAAC T. HINTON. A History of Baptism, from inspired and uninspired writings. This is a beautiful edition, from new stereo- type plates. It has also been published in England. l2mo. 348 pages. Price 65 cents in cloth or sheep. THE TERMS OF COMMUNION, BY ROBERT B. C. HOWEIiL. A beautiful edition from new stereotype plates, and the price reduced to 60 cents. Its wide circulation in this country, and its republication in England, are the best testimonials of its usefulness. THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS. BT JOHN BUNTAN. This edition contains a likeness of the author and four engravings. Price 60 cents. THE HOLY WAR. BT JOHN BUNTAN, A new edition with six engravings. Price 60 cents. *' One of the greatest books ever made." — Albert Barnes. MARRIED LIFE.— A WEDDING GIFT. BY. JOSEPH BELCHER. An elegant miniature volume of 128 pages, with gilt edges and ornamental covers. Price 30 cents. SCRIPTURE GUIDE TO BAPTISM. BY R. PENGILLY. The many thousands of this able work which have been sold attest its excellence. It contains 90 pages Price 25 cents in cloth, and 6J in paper covers. PENG ILLY' S GUIDE AND BOOTH'S VINDICATION. This volume contains two treatises. First, Pengilly's Scripture Guide to Baptism. Second, Booth's Vindica- tion of the Baptists from the charge of bigotry, in refus- ing communion at the Lord's table to Paedobaptists. Price, 25 cents in cloth, and 20 cents in half binding. SACRIFICE AND ATONEMENT. BY SAMUEL W. LTND. One volume, 13 mo. 231 pages. Price 60 cents. TRACTS. One hundred and seventy-one Tracts are published by the Society and sold at the rate of 15 pages for a cent; 375 pages for 25 cents ; 1500 pages for one dollar. FREY'S SORIPTURE TYPES. The Scripture Types. A course of Lectures by Joseph Samuel C. F. Frey. A new edition, in two vol- unaes. Vol. I contains 306 pages ; Vol. II. 320 pages. Price, 50 cents per volume. Also, in one volume, for |1.00, in cloth, sheep, or half calf. " The peculiar circumstances of the author, as a natural des- cendant of Abraham ; he having sustained, for a number of years, the office of a Jewish Rabbi, for which he had been regu- larly educated; gave him an opportunity of obtaining a supe- rior knowledge of the Mosaic dispensation, and of the Jewish ceremonies and customs, both ancient and modem, thus enabl- ing him to embody in these Lectures much valuable information This work should be found in the Libraries of Bible Classes and Sunday schools."—