k^mmbtiJmm mm Mdi ■®.®Oa^''-:.'.i! - ma A A A A aAAaAAAaAa '&W^MSfsMf\fS^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. TO • ; aAAAA aT&T&T^T^ ^ffMiiTO MmMM^M : ■: ^aD.o WftwAnQH^ . a*i & & &£&££$£ . KTO AAA/ tiHMU 'm^h^mmmfsmmn /^ A a /v f A AAr.:.AA/.)A/>. MWWAW A A a A A *^Afi£&Gfifift& ™«i iMiii KIllSMlM^MfflBma^mp: ''AaA aAAa/ 2mm "■ ^ rv Af/iRpiP A £ A A A /* ■ /* aAaAAAAA : /*?/£> f wwqnwjies to tawanwH. THE SCRIPTURAL TERMS OF ADMISSION TO THE LOED'S SUPPER. BY REV. ALBERT Nf ARNOLD, D.D. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye * * keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to vou." — 1 Cor. xi. 2. BOSTON: COULD AND LINCOLN, 59 WASHINGTON STREET. NEW YORK: SHELDON AND COMPANY. CINCINNATI: GEORGE S. BLANCHARD. 1861. .***£ A? Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by GOULD AND LINCOLN, In the Cleric's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BT OEO. C. RAND AND AVERY, 3 COENHILL. 3 PREFATORY NOTE The substance of the following pages was read as an Essay before the Annual Conference of the Baptist Ministers of Mas- sachusetts, at Middleboro', October 30, 1860. With a few changes and additions, it is now published, at the request of those who heard it. Westboro', Nov. 16, 1860. CONTENTS. Page NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE 9 I. FIRST PREREQUISITE: — AVOWAL OF DIS- CIPLESHIP 12 II. SECOND PREREQUISITE:— BAPTISM ... 16 EXAMPLES OF SCRIPTURE 18 NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE TWO ORDINANCES . 20 PEDOBAPTIST TESTIMONIES 25 ROBERT HALl/S VIEW 27 OBJECTIONS AGAINST IT 29 1. Contrary to Belief and Practice of all Churches, 29 2. Assumes an Unscriptural Inequality between the two Ordinances 30 3. Tends to do away with Baptism 32 4. Tends to do away with the Visible Church alto- gether ' . 32 VI CONTENTS. III. Pago THIRD PREREQUISITE : — CHURCH MEM- BERSHIP 36 THE LORD'S SUPPER A SYMBOL OF CHURCH FEL- LOWSHIP 43 OBJECTION ANSWERED 46 SUPPOSED PRIMITIVE LAXITY 49 PROMINENCE OF THE CHURCH RELATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 52 THE WORD " CHURCH " NOT USED LOOSELY . . 55 UNIFORMITY IN PRIMITIVE CHURCH USAGES . . 57 STRICTNESS RATHER THAN LAXITY 58 MEMBERSHIP IN ONE CHURCH NOT MEMBERSHIP IN ALL CHURCHES 61 IV. FOURTH PREREQUISITE : — AN ORDERLY WALK 63 I. IMMORAL CONDUCT 65 II. DISOBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDS OF CHRIST, 67 Pedobaptists chargeable with this in respect to one Command . . 68 CONTENTS. VII Pago III. HERESY 70 Pedobaptists chargeable with Grave Errors ... 72 Mixed Communion neutralizes our Protest against these Errors 75 IV. SCHISM 77 Mixed Communion tends to Schism 78 An Objection answered 80 Recapitulation 81 VARIOUS OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED ... 82 I. PRIMITIVE RULES NO LONGER APPLICABLE . . 82 The Laws of Christ have not changed 84 Return to the Primitive Order desirable .... 84 II. BAPTISM BUT AN EXTERNAL RITE 87 III. PEDOBAPTISTS THINK THEMSELVES BAPTIZED, 89 IV. STRICT COMMUNION A HINDRANCE TO UNION, 90 Truth before Union 91 A Good Conscience before Union 92 Allegiance to Christ before Union 93 Baptists bound to be Strict in regard to the Ordi- nances 93 Baptists not responsible for the Separation ... 94 VIII CONTENTS. Page Baptism, no less than the Lord's Supper, a Symbol of Church Union 96 Mixed Communion not a Cure, but a Cause, of Dis- union 97 Mixed Communion a Fictitious Expression of Union . . . . 102 V. WHY NOT MAKE AN EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OP BAPTIZED MEMBERS OF PEDOBAPTIST CHURCHES'? 103 VI. WHY NOT DISPENSE WITH THE RULE IN EX- TREME CASES'? 106 VII. ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY OF OUR PRACTICE, 108 1. We expect to Commune with Pedobaptists in Heaven 108 2. We reject the Better and receive the Worse . . 109 3. We recognize Pedobaptists as Brethren in many- ways 112 VIII. ALLEGED IMPOLICY OF OUR PRACTICE . . 104 CONCLUSION 117 PKEREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE. It is conceded at the outset that the terms of admission to the Lord's Supper, or the quali- fications required of all who participate in that sacred feast, are not matters of explicit and formal statement in the Scriptures, and that we must ascertain what the will of the Lord is in this matter as well as we can from par- ticular examples, from general principles, and from incidental allusions, contained in Scripture. Nor need we be particularly surprised or grieved that it should be so ; for the same is true in regard to many other important matters per- taining to Christian doctrine and duty, and to 10 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION". the order of the church of Christ. It is so in regard to the time and manner of keeping the Lord's day holy unto him; and it is so — to refer to a more pertinent illustration still — in regard to the qualifications for receiving bap- tism. It seems very plain to us Baptists, that the scriptural terms of admission to baptism are repentance and faith ; and yet we do not find anywhere in Scripture the express words, "Let every penitent believer be baptized, and let none but penitent believers be baptized ; " nor even precisely that form of verbal warrant which we sometimes hear quoted as Scripture, "Repent, believe, and be baptized." Yet we are none the less confident, and none the less justified in maintaining our denominational views in regard to that rite, and in insisting upon these qualifications in all who come to us asking for baptism. For the scriptural warrant for requir- ing these qualifications for baptism, though not thus direct and explicit, is sufficient and decisive. I do not say that the proper qualifications for admission to the Lord's Supper are equally clear from the Scriptures ; but I say that they are to be ascertained and proved by the same hind NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE. 11 of evidence. We are not entitled to demand any particular degree of plainness, or measure of fulness, in the evidence of what the Lord requires of us in any case ; it is sufficient that we can ascertain it by searching the Scriptures ; and if the indexes of our duty which we find there, whether few or many, all point in the same direction, — if, though appropriate proof- texts be not so numerous as we could wish, the tenor of Scripture is unambiguous and self- consistent, — we ought to be content. If we are prepared to be content with this kind and degree of evidence, I think we shall have no reason to complain that it is wanting in regard to the case before us, — the proper qualifica- tions FOR ADMISSION TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. l£ PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. AVOWAL OF DISCIPLESHIP. The first qualification which I mention as re- quired, on scriptural principles, in those who come to the Lord's table, is, that they be avowed disciples of Christ. There is no apparent reason why any others should wish to partake of the Lord's Supper; its nature and design are such that no others can suitably partake of it ^ nor can any others find in Scripture any warrant for par- taking of it. At the time when the Lord insti- tuted this ordinance, only his chosen disciples were with him. He sat down with the twelve} He took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples. It was to them he said, "Take, eat; this is my body;" and likewise, " Drink ye all of it." 2 It was to them he said, " This do in remembrance of me." 3 The question whether or not Judas was pres- ent, and partook of the bread and the wine, does not seem to me to have any serious importance. If he was present and partook, it was in the char- acter of a disciple, regarded as such by the other 1 Matt. xxvi. 20. 2 vs. 2t>, 27. 3 Luke xxii. 19. AVOWAL OF DISCIPIESHIP. IS disciples, and not yet disowned as such by his Master. If he did not partake, but went out before the Supper was instituted, which I regard as the more probable view, then this circumstance may be considered as an additional confirmation of the truth that this observance was designed by the Lord to be limited to his avowed disciples. 1 Invariably, wherever the Lord's Supper is spoken of or alluded to, those who are repre- sented as partaking of it, if not explicitly declared to be disciples of Christ, are plainly assumed to be such, and to partake as such. 2 This is very emphatically the case with the references to this ordinance in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians. " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which Ave 1 The order of the narrative in Luke xxii. 19-23, is in favor of placing his departure after the institution of the supper. But the giving of the sop, the sign by which he was declared to be the betrayer of Christ, seems to belong more fitly to the Paschal Supper, and is referred to in connection with it by both Matthew (xxvi. 23) and Mark (xiv. 20). And John says (xiii. 30) that Judas went out immediately after this sign was given. It seems to me that these indications of the order of events in three of the gospels, especially the very definite one the gospel of John, are more decisive than the order of the narrative in Luke. It is well known that the evangelists do not always record events in the exact order of their occurence. 2 See Acts ii. 42. 14 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? " x This is surely a very emphatic way of saying, that this rite implies, on the part of those who observe it, fellowship with Christ, and a par- ticipation of the benefits of his propitiatory sacri- fice on the cross for us. The whole representation in the eleventh chapter is of a kindred character. The warning against eating and drinking unwor- thily, 2 the injunction to examine themselves, 3 and the distinction expressly recognized between those who partake and the world, 4 manifestly presup- pose the character of discipleship on the part of the communicants. Indeed, as the epistle is formally inscribed to those who are recognized as disciples of Christ, 5 whatever directions it contains in regard to the observance of the Lord's Supper are naturally understood as applicable and ad- dressed to persons of this character. That such an avowal, express or implied, is an indispensable qualification for approach to the Lord's table, will hardly be denied by any but those who regard this ordinance as a means of grace to the unconverted. This view prevails generally in the unreformed churches, both the 1 Ch. x. 1G. 2 vs. 27, 29. 3 v. 28. 4 v. 32. 5 Ch. i. 2. AVOWAL OF DISCIPLESHIP. 15 Latin and the Greek. It prevails also to a con- siderable extent, I believe, among Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists. It did prevail, also, as is well known, among the Congregation- alists of New England before the days of Jona- than Edwards. In proportion as evangelical views are entertained in regard to the nature of regeneration and discipleship, this position must be abandoned. In proportion as regeneration is held to be a gradual process, the development of a germ of natural goodness in man, or of divine grace implanted in baptism, this position will be retained. Yet the Episcopalian, who exhorts the people to repent of their sins, or else not come to that holy table, and who tells them it is requisite that no man should come but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet con- science; 1 the Presbyterian, who insists on the desire to renounce sin, and the determination to lead a godly life; 2 and the Methodist, who ad- mits into the preparatory class only those who profess to be seeking salvation ; 3 — all require in sub- stance some avowal of incipient discipleship, as we might call it, such as their views of regeneration 1 Book of Common Prayer. 2 Directory for Worship. 3 Book of Discipline. 16 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. and conversion warrant. But strictly evangelical Pedobaptists, with whom we have chiefly to deal in the present controversy, agree with us in re- garding the Lord's Supper as designed only for the avowed disciples of Christ. Yet I cannot forbear to remark, in passing, that I see no con- sistent ground on which those who regard Bap- tism as a means of grace to the unconverted, as I suppose all consistent Pedobaptists do, can ob- ject to the views of those who regard the Lord's Supper in the same light. II. BAPTISM. In addition to a general avowal of being dis- ciples of Christ, I mention baptism, as a second qualification required, according to the Scrip- tures, in all communicants at the Lord's table. There is no record of the baptism of any of the twelve, or eleven, disciples who partook with Jesus at the original institution of the Lord's Supper. But we have proof that one or two of BAPTISE. 17 them had been disciples of John. 1 It is probable, that all of them had been ; for our Lord would not be likely to choose his apostles from among those who had not obeyed the call to repentance, and received the baptism, of that illustrious har- binger, who was sent before him on purpose to prepare the way of the Lord. 2 This inference is greatly strengthened by the circumstance, that the twelve administered baptism to others, very soon after they became disciples of Jesus. 3 But while there can be, I think, no reasonable doubt that all the twelve apostles had been baptized by John, yet we have no occasion now to insist upon this ; nor need our present inquiry be embar- rassed by any doubts as to the question whether the baptism of John was essentially Christian baptism. It is plain that the first administrator of baptism must have been unbaptized. It mat- ters little who the first administrator of Ghristian baptism was, — whether John the Baptist, or one of the twelve apostles, — provided only that he had a divine commission to perform it, and to prescribe the qualifications of those who should receive it. Such a divine commission the apos- l Jno. i. 85-42. 2 I 6a i. xl. 3. 3 J D o. iii. 22; iv. 12. 18 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. ties certainly had from Christ himself, in regard to both Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and this commission supersedes the necessity, though it does not exclude the fitness, of any other qualification. In proof of the position, that no unbaptized person is duly qualified to be a communicant at the Lord's table, we appeal to the examples of Scripture, and to the nature and import of the two ordinances, as therein described. THE EXAMPLES OF SCRIPTURE. The Lord's Supper is much less frequently mentioned and referred to in the Scriptures than Baptism is; but wherever it is mentioned or referred to, it is in a way which accords with the view that it is a duty and a privilege belonging to those who have previously been baptized. There is no instance, after its first institution, of any persons partaking of it, concerning whom we have not good reason to believe that they had been first baptized. There is nothing to favor the view that it ought to be, or properly may be, under any circumstances, observed by BAPTISM. 19 those who have not been baptized. Those of whom it is recorded, that "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers ," had just before been baptized. 1 Those Corinthian disciples, to whom the apos- tle gave directions in regard to the Lord's Sup- per, were baptized disciples. While he rejoiced, for a particular reason which he is careful to specify, that he had baptized but few among them, yet he speaks of them all as baptized. "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? " 2 And when it is said of the disciples at Troas, 3 that they came together to break bread, we are justified in assuming that they had been pre- viously baptized, in view of the plain doctrine and uniform precedents of Scripture, by w^hich the proper place of baptism is fixed at the beginning of the Christian life, as the primal act of submis- sion to Christ's authority, and the formal decla- ration of faith in him. This statement introduces our second medium of proof, namely : — 1 Acts ii. 41, 42. 2 1 Cor. i. 13. 3 The word " disciples," in Acts xx. 7, is indeed omitted by the best editors of the Greek Testament ; but it is implied in the word " them." 20 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE TWO ORDINANCES. The character and meaning of each of these symbolical rites, and the relation between them, as exhibited in the Scriptures, require that Bap- tism should always precede the reception of the Lord's Supper. The commission which Jesus gave to the apostles to baptize plainly intimates that bap- tism was the rite by which those who became his disciples were to declare themselves such, and to unite themselves to the company of believers, to be instructed in all subsequent Christian duties. " Go ye, therefore, and disciple all na- tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." x " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. 2 From the very terms of this commission, from the place which baptism here occupies, and the distinction which it defines, it appears evident 1 Matt, xrviii. 19, 20. 2 Markxvi.15, lti. BAPTISM. 21 that this rite stands appropriately at the begin- ning of the Christian life (not at the beginning of the natural life, but at the beginning: of the Christian life), as the introduction to a course of obedience to whatever else Christ has com- manded. The examples of baptism recorded in the book of Acts all agree with this view. On the day of Pentecost, they that gladly received the word preached by Peter were immediately bap- tized. 1 So it was with those in Samaria who believed what Philip preached. 2 So it was with the Ethiopian eunuch:" So it was with Paul, when he received the word with joy at the mouth of Ananias. 4 So it was with Cornelius the centurion and his friends, when they believed those things which Peter preached, and had received the Holy Spirit. 5 So it was with Lydia, when her heart was opened to attend to the things which Paul spake ; G and with the jailer m the same city, whose heart w^as opened in a man- ner so different. 7 So it was with Crispus and his family, and many other Corinthians with them. 8 l Acts ii. 38, 41. 2 viii. 12. 3 viii. 35, 38. 4 ix. 17, 18 ; xxii. 16. S x. 47, 48. e xvi. 14, 15. 7 vs. 29-38. 8 xviii. 8. 22 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION". So it was universally. Baptism always followed immediately, as the first duty after the exercise of saving faith. There is a plain concurrence of all scriptural precedents in this matter. In no case is it said, " then they that gladly received the word came together to break bread ; " or, "who can forbid bread and wine, that these should not eat the Lord's Supper, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? " or, " believing in God with all his house, he sat down at the table of the Lord, he and all his straight- way;" or, "repent, and receive the Lord's Supper, every one of you ; " or, " when they believed the preaching concerning the kingdom of God, they broke bread, both men and women." In no case are they described as receiving the Lord's Supper immediately after their conversion, or as receiving the Lord's Supper first, and bap- tism afterwards. Can this be accidental? or is it significant of the Lord's will ? There is one order uniformly intimated and observed in Scrip- ture : there is no intimation that we are at liberty to change it ; there is no intimation that it is a matter of indifference. We have no right to BAPTISM. 23 change that order; we have no warrant for regarding it as indifferent. The manner in which baptism is referred to in the Epistles confirms the view that it should always precede the reception of the Lord's Sup- per. In Rom. vi. 3-6, it is represented as a symbol of dying to sin, and rising to a new and holy life. The same representation is found more briefly exhibited in Colossians ii. 12. In Gal. iii. 26, 27, baptism is represented as the put- ting on of Christ, and as intimately connected with that saving faith in him by which we become children of God. The passages in which baptism is closely coupled with regeneration and salvation may be pertinently referred to here. They are, John iii. 21 ; Acts xxii. 16 ; Titus iii. 5 ; and 1 Peter iii. 21. These passages, which have proved very troublesome to the commentators, are easily ex- plained when baptism is regarded as occupying its legitimate and scriptural position, as the closely following declaration, and appointed sign of manifestation to men, of that inward spiritual change which is indispensable to salvation. In all the above Scriptures, the position of 24 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. baptism is such, that there is no room, so to speak, for the communion of the Lord's Supper to precede it. The difference between Baptism, as a rite to be administered once for all, and the Lord's Supper, as an observance to be often repeated, is more- over an expressive intimation of the proper rela- tive position of the two. That Baptism should be placed last, after the Lord's Supper has been received many times during a course of years, would be manifestly at variance with all that the Scriptures say of its nature and meaning, no less than with all scriptural precedents. That it should have its place somewhere, anywhere, in the midst of oft-repeated communions, would be still more incongruous in itself, and equally con- trary to all the examples of the New Testament. We prove that Baptism should precede the Lord's Supper, then, by the same uniform agree- ment of Scripture precedents by which we prove that repentance, faith, and regeneration, should precede baptism. BAPTISM. 25 PEDOBAPTIST TESTIMONIES. In regard to this point, the agreement is very general among all denominations of Christians. Even those who do not admit that repentance and faith should always precede baptism, main- tain that baptism should always precede the com- munion. I cite a few emphatic testimonials on this point. — Baxter says : "What man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both ? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church without baptism do so." * Dr. Wall says : "No church ever gave the com- munion to any persons before 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 baptized." 2 Dr. Doddridge confirms this testimony : " It is certain that as far as our knowledge of antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's Supper. How excellent soever any man's charac- 1 Plain Scripture Proof of Infant Baptism, in reply to Mr. Tombes, page 24. 2 Hist, of Inf. Bap., Part ii. ch. ix. 26 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION". ter is, he must be baptized before he can be looked upon as completely a member of the church of Christ." * So says Dr. Dwight: "It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance, that the candi- date for communion be a member of the visible church of Christ in full standing. By this I in- tend that he should be a person of piety ; that he should have made a public profession of re- ligion ; and that he should have been baptized." 2 Dr. Griffin says : " We ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians. There is such a relationship estab- lished between the two ordinances, that I have no right to separate them ; in other words, I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the church." 3 Dr. Hibbard, a recognized authority among Methodists, says : " Both Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the right of church fellowship, to all who have not been 1 Lectures, pp. 511, 512. 2 Serm. 160, vol. iv. pp. SG5-6. 3 Letter on Communion, published in 1829. BAPTISM. 27 baptized. Valid baptism they consider essential to visible church membership. This also we hold." * In fact, there is hardly any point on which there has been a more unanimous agreement of all churches, ancient and modern, than on the one now under consideration. We might quote from Justin Martyr, from the Apostolical Consti- tutions, and from a long line of ancient witnesses. But as the emphatic statements of Dr. Wall and Dr. Doddridge have never, so far as we know, been challenged, it is unnecessary to confirm them. Yet individuals have arisen, at different times and in different sects, who have denied the neces- sity of baptism as a prerequisite to the commu- nion. Among these, there is none abler or more widely known than the eloquent English Baptist, Robert Hall. ROBERT HALL'S VIEW. It is fair to state his views in his own language. " There is no position in the whole compass of 1 Ilihbardon Baptism, p. ]"4. 25 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUXIOX. theology," he says, in the Preface to his work on the " Terms of Communion," " of the truth of which I feel a stronger persuasion, than that no man, or set of men, are entitled to prescribe, as an indispensable condition of communion, what the New Testament has not enjoined as a condi- tion of salvation. To establish this position is the principal object of the following work ; and though it is more immediately occupied in the discussion of a case which respects the Baptists and Pedobaptists, that case is attempted to be decided entirely upon the principle now main- tained, and is no more than the application of it to a particular instance." l In another place, he states it as his " leading position, that no church has a right to establish terms of communion which are not terms of salvation" 2 Again he says, com- munion with Pedobaptists " neither implies that they are baptized, nor the contrary ; it has no retrospective view to that ordinance whatever ; it implies neither more nor less than that they are members of Christ, and the objects, consequently, of that fraternal attachment which our opj^onents themselves profess to feel." 3 " We cheerfully re- 1 Works, vol. i. p. 285, Gregory's edition. 2 Ibid. p. 359, 3 p. 854. BAPTISM. 29 ceive pious Pedobaptists, not from the supposition that the ceremony which they underwent in their infancy possesses the smallest validity, but as sin- cere followers of Christ : and for my own part, I should feel as little hesitation in admitting: such as deny the perpetuity of baptism, whenever the evidence of their piety is equally clear and deci- sive." l Once more, in his reply to Mr. Kinghorn, he says, "he justly observes, that the question, and the only question, is, whether those who are acknoicledged to be unbaptized ought to come to the Lord 's table? 2 Nothing can be plainer, then, than that Mr. Hall's whole argument is founded on the princi- ple, that baptism, as not being an indispensable term of salvation, cannot properly be made an indispensable term of communion. OBJECTIONS TO HIS PRINCIPLE. In regard to this fundamental principle of Mr. Hall's argument, 1. I remark, in the first place, that a principle so contrary to the creeds and the customs of all 1 Works, vol. i. p. 405. 2 p. 401. 30 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. churches, ancient and modern, needs to be demon- strated by very plain and sure evidence. A very heavy burden of proof rests on him who under- takes to establish a proposition so contrary to what has been universally received. 2. A second objection to Mr. Hall's principle is, that it assumes a false and unscriptural inequality between the two Christian rites. It assumes that the Lord's Supper holds altogether a higher rank than Baptism ; that it is more intimately connect- ed with union and charity, cliscipleship and salva- tion ; that its omission is a much graver matter than the omission of baptism ; that it is compar- atively unessential whether all true disciples are baptized or not, but very essential that they should all partake of the communion, and that they should, as far as opportunity allows, all par- take of it together. Now we find no scriptural warrant for asserting or supposing any such infe- riority of the one rite to the other. Both derive their sacreclness and obligation from the same divine source ; both represent substantially the same great facts; both presuppose the same relation of the individual soul to Christ, the same spiritual qualifications in those who BAPTISM. 31 receive them. He who said, "Do this in remem- brance of me," said also, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." If in the Lord's Supper we show forth symbolically the death of Christ on the cross, so are we in bap- tism baptized into his death, and symbolically buried w T ith him. If the Communion expresses our personal participation of Christ as the Bread of Life, so have we who have been baptized into Christ put on Christ. It is not strange that those who are accustomed to administer baptism to unconscious babes should regard it as less sacred and essential than the Communion. But neither the Scriptures, nor the principles and practices of Baptists, furnish any reason for attributing any more sacred character, or any more religious im- portance, to the Lord's Supper than to Baptism. Instead of saying, with Mr. Hall, that "no church has a right to establish terms of Communion which are not terms of salvation," it would be much nearer the truth of Scripture to say, that "no church has a right to establish terms of Baptism which are not terms of salvation." For it is Baptism, and not the Communion, which is 32 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. most frequently and emphatically connected in the Scriptures with the things that accompany salvation. 3. A third objection to Mr. Hall's principle is, that it tends to do away with baptism entirely. We do not believe that baptism is indispensable to admission into heaven ; but we do believe that it is the only proper door of entrance into the visible church, and therefore indispensable to qualify a person to partake of the Lord's Supper, as a privilege and duty in the church. But if it is not indispensable to this latter, if the highest privilege of church membership may be legiti- mately enjoyed by him who neglects it, then what is its importance ? Mr. Hall virtually ad- mits that his view tends to make it of small account, when he says he should have no hesita- tion in receiving to the Communion those who deny the perpetuity of baptism. 4. Indeed, the tendency of this principle seems to me to be more destructive still, and to tend to do away with the visible church altogether. I name this, therefore, as a fourth objection to Mr. Hall's view. If nothing is essential to member- ship in the visible church but what is essential to BAPTISM. 33 membership in the invisible, then any particular visible church can only be conceived of as a part of the church invisible, and as differing from it only as a part differs from the whole. Indeed, Mr. Hall distinctly takes just this ground. But when we attempt to carry out this theory of the visible church, we find that it is utterly impracti- cable. It is like attempting to conceive of a concrete abstraction. Nothing but a " poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling," can " glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven," with sufficient rapidity to catch this unsubstantial vision ; nothing but a poet's imagination can " body forth the form of" this "thing unknown;" and not even the "poet's pen" can "give" to this "airy nothing a local habitation." The visible church has all at once become invisible. To speak so- berly, no church ever did, or ever could, manage its affairs, or even exist as a church, on this theory. Such a church must not require the convert to be baptized, nor to partake of the Lord's Supper, nor to submit to its discipline ; for none of these are terms of salvation. It would certainly be impossible for any church, consistently with this theory, to exercise discipline, or even to know 3 34 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. who its own members were ; for as soon as any- visible act, ceremony, or form, is made essential to admission into it, or membership in it, then it violates the law of its being, by establishing terms of membership which are not terms of salvation. It is very true that a scripturally constituted church will aim to receive to its membership only such as are in its judgment already mem- bers of the invisible church, and heirs of salva- tion; but it belongs to the very nature of a visible church, to require, in addition to those spiritual qualifications which constitute membership in the invisible, some visible mark of membership ; and this must of course be something that is not indispensable to salvation. Mr. Hall says, " No church has a right to establish terms of communion which are not terms of salvation." We say that no church has a right to establish any terms of commun- ion, merely on its own authority ; but whatever terms the Lord has established, these every church is bound to abide by; with these no church has a right to dispense ; no church has any more right to make them broader and easier, than it has to make them narrower and stricter. BAPTISM. 35 It seems to nie that, under the form in which Mr. Hall states his principle, there lurks a treacherous proof of its unsoundness. But, sound or unsound, such is incontestably and avowedly his principle. The basis, as he explicitly declares, of his whole argument is, that no church has a right to require baptism as an indispensable prerequisite to the com- munion; for certainly Mr. Hall did not regard baptism as indispensable to salvation. If that foundation is taken away, the whole fabric of his argument falls to the ground. Hence, those who do not agree with him in that "leading position" are not entitled to avail themselves of any of his arguments against strict com- munion. They cannot do so consistently, unless they are able to show that he did not well understand his own reasoning, and that he was mistaken when he affirmed that it rested entirely upon that axiom. Yet, in spite of this obvious reflection, we all know how common it is for both Baptists and Pedobaptists to avail them- selves freely of his arguments, his expressions, and his authority on this controverted subject, while they do not, either in practice or in theory, 36 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. admit the soundness of the foundation on which his whole argument is built. If now, after all, any should say that the evidence on this point does not appear to them to be such as to compel conviction, — that they are not quite sure that baptism ought always to precede the participation of the Lord's Supper, we answer, that they ought to be quite sure of the contrary before they invite to the communion those whom they do not regard as baptized. III. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. Intimately connected with both the foregoing, yet not quite identical with either, is that which we consider as a third prerequisite in every can- didate for communion at the Lord's table, namely, church membership. Ordinarily, and regularly, this is implied in baptism. This rite is appropriately the door of entrance into the visible church ; and though it may be, and ought to be, administered in some cases where there is yet no visible church in CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 37 existence, yet, where such a church does exist, baptism is the only regular and scriptural door of entrance into it. And as baptism comes properly at the beginning of the Christian life, and introduces the disciple into the church, it follows that the communion of the Lord's Sup- per is for those who are in the church. This view is generally admitted even by those who practise infant baptism, in spite of the incon- venient consequences which, on their princi- ples, manifestly result from it. We have seen, in the testimonies quoted under the former division, how inseparably visible church mem- bership connected itself with baptism, in the thoughts and expressions of those w^ho were treating of the latter subject. It was impos- sible to cite their testimony in regard to bap- tism as prerequisite to the communion, with- out citing at the same time a similar testimony in regard to church membership. According to these concurrent testimonies, any person who is not a member of any visible church is by that fact disqualified, or, more properly speak- ing, unqualified to receive the Lord's Supper. We have only to inquire, therefore, whether 38 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. they are correct in this view. Is the Lord's Supper represented in the Scriptures as a church privilege, for the right observance of which the church, as such, is responsible to Christ? If he designed it to be celebrated in the church, and by the church, then, of course, on scriptural principles, it belongs only to the members of the church to participate in it. If we recur to the original institution of this rite, we find that the first observance of it was confined to the immediate companions of Jesus, to those whom he had, nearly three years before, chosen to be with him, 1 who were united as one company of worshippers, under his instruction and guidance. There were doubtless many other disciples of Christ in Jerusalem at the time ; but none except the twelve were so united into one community as to be a fit representation of a church. While, then, the twelve apostles, as commissioned by Christ to preach and bap- tize, represent the gospel ministry, as a perpetual succession of officers in the church, they may also, as a company of fellow-worshippers, as a visible community of the disciples of Christ, 1 Markiii.lt. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 39 no less fitly be regarded as representing a church. It certainly was not in the former of these two characters that they alone received the con- secrated symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood ; that would be to suppose that only the ministers of Christ have a right to partake of these emblems. It must have been rather in the latter character, as representing a visible church, that they alone were allowed to par- take of the bread and the wine. This view is in harmony with all the subsequent scriptural notices of the ordinance in question. It is always represented as a social observance, to be celebrated by the church collectively. When we read of the baptism of single indi- viduals, as of Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch, there is never any intimation that the adminis- tration of the Lord's Supper followed. Even when whole households are baptized, as in the case of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and Crispus at Corinth, the same silence is observed. But when great numbers were baptized, as on the day of Pentecost, we find them soon after join- ing in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. And observe how these communicants are character- 40 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. ized : they are those who " continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" The con- comitants of the participation of the Lord's Sup- per, as here specified, are just the marks by which a church is characterized. These communicants have just been baptized: they form a community or fellowship, receiving together the instructions of their apostolic pastors, and worshipping to- gether in prayer. A community of baptized believers, under common instruction, and united in worship, — what is it but a church of Christ ? Indeed, it is expressly called by this name, only a few verses further on. " And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." And after this record of their breaking bread together, they are habitually spoken of as " the church," " the church at Jerusalem." * In the twentieth chapter of Acts we have an account of the administration of the Lord's Supper by the apostle Paul to the disciples at Troas. They came together upon the first day of the week to break bread. 2 Paul preached a sermon to them, and then broke bread to them. 3 1 Acts v. 11 ; Viii. 1 ; xi. 22 ; *v. 4, 2 Verse 7. 3 v. 11. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 41 The ordinance is here represented as a stated observance of the company of disciples at Troas, a part of that public worship of God for the maintenance of which the church was constituted, and is responsible. It has been questioned, I know, whether there was at this time any church at Troas. 1 But I do not see how there can be any reasonable doubt on that point. This was Paul's third visit to that important city. Both his former visits, indeed, were shorter than he intended, — his departure being hastened, in the first instance, by the vision that called him over into Macedonia, 2 and in the second by his impatient desire to meet his brother Titus. 3 But he tells us, in reference to this second visit, that when he went there " to preach Christ's gospel," " a door was opened unto him by the Lord." Is it probable, then, that nearly a year later, after he had fully preached the gospel through Macedonia, 1 A writer in the Christian Review for April, 1853, in an article on Weekly Communion, attempts to establish the conclusion that there was no church at Troas at this time. But his argument docs not seem to me conclusive. It ia founded mainly on the omission of any definite mention of the church at Troas ; but the supposition which the author makes to explain the reason for celebrating the Lord's Supper is quite as destitute of positive support as that of the existence of a church there, and, as it seems to me, far less probable in itself. 2 Acts xvi. 8-11. 3 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. 42 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. and round about unto Illyricum, and had re- mained three months in Greece, there was still no church founded in Troas when he came there the third time? — especially as this was the place of rendezvous selected by him and those Macedo- nian brethren who had gone on before him. We feel justified in assuming that there was a church at Troas before this third visit of Paul, when he broke bread to them. 1 The manner in which Paul speaks of the Lord's Supper in his first epistle to the Corinthians, con- firms the view that it is to be celebrated in the church, and as a church ordinance. In the eleventh chapter he uses such expressions as these: "When ye come together in church;" 2 "when ye come together into one place;" 3 "to eat the Lord's Supper;" 4 and their com- ing together in the church to eat this sacred 1 Compare Acts xx. 2-5 with Rom. xv. 12. See also Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 281-285, vol. ii. pp. 90-92 and p. 206. The opinion expressed in this work is that Paul, on his second visit, remained there several weeks (ii. 91), and laid the foundation of a church, which rapidly- increased (pp. 91, 92). 2 Verse 18. The omission of the article in the original is significant. It makes the language equivalent to our phrase, " As a church," or, if the critics will par- don the expression, " In a church capacity." 3 v. 20. 4 v. 33. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 43 feast is distinctly contrasted with their more private eating at home. 1 The tenor of the whole passage is in perfect harmony with the inscription at the beginning of the epistle, in which it is addressed, not to individual Chris- tians, as such, but " to the church of God which is at Corinth." 2 THE LORD'S SUPPER A SYMBOL OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. In the tenth chapter, the apostle seems to go still further, and to intimate that this ordinance is a symbol of church fellovjship between those who partake of it together : " for we, being many, are one bread, and one body ; for we are all par- takers of that one bread." 3 A more literal rendering of his language, not requiring any such supplementary words (being, and) as our translators have inserted in italics, would be, " because there is one loaf, we, the many, are one body ; for we all partake of the one loaf." Here we understand the Lord's Supper to be repre- sented as an expressive symbol of church fellow- 1 vs. 22,34. i v. 2. 3 v. 17. 44 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. ship, and consequently not to be properly shared except by those who are actually united in church relations, or, at most, by those between whom no obstacle to union in such relations exists. Such is unquestionably the view which, as a matter of fact, men in general entertain of the communion. They look upon it as one of the chief and readiest marks of distinction between those who are within the church and those who are without. From seeing who approach the Lord's table, and who refrain, they infer at once who are walking in fellowship with the church, and who are not. And, in fact, what else is implied in excommu- nication as an act of church discipline ? If the joint participation of the Lord's Supper is not a symbol of church fellowship, then the exclusion of any person from that participation is not an expression of disfellowship. Neither does the withdrawal of church fellowship, on this suppo- sition, necessarily imply an exclusion from this participation : and therefore an excluded member might, without impropriety, continue to come to the Lord's table as before. Why should he not, if his coming imports nothing more than his personal CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 45 commemoration of the death of Christ ? Thus that exclusion from the participation of the Lord's Supper, which is understood, by universal con- sent, to be involved in the highest act of church discipline, is a virtual admission that communion in this ordinance, whatever else it may import or imply, is also a sign of church fellowship, — of that distinct and peculiar agreement and union of views and feelings, which is, or should be, the determining consideration in fixing the denomi- national and ecclesiastical position of each be- liever in Christ. If, when we are bidden to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, this withdrawal includes a separation from him in the rite which commemo- rates the death of Christ, then union in that rite must be at least one of the symbols by which church fellowship is expressed. Can any other act be named which expresses that fellowship so distinctly and so fully ? We conclude, in view of all the above consid- erations, that membership in a Christian church is a scriptural term of admission to the Lord's Sup- per ; and that those only can suitably unite in this 46 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. observance between whom church relations do actually, or may properly, exist. This connection between church membership and the right to the Lord's Supper is in effect denied by those who maintain that this rite, apart from its commemorative character, is symbolical simply and solely of the fellowship between the soul of each communicant and Christ, and not at all of mutual and church fellowship between the communicants. This view takes off from the church at once all responsibility in regard to the character of those who come to the Lord's table. It makes each individual the sole judge of his qualification for the enjoyment of this privilege within the church. It makes exclusion from the Communion, instead of being a legitimate and severe penalty resulting from the highest act of church discipline, to be at the same time a theo- retical usurpation and a practical nullity. OBJECTION ANSWERED. But it is objected to the view which makes the participation of the Lord's Supper a symbol of mutual fellowship between the communicants, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 47 that it tends to foster an admitted evil in our churches, namely, the practice of staying away from the Communion on account of personal dif- ferences with other communicants, or want of confidence in their Christian character, or, at least, want of Christian fellowship with them for the time being. It is certainly desirable to find a remedy for this evil. But we do not think that remedy ought to be sought in the denial that the Lord's Supper is symbolical of mutual and church fellowship between those who partake of it ; be- cause we think that would be a denial of the truth. There is, indeed, no definite allusion to this import of the rite in the words of our Lord at its original institution. But we think the pas- sage cited from the First Epistle to the Corin- thians 1 does attribute to it such an import, and that in fact it results from the indissoluble connection between fellowship with Christ and fellowship with one another, that the rite which primarily expresses the first should also include the expression of the second. This connection is plainly set forth in the first chapter of the First Epistle of John. " That which we have seen and 1 x. 17. 48 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. 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." x " If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another." 2 We think, therefore, that there is scriptural reason for that almost universal view which is taken of this ordinance, as expressive of the mutual confidence and affection of those that participate in it. And if this be so, the remedy for the evil, which we all admit and lament, must be sought for in some other way than in the denial of this secondary import of the Lord's Supper. Nor will it be difficult, I think, to show the impro- priety of absenting one's self from the Communion for such a cause, on grounds perfectly consistent with the doctrine here maintained. While the church as a body see no reason for withdrawing their fellowship from the person objected to, it does not belong to the individual objector to overrule the collective judgment of the whole. If the objectors feelings towards the person ob- jected to are such as unfit him to come to the Lord's table, the sooner he is rid of them the better. 1 v.8. 2 v. 7. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 49 Besides, it well deserves to be considered, whether the proposed way of remedying the evil in question, even if it were lawful to have recourse to it, would not be worse than the evil which it seeks to cure. Would it not be likely to result in making churches altogether too pa- tient of differences and alienations, and altogether too indifferent to the harmony and love that should subsist among their members ? SUPPOSED PRIMITIVE LAXITY. The necessity of church membership as a qual- ification for the Communion is sometimes ques- tioned on such grounds as the following : Chris- tianity is pre-eminently spiritual in its nature, and personal in its application ; the spirit of the New Testament is opposed to all formalism, — it is a spirit of freedom ; and the apostles and primitive Christians seem to have laid little stress on out- ward ordinances and ecclesiastical organization. In obedience to this spirit, when the disciples of Christ came together, they probably united in celebrating the Lord's Supper, without any for- 4 50 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION*. mal investigation or inquiry as to each one's baptism or church membership. We must not transfer our present views to primitive times, and attribute to the apostolical churches all that reg- ularity and routine with which we are familiar. In opposition to this view of the laxity of the primitive Christians in regard to external rites and church organization, there are several impor- tant considerations to be urged. Supposing, in the first place, that this is the true view of the teachings of the New Testa- ment, and of the spirit of the primitive disciples, the inquiry naturally arises, Why is not the same principle applicable to both ordinances? Why were they not just as lax in regard to the observ- ance of the Lord's Supper as in regard to baptism and church membership? Baptism is no more an outward rite than the Lord's Supper. Cer- tainly, the Scripture insists more upon the impor- tance of the former rite than of the latter, and connects it more intimately with the things that accompany salvation. But is the tenor of the New Testament teach- ing such as the above objectors represent? That such is, very extensively, the spirit of the present CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 51 age, is sufficiently apparent ; but whether or not it is the spirit of apostolical Christianity, is a matter to be determined by no hasty inference from the spiritual and personal character of the religion of Christ, but by a careful examination of the Scriptures. It is readily granted that they are not very full in their testimony, nor minute and circumstantial in their details, in regard to matters pertaining to church order. But we must remember how brief and elliptical their historical records are, and not require on this subject a kind and degree of evidence incompat- ible with the nature and limits of the inspired volume. We must carefully survey the entire tenor of the teachings of the New Testament, and remembering that many things must be sup- posed which are not recorded, we must observe what is the general bearing of its testimony on the question before us. Confessedly we have but indications to guide us, rather than specific rules. Which way do the indexes point, — towards lax- ity, or towards strictness ? 52 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. PROMINENCE OF THE CHURCH RELATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In answer to this inquiry, something may be learned from the different manner in which the followers of Christ are most frequently desig- nated in different parts of the New Testament. The names chiefly used to designate them in their individual character and relation to their Lord are " disciples " and " saints " ; in their per- sonal relation one to another they are called "brethren"; and in their associated and organ- ized relation they are spoken of as " churches." The word " disciples " is applied to them about two hundred and thirty times in the Gospels, about thirty times in the Acts, and not once in the Epistles. The word " saints " is used to des- ignate them not more than once, if at all, in the Gospels, 1 only four or five times in the Acts, and about fifty-five times in the Epistles. The word " brethren," expressive of the mutual relation of Christians, and at the same time suggestive of their union into a society or brotherhood, is found l Matt, xxvii. 52, where it is more naturally referred to the saints of the Old Testament. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 53 in this application about fifteen times in the Gos- pels, about thirty times in the Acts, and more than one hundred times in the Epistles. It is used in the latter nearly twice as often as the word " saints." But how is it with the word " churches " ? We should not, of course, expect to find this word common in the Gospels ; and in fact we do not meet with it at all except in Matthew, where it is used three times. 1 In the Acts it occurs about twenty times, and in the Epistles about ninety times. It appears from this comparison that, in the later writings of the New Testament, the followers of Christ are spoken of collectively as churches nearly as often as they are designated as brethren, and much oftener than they are called by any other name, expressive merely of their individual char- acter. This seems to me to show a marked prominence given in the apostolic writings to the ecclesiastical organization of the disciples of Christ. Of the fourteen Epistles of Paul, four are ad- dressed to individuals, and not to a company of disciples ; 2 one is without any inscription ; 3 and 1 xvi. 18; xvili. 17, twice. 2 l and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon. 3 Hebrews. 54 PEEEEQtTISITES TO COMMUNION. of the remaining nine, five are inscribed expressly to churches, 1 the other four to the saints in the places to which they were sent. 2 In the Apocalypse, John addresses himself to the churches in his introduction ; 3 and the Lord addresses his seven messages of counsel, reproof, and encouragement, to the churches of Asia. It is the message of his Spirit to the churches, which all who have ears are admonished to regard. 4 And the churches, with their pastors, are dis- tinctly individualized, and distinguished from each other, under the emblems of the candle- sticks and the stars. In many cases, in Acts and in the Epistles, the churches are explicitly mentioned, where we should more naturally expect some term descrip- tive of individuals. It was to the church that the Lord added daily such as should be saved. 5 It is against the church that a great persecution arises. 6 It is the churches that have rest when the persecution is over. 7 It is with the church that Paul and Barnabas assemble themselves a whole year at Antioch, where the disciples were 1 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., 1 and 2 Thess. 2 Rom., Ephes., Phil., Coloss. 3 i. 4. 4 ii. 7, 11, 17, 29 ; iii. G, 13, 22. 5 Acts ii. 47. 6 viii. 1. 7 Ls. 31. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 55 first called Christians. 1 It is by the church that these two and their companions are brought on their way when they go up from Antioch to Je- rusalem, to consult the apostles and elders about circumcision. 2 It is the church that receives them, with the apostles and elders, when they arrive there. 3 And it is the whole church that unite with the apostles and elders in sending the decision back to Antioch and the neighboring regions. And when Paul goes with Silas to revisit the scenes of his former labors, his errand is. to confirm the churches. 4 These are but a few specimens out of many in which prominence is given to the name which expresses the ecclesias- tical organization of the primitive disciples. THE WORD "CHURCH" NOT USED LOOSELY. And there are many indications that this word "church" was not used loosely to denote the aggregate of believers in any particular place, but that it expresses a definite and pervading organization. Paul and Barnabas were set apart 1 3d. 2G. 2 xv. 3. 3 xv. 4. 4 xv. 41. 56 PKEKEQUISITES TO • COMMUNION. to their missionary work by the church at Anti- och; 1 in the prosecution of their work they ordained elders in every church ; 2 and when they returned to Antioch they assembled the church to hear the report of their labors. 3 When Paul had not time to visit Ephesus, as he wished, he sent for the elders of that church to meet him at Miletus. 4 We have seen above that the elders of the church at Jerusalem are repeatedly spoken of. The same officers are mentioned under the same name, or under that of bishops, by Paul, in his Epistles to the Philippians, 5 to Timothy, 6 and to Titus, 7 and also by James 8 and by Peter. 9 The scattered notices of the pecuniary contributions among the early Christians are such as imply a distinct church organization, and definite church action on this particular subject. The apostle gives a specific direction to the church at Cor- inth, in regard to the manner of making collec- tions ; and he tells them that he had given the same order to the churches of Galatia. 10 Again he writes to them, in regard to his refusal to 1 Acts xiii. 1-3. 2 xiv. 23. ^ xiv. 27. 4 xx. 17, 6 i. 10. 6 1 Ep. iii. 1,2; v. 17. 7 i. 5, 7. 8 v. 14. o 1 Pet. v. i. 10 1 Cor. xvi. 1. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 57 receive from them any compensation for his labors, " I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service." * He speaks also of messengers chosen by the churches to convey their contributions to their destined objects. 2 He writes to the Philippians that, during a certain period of his ministry, no church communicated with him, as concerning giving and receiving, but they only. 3 We read, moreover, of letters of commendation, 4 and of a register of those wid- ows who were supported by the church. 5 The immoral person in the church at Corinth was excluded by the vote of many, and afterwards restored. 6 UNIFORMITY IN PRIMITIVE CHURCH USAGES. There are remarkable indications, too, of regu- larity and uniformity in matters of church action and discipline. We have seen an example of this in the matter of collections. The apostle Paul sends Timothy to Corinth to bring the disciples there into remembrance of his ways, 1 2 Cor. xi. 8. 3 viii. 19-23. 3 iv. 15. 4 2 Cor. iii. 1. 5 1 Tim. v. 9, 16. 6 l Cor. v. 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6-8. 58 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. which he says were uniform everywhere, — "as I teach everywhere, in every church." x After giv- ing them particular directions in regard to a certain subject, he adds, "and so ordain I in all churches." 2 Opposing himself to some that were contentious, he cuts the matter short by saying, " we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." 3 And again he reminds them that " God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 4 All these indi- cations seem to denote that the organization of the disciples into churches was early, definite, complete, and uniform. STRICTNESS RATHER THAN LAXITY. We find, moreover, evidences of strictness, rather than laxity, both in matters of belief and of practice. The apostle praises the Corinthians for keeping the ordinances as he delivered them unto them. 5 He joys to behold the order of the church at Colosse. 6 He bids the Thessalonians " stand fast, and hold the traditions which they have been taught by him, whether by word or l 1 Cor. iv. 17. 2 vii. 17. 3 xi. 1G. 4 xiv. 33. 5 1 Cor. xi. 2. 6 ii. 5. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 59 by letter." l And he solemnly commands them to withdraw themselves from every brother that does not walk according to the order which he had enjoined upon them. 2 John writes to the elect lady not to receive into her house, nor bid Godspeed to, any that bring any other doctrine than that which he taught. 3 And our Lord him- self reproves the churches of Pergamos and Thy- atira, not because they had as churches swerved from the faith, but because they had allowed erroneous doctrines to be promulgated among them by the Nicolaitanes and by Jezebel. 4 In all these things we discern no marks of lax- ity. Latitudinarianism must find its justification, if it can, elsewhere than in the teachings of the New Testament. The Broad Church must bring the stones for its foundation from other quarries than those of primitive Christianity. From the review which we have taken, we gather that there is quite as much danger of our erring by transferring the lax views of our times to the times of apostolical strictness, as there is of our attributing our modern notions of strictness to 1 2 Thess. ii. 15. 2 iii. 6. 3 2 John 10, 11. 4 Kcv. ii. 14-16, 2a 60 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. the more spontaneous and liberal proceedings* of the apostles. We think, then, to sum up the conclusion from the foregoing considerations, that the doctrine that the Lord's Supper is confided to the guar- dianship of the church, that it is to be observed in the church, and to be received only by the members of the church, and by such as, having all the qualifications of membership, may con- sistently be adopted as members, for the time ; — we think that this view of the Lord's Supper is indispensable to the maintenance of a scriptural discipline, and a scriptural distinction between them that are within the church and them that are without ; and that it is entirely in harmony with the letter and the spirit of that inspired word which gives such marked prominence to the associated relation of the disciples in church organization. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 61 MEMBERSHIP IN" ONE CHURCH NOT MEMBERSHIP IN ALL CHURCHES. The position which we have just endeavored to establish is admitted in theory by all denomi- nations of Christians. I do not know that there is, or has ever been, any sect in Christendom who have maintained that there is no connection be- tween the Communion and church membership, — that it is just as proper for those who are without the visible church to come to the Lord's table as for those who are within. But some take the position, virtually, if not formally, that membership in any particular church entitles a person to the privilege of partaking of the Com- munion in all churches. This principle is in fact assumed by those members of Pedobaptist churches who complain that they are wronged in not being invited to partake of the Lord's Supper in Baptist churches. They are not members of our churches. The difference between their views and ours is such, that we could not consistently receive them as they are, if they wished to become members; nor could they consistently become members, if we were willing to receive 62 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. them. We regard them as being in an error which we are not at liberty to co-operate in upholding and extending ; and they regard us in the same light. For them to claim the right to partake of the Lord's Supper in our churches, then, is certainly inconsistent with any established connection between church membership and the Communion, except in this form, that mem- bership in any one church entitles a person to this privilege in all churches. Such a principle is in our judgment incompatible alike with the independence and the responsibility of churches ; — with their independence, because it takes from them the right to judge of the qualifications of those whom they receive to their highest privi- leges; and with their responsibility, because it deprives them of the power to guard the table of the Lord against the aj>proach of the unworthy. AN ORDERLY WALK. 63 IV. AN ORDERLY WALK. The fourth and last prerequisite which we name as a condition of admission to the Lord's Supper is, an orderly walk, or a course of life regulated by the precepts of the gospel. The injunction of the apostle Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, is very explicit and emphatic. " Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye with- draw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which, he received of us." 1 This withdrawal must be either total or partial. If total, it involves the dissolu- tion of the tie of membership, and with this of course the cessation of the token of church fel- lowship in the joint participation of the sacred Supper. If partial and temporary, what other form can it take but the discontinuance for a sea- son of that ritual token ? The apostle himself admits, in another Epistle, the impracticability of withdrawing from all common social intercourse 1UL6. 64 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. with persons who are morally unfit to be associ- ated in the relation of church membership. " I wrote unto you in an epistle," he says, " not to company with fornicators : yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters ; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep com- pany, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner ; with such a one, no, not to eatP 1 While it is impossible, then, without going out of the world, to avoid alto- gether the society of the immoral and the vicious, yet we are expressly forbidden to associate and eat with them as brethren. Our argument does not require us to interpret that expression, " to eat with such a one," as having specific reference to the Supper of the Lord. For if we may not eat a common meal with them, in our own houses, or in theirs, much less may we eat with them in the church, at the table of the Lord. The last would be a much more distinct recognition of them as brethren than the first. This passage 1 1 Cor. v. 9-11. AN ORDERLY WALK. 65 seems to furnish the key to the right interpreta- tion of all those places of Scripture in which we are directed to withdraw ourselves from certain classes of persons, not to keep company with them, to have no fellowship with them. The disorderly walking that disqualifies for admission to the Lord's Supper may be compre- hended under these four divisions : Immoral Conduct ; Disobedience to the Commands of Christ ; Heresy ; and Schism, or Factious Behavior. I. immoral conduct. By the rule given in the passage already quoted, we are required to withhold or withdraw this token of fellowship from those who are guilty of fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunk- enness, or extortion. These specifications are certainly not intended to be exhaustive, but to serves as examples, on the basis of which we may generalize. They justify the rule, that all im- moral conduct is a decisive disqualification for admission to the Lord's table. Nor is the above passage the only one which supports this position. 5 6G PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. In the same chapter, mention is made of a mem- ber of the church in Corinth who was guilty of incest. The apostle censures the Corinthian church for not having previously removed this offender from their number, 1 and he gives them a solemn charge to deliver such a one to Satan, 2 and so to purge out from among them this leaven of wickedness. 3 The words of our Lord in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew's Gospel may also be appropriately cited here. A case is there sup- posed in which one brother has wronged another, and the course of proceeding for the aggrieved party is marked out with great particularity. As a final measure, after previous attempts to obtain redress have failed, the offender is to be reported to the church, and in case he refuses to hear them, he is to be to them as a heathen and a pub- lican, he is to be separated from their fellowship, and from the privileges which it bestows. 4 It is true that this was spoken before the disciples fully comprehended the nature and the ordinances of a visible church of Christ; and the conception which it then suggested to their minds may have corresponded more to the pattern of the Jewish 1 1 Cor. v. 2. 2 vs. 4, 5. 3 v. 8. 4 vs. 15-18. AN ORDERLY WALK. 67 synagogue than to that which they afterwards understood to be the fomi of his church. And yet he had told them before this, that he was to establish a church on earth against which the gates of hell should never prevail. 1 I need not say, that our unwillingness to com- mune with Pedobaptists has no connection with the disqualification above mentioned. We fully admit, and heartily admire, the pure lives and eminent piety of many of those whom we are not accustomed to invite to partake with us in this sacred rite. We rejoice with all our hearts in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ manifested in them, and in the work which he is doing in the world by their honored agency. II. DISOBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDS OF CHRIST. Disobedience to the commands of Christ is a second form of disorderly walking which consti- tutes a disqualification for admission to the Lord's Supper. When the apostle gives that solemn charge to " the church of the Thessalonians," 2 to withdraw themselves "from every brother that 1 Matt. xvi. IS. 2 2 Thess. i. 1. 68 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. walketh disorderly," he adds, in explanation of the last expression, " and not after the tradition which he received of us." * In the context, there is a particular reference to persons who are idle and meddlesome. 2 In the same chapter, he says, " If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." 3 In what sense they were to have no company with such, we have already seen explained by Paul himself in his letter to the Corinthians. The instructions of the apostle, to which he refers in these two pass- ages, were clothed with Christ's own authority, as he himself explicitly declares, — " The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 4 !STot to walk after the tradition received from him, not to obey the word contained in his epistles, is the same, then, as disobedience to the commands of Christ, and as such involves the forfeiture of church fellowship and its privileged tokens. Pedobaptists disobedient to one Command. — Here is one ground on which we justify our sep- aration from Pedobaptists in the Communion of 1 2 Thess. iii. 6. - vs. 7-12. 3 v. 14. 4 1 Cor. xiv. 37. AN ORDERLY WALK. 69 the Lord's Supper. We are obliged to regard them as living in disobedience to one plain com- mand of Christ, — the command to be baptized. I do not say in wilful disobedience ; that would be inconsistent with the admissions already made : I do not say that the command is plain to them ; that would be to judge their conscience : but we do believe and maintain that the duty which they have neglected to perform is made plain in the word of God. We know that they enjoy manifest and manifold tokens of being loved and accepted of Christ ; but yet we do not think he is indifferent, or that he would have us indif- ferent, to their failure to obey him in this one particular. And while we see plain proof that this failure does not hinder many individuals among them from enjoying much larger measures of his Spirit than most of us enjoy, we think we see equally plain proof that their error in the matter of baptism is, in a general view, produc- tive of very mischievous consequences to the cause of truth and holiness, and that it is owing in no inconsiderable degree to the persevering protest which we, as a denomination, have always made against it, that its mischievous consequences 70 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. are not much greater than they are. In this view we are very much confirmed, when we survey the moral and spiritual condition of those countries where the evils of involuntary membership in the church of Christ have not been counteracted or mitigated by the presence of any such antagonism as that which our protest exerts. III. HERESY. Heresy, or the holding and advocating of false doctrine, is a third form of disorderly walking, on account of which we are commanded to separate ourselves from those who are guilty of it. "I would," writes Paul to the Galatians, "they were even cut off which trouble you." * He does not give the same positive and solemn charge which he gave to the Corinthian church, perhaps be- cause he had still more reason than in that case to doubt whether, if put to the proof, they would be obedient in all things; 2 but he plainly ex- presses his will in the matter. The persons to whom he alludes, and whose excision he desires, are described in the first chapter, 3 and elsewhere l Gal. v. 12. 2 2 Cor. ii. 9. 3 Gal. i. 7. AN ORDERLY WALK. <1 in the epistle, as perverters of the gospel of Christ. They were Judaizing teachers, who taught false doctrines, and caused divisions in the church. The same apostle also writes thus to Titus : " A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject ." * The word " her- etic," which we now use to designate one who holds erroneous views on some of the more im- portant doctrines of religion, probably denotes in this passsage rather one who causes dissension and division in the church, a schismatic, or fac- tious person. Yet the former sense can hardly be altogether excluded ; for these two things are usually conjoined. Those who hold fundamental errors, if they are at all sincere and earnest in their belief, will almost invariably endeavor to propagate their views, and make converts to them, thus causing dissension and division among brethren : and they, on the other hand, who, for whatsoever cause, wish to draw a party to them- selves, very generally resort to the device of introducing or disseminating some new or un- sound doctrine. Such are described by the 1 Tit. iii. 10. 72 PREEEQUISITES TO COMMUNION. apostle as "speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." l JPedobaptists chargeable with Grave Errors. — To apply this part of the subject to the questions at issue between us and our Pedobaptist breth- ren : Can the doctrine of infant baptism, or the belief that sprinkling is scriptural baptism, be regarded as a heresy of so serious a nature as to require us to decline to unite in church fellowship with those who hold it ? Let us clear our minds from all odious associations connected with the word " heresy," and then look the matter fairly in the face, as it must appear from the stand-point of Baptist principles. The case may then be very plainly stated. There is either that in Scripture which requires them to practise only the immersion of professed believers for baptism, or there is not that in Scripture which requires us to practise this ; which is the same as to say, there is that in Scripture which requires them to become Baptists, or there is not that in Scripture w T hich justifies us in remaining Baptists. To accommodate Baxter's comprehensive expression to the subject before us, "They go in a way lr Acts xx. SO. AN ORDERLY WALK. 73 which hath neither precept nor example to war- rant it, from a way which hath a full current of both ;" or else we and our Baptist fathers have been altogether wrong from the beginning. And if the views of Baptists are in accordance with Scripture, the error of our Pedobaptist brethren is not a trivial one. Such results as these follow, in our view, from their principles and practice : That the baptized are not members of the church, or that membership in the church is not volun- tary ; that there are two sorts of baptism, one of which is a profession of the faith of the person baptized, and the other is a profession of the faith of another person; that regeneration is given in and by baptism, or that the church is, by the law of its constitution, necessarily com- posed in great part of persons who do not give, and were never supposed to give, any evidence of regeneration ; that the church has a right to change essentially one of Christ's institutions, or that it is unessential whether it be observed as he ordained it or in some other manner ; that baptism may rightfully be administered in a way which makes much of the language in which it is described in the Scriptures wholly unsuitable 74 PKEREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. and inapplicable, and which does not at all repre- sent the facts and doctrines which baptism is declared in the Scriptures to represent ; that the Scriptures are not, in all religious matters, the sufficient and only binding rule of faith and practice ; — all these errors, which, according to our views as Baptists, result from their principles and practice, are in our judgment very serious. These consequences result, I repeat, according to our views as Baptists ; for the question before us is, not how we ought to regard them individually as Christians, but what ought to be our rule of proceeding as a denomination towards them as Pedobaptists, chargeable, on our principles, and according to our settled conviction, with a two- fold perversion of one of the most important institutions of Christianity. Baptists have from the beginning regarded it as a religious duty to bear testimony against these errors ; the occasion for that testimony has neither ceased nor changed ; so long as that occasion continues, there will be good reason why the Baptist denomination should exist ; and so long as there is good reason why we should exist as a distinct denomination, there will be good reason why our church fellowship AN ORDERLY WALK. 75 should be limited to those who agree with us in protesting against these errors. Our protest,' in order to be consistent, must be both verbal and practical. Mixed Communion neutralizes our Protest against these Errors. — But mixed communion not only nullifies entirely the most important part of our protest, the practical ; not only makes us say one thing in word, and the contrary in practice ; but it also powerfully tends to suppress even the verbal part of our protest. Mixed com- munion tends directly and logically to mixed membership ; and mixed membership tends di- rectly and logically to the extinction of Baptist churches, and the suppression of Baptist princi- ples. This is all very well, if we are wrong, and our fathers before us were wrong ; but it is very ill if they were right, and we are right, in our views and practice on the subject of baptism. That tfie tendency of mixed communion is such as I have represented it, is admitted by Mr. Hall. The result which he foresaw as likely to follow from the adoption of his principles of communion, and which he did not deprecate, was, as expressed in his own words, that the term Baptist would 76 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. come to be applicable, not to churches, but only to individuals. But we have more conclusive evidence on this subject than the admission of Mr. Hall. Facts that have taken place in Eng- land since his day, and as the direct practical result of his principles, are the plainest proof of the tendency of those principles. The adminis- tration of believers' baptism on a week-day evening, to avoid giving offence to the Pedo- baptist members of the church ; the reception, without baptism, of persons who have renounced their belief that the ceremony performed upon them in infancy was valid ; a manifest disposition to give up the Lord's Supper, as non-essential, where the cause of peace and union is supposed to demand this sacrifice ; the banishment of scriptural teaching on the subject of baptism from the pulpit, and even from the private con- versation of the minister with his people, as a stipulated condition of the continuance of the pastoral relation ; the discipline and exclusion of members for the offence of propagating Baptist sentiments ; the relaxation of all scriptural church discipline ; and, after all, unpleasant collisions with Pedobaptist churches ; — these legitimate logical AN ORDERLY WALK. 77 consequences, and certified actual results, of mixed communion, are more than enough to stamp it as a practice at war with truth, purity, liberty, and union. 1 IV. SCHISM. It has already been remarked that Schism, which was the fourth form of disorderly walking specified, is usually found connected with heresy in fact, as we have seen it connected in Scripture. As the passages quoted under the former head are pertinent to this division also, I will only add one from the Epistle to the Romans, which, like the others, couples these two offences together : " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them." 2 We think we might easily sustain the charge of schism against Pedobaptists as a body ; for if they are the party who have departed from the 1 See Curtis on Communion, Appendix H. pp. 296-8, and J. G. Fuller's Reply to Robert Hall, in Baptist Library, vol. \. pp. 223 and 276-8. 2 xvi. 17. 78 PEEEEQUISITES TO COMMUNION. way of Scripture in regard to the mode and sub- jects of baptism, they are the party who are responsible for all the divisions and dissensions which have resulted from that departure. Mixed Communion promotes Schism. — But, aside from this, the practice of intercommunion with them on our part is seen in fact, as intimated above, to gender strife. How " can two," much less two hundred, "walk together, except they be agreed?" 1 How can Baptists and Pedo- baptists comply with the apostle's injunction to the members of the church in Corinth? How can they " all speak the same thing, and be per- fectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment ? " 2 It is not difficult to see how they can live in peace together in the same community, and mutually esteem and love each other, and have much cordial and delightful com- munion and co-operation, while they abide in separate ecclesiastical organizations, and each understands the other's liberty, and respects the other's conscience, and expects the other to main- tain and propagate his peculiar views by all hon- orable and Christian methods ; though even then l Amos iii. 3. 2 1 Cor. i. 10. AN OEDEELY WALK. 79 the difference that requires their separation must seem to both parties a serious evil : but how they are to live and work harmoniously together in one church fellowship and under one church law, is in theory a mystery past finding out, and in practice certainly a problem yet unsolved. The things about which they differ are matters that particularly and vitally affect church relations. If they are peaceably united in those relations, it can only be on the condition that one of the par- ties shall consent to see, without protest, what they regard as a pernicious human invention con- stantly performed in the church as a divine rite ; and that the other party shall consent to see, without protest, what they regard as a sacred parental duty systematically neglected. These are compromises which neither party have a right to demand, and to which neither party have a right to consent. And happily there is too much of conscience in both parties to permit a peace- able and lasting union on such unchristian terms. Yes, happily ; for so long as our present differ- ence of views continues, it would be a disgrace to us both if we could be cordially united in church relations. May Baptists never become so 80 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. degenerate as to consent to say, by their silent acquiescence, either that infant sprinkling is a divine rite or a matter of indifference. And may Pedobaptists never become so degenerate as to consent, by their silent acquiescence, to the neglect of parental and religious duty on the part of their brethren. AN OBJECTION ANSWERED. It may perhaps be objected that the passages cited under the four preceding sub-divisions refer to church fellowship in a general way, without any specific reference to the Lord's Supper. In reply to this objection, I would answer, in the first place, that having endeavored previously to establish the position that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance to be celebrated in the church, and expressive of church fellowship, I felt at liberty to use the passages that enjoin the withdrawal of that fellowship as constructively enjoining exclu- sion from the Communion, which is its chief token. I answer, secondly, that the principle here assumed seems to me to pervade the scrip- tural teachings so thoroughly, that it is next to AX ORDERLY WALK. 81 impossible to lay down any scriptural terms of communion at the Lord's table, except upon the admission that the ordinance is inseparably con- nected with church fellowship. To treat the subject otherwise, would be, as it appears to me, a violent putting asunder of what the Lord has joined together. The objection suggests an addi- tional argument in favor of our position that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. RECAPITULATION. In the four above-named requisites, then, we find the scriptural terms of admission to the Lord's Supper. None should be admitted to a participation in this rite but those who avow themselves to be disciples of Christ, who have professed their faith in him by baptism, who are members of some visible church, and who walk in an orderly manner, according to the precepts of the gospel. The want of any one of these requisites is a disqualification for admission to the Lord's Supper. 6 82 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. OBJECTIONS CONSIDEKED. In treating of the above scriptural prerequisites to the participation of the Lord's Supper, I have already forestalled some of the objections which are commonly urged against the practice of Bap- tists, in confining their church fellowship to those who, in their judgment, possess these scriptural qualifications. But as various other objections are brought against what is called our Close Com- munion (the term Close Baptism would be more pertinent ; but it does not grieve us to be found adhering closely to the word of God and prim- itive practice in regard to either ordinance), I will notice in order the most common and the most important of these objections. I. PRIMITIVE RULES NOT APPLICABLE NOW. Some persons who admit that the prerequisites above named were indispensable in the times of apostolical purity and unity, deny that they ought to be held indispensable in the present altered condition of things. The churches of Christ, they say, have unhappily come into an OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 83 abnormal, distracted condition ; truth and holi- ness are found in a measure in all, at least in all evangelical denominations ; and they are not found in perfection in any, certainly not among Bap- tists. The same causes which were, or would have been, just bars to the Communion in the days of the apostles, are not necessarily so now. We have to do with classes of persons which had no representatives in apostolical times ; — with per- sons unquestionably regenerate, who delay bap- tism, not from an unwillingness to obey Christ's command, but from doubts or ignorance as to their duty; and with persons unquestionably regenerate, and just as unquestionably unbap- tized, who remain unbaptized for no other reason but that they misunderstand the Lord's command, and sincerely think' they have received baptism. Rigid rules, derived from times of primitive purity and unity, require to be modified, it is said, when transferred to a time and a condition of things so greatly altered. So far as the judg- ment of individual character is concerned, we fully admit that the altered condition of things demands a very important modification of our conclusions. We do judge of our Pedobaptist 84 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. brethren very differently from what the Scrip- tures would have required us to judge, in prim- itive times, of any who should then have refused to be baptized. The Laws of Christ unchangeable.— -But though the times have changed, we suppose that the will of the Lord, in regard to the constitution of his church, and the nature and mode of his ordi- nances, has not changed at all. We suppose that, through all changes of time and circumstance, he requires us to keep the ordinances as he delivered them to us ; that they remain essentially un- changeable, until he sees fit to change them. We know that the times change ; that men change ; that " all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth forever." 1 No man must add anything to that, or take any- thing from it. The Primitive Order ought to be restored.— And in regard to this matter, we suppose that such questions as these are pertinent : how has it come to pass that there is so great a difference between l 1 Pet. i. 24, 25; OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 85 primitive times and ours ? Is it an evil to be deplored, and, if possible, remedied? If it is, have we any responsibility in the matter ? Are we bound to consider whether the influence of our principles and practice tends to perpetuate, or to correct, the evil ? In the answers to such questions as these, we find our duty plainly pointed out. Our principles and practice must not be so conformed to the existing state of things as to imply that we are reconciled to it, or that we despair of seeing the primitive order restored: they must not be so modified as to part with their tendency to restore the primitive order. On any other principle, error becomes its own justification ; the more some men disobey the commands of Christ, the less other men are bound to obey them; and every perversion of his truth and every corruption of his ordinances propagates and perpetuates itself without rem- edy, unless he miraculously interpose to prevent. On any other principle, his kingship in Zion is an empty title, and fallible and changeable men be- come practically the supreme lawgivers in his church. We have nof so learned Christ. We believe that we arc bound to observe, and to 86 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. teach others, as far as our precept and example can influence them, to observe all things what- soever he has commanded, even unto the end of the world. 1 We know that there are sundry edi- tions of his "Revised Statutes" abroad in the world ; but we do not regard them as genuine ; they are not published " by authority ; " they do not bear the royal signature and seal. We be- lieve that we are bound to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, yet not to count him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother. 2 And we believe that these plain principles of reason and precepts of Scrip- ture require us to persevere in that course which we have hitherto pursued in regard to the terms of admission to the Lord's Supper, and which has resulted, with the blessing of God, in wholly reclaiming so many from their error, and in par- tially reclaiming multitudes more. Some objectors to our strict communion, while they admit that the terms above mentioned are ordinarily prerequisite, urge that these terms may lawfully and properly be sometimes dispensed with, out of regard tt) principles that are 1 Matt, xxviii. 20. 2 2 Thess. iii. 14, 15. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 87 higher, and considerations that are more impor- tant. There are several forms of objection, which may be included under this general de- scription. II. BAPTISM ONLY AN EXTERNAL EITE. It is said by some that Baptism is, after all, but an external rite ; and that we ought not to be so punctilious about it as to let it interfere with that law of Christian love which is so much higher and more fundamental. We answer, that we do not by any means put baptism on an equality with that love which is the fulfilling of the law. "We do not let our views in regard to this ordi- nance interfere with the exercise of our Christian affection towards all who love our Lord in sin- cerity. But communing with them in the Lord's Supper is a form of fellowship which we think he intended to be expressive of something more than the love which every disciple owes to his fellow-disciple, and to be limited to those who possess certain other qualifications besides love to him, — qualifications which, in our judgment, are not possessed by our Peclobaptist brethren. 88 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. Those who find fault with our practice on this ground seem to me to fall themselves into the very error in regard to the Communion with which they charge us in regard to Baptism. They magnify it unduly, as if there were no other expression of Christian love but that ; as if there could be no Christian love or fellowship between those who do not commune together at the Lord's table. While they remind us that Baptism is but an external rite, they seem to for- get that the Lord's Supper is an external rite too. Our Lord saw fit to appoint both these exter- nal rites ; and therefore it is fit that we should observe them both, and observe them in the way and the order of his appointment. If there had been any incompatibility between the strict ob- servance of them and the fulfilment of the great law of love, he would either not have appointed them, or else he would have given us an express license to dispense with them whenever in our judgment obedience to that higher law should require. But his voice says to us, " If ye love me, keep my commandments." * And we do not find that those who' are most careless about exter- 1 Juo. xiv. 15. • OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 89 nal duties are most careful to comply with more spiritual requirements. These ought we to do, and not to leave the other undone. 1 We add, also,- in answer to this objection, that the great law of love does not allow us to be silent when we see our brother in error. It requires us to rebuke his error, in word and deed. We must do this with love and tenderness indeed ; but we must not refrain from doing it. III. PEDOBAPTISTS THINK THEMSELVES BAPTIZED. Another form of objection to our practice is this. Our Pedobaptist brethren sincerely think they have been baptized : why should we not show respect to their conscientious convictions by receiving them to that privilege for which they are fully persuaded in their own minds that they are qualified? I answer, If they conscien- tiously believe they have been baptized, that is a good reason why they should act as though they believed it; and if we conscientiously believe the contrary, that is just as good a reason why we should act as though we believed the con- l Matt, xxiii. 23. 90 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. trary. They see no reason why they should not commune at the Lord's table. Let them do so. We put no hindrance in their way. Is not that enough ? Are we required to show our respect for their consciences by uniting with them in doing a thing which they think to be proper, but which we do not ? Do we not owe some respect to our own consciences ? Do they not owe some respect to ours, as well as we to theirs ? Is their conscience to be the rule of our action, as well as of theirs ? Especially, is the conscience of indi- viduals among them to give law to our churches ? Before we can consistently co-operate in any religious service, we must be agreed as to what the Lord requires of us severally in relation to the matter in hand. IV. STRICT COMMUNION A HINDRANCE TO UNION. But one of the most common grounds on which it is urged that we ought to invite Pedo- baptists to our communion is, that by doing so we should promote Christian union, and so re- move one of the greatest reproaches from the Christian cause. Our Lord's prayer for the union OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 91 of his people is appealed to ; and our practice in regard to the Communion is often spoken of as if it were one of the chief obstacles to the realiza- tion of what our Saviour prayed for so earnestly. This, probably, is with many the most effective argument in favor of relaxing our rule in respect to the Lord's Supper. Strange things are done and demanded now-a-days in the abused name of Christian Union. Let us look a little more closely at this demand. Truth before Union. — In the first place, the only union which our Lord desires for his people is, union in the truth. He does not command nor permit us to sacrifice truth for the sake of union. Both are good ; but if we must choose between them, let us prefer truth. And let us never forget, that however noble and Christian enthusiasm for union may be, enthusiasm for truth is nobler and more Christian still. " Buy the truth, and sell it not." x Sell it not, even for union ; no, not even a single grain of truth for a solid globe of union. If the two-edged sword of truth, which proceedeth out of the mouth of Christ, severs us, let it cut, " even to the dividing 1 Prov. xxiii. 23. 92 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow," 1 — even to the setting "a man at vari- ance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." 2 I am afraid this last passage is overlooked or forgotten by those who try to hin- der persons who are convinced of the truth of Baptist views from joining Baptist churches, by appealing to their love of parents and other rela- tives, from whom they must separate at the Communion table. Surely they do not consider what master they are serving, nor what a perilous snare they are setting for souls, when they thus tempt others to follow the dictates of natural affection in preference to what they believe to be the will of Christ. Neither church union nor family union is to be purchased at that fatal price. A Good Conscience before Union. — Again, our Lord does not wish his people to sacrifice a good conscience for the sake of union. If any form or expression of union is proposed to us in which we cannot participate without grave doubts whether we are doing right in his sight, then he 1 Deb. v. 12. 3 Matt. x. 35. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 93 certainly will not be pleased with us if we parti- cipate in it in spite of our doubts. " Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." 1 Allegiance to Christ before Union. — Neither will the Lord be pleased with us if in our anxiety for union we let our complaisance to his people overrule our allegiance to him. We must not sacrifice any portion of that allegiance on the altar of union. If we believe that he has committed to us a special trust, and laid upon us a special responsibility, in regard to the maintenance of one or both the two expressive symbolical rites of his religion, he certainly will not look upon us with favor if we betray this trust, if we shake off this responsibility, under the pretence or the plea of promoting union. JSaptists called unto /Strictness. — And this is just what we do believe : and it is precisely on this ground that we meet the charge of undue strict- ness and punctiliousness in regard to external or- dinances. We do believe that we are bound, by fidelity to Christ, to be strict, to be punctilious, if any choose to call it so, in upholding our views in regard to these two ordinances of Christ's l Rom. xiv. 23. 94 PREPwEQUISITES TO COMMUNION. house. We do believe, though these may seem to some but vain words, that he has called us to just this service ; that he has given us our exist- ence, our permanence, our enlargement, for this specific purpose, — that we might maintain Bap- tism in its scriptural form and place, and in its appointed relation to the Lord's Supper; and that we might keep up a consistent and perpetual pro- test, in word and deed, against the perversion of both these ordinances. And even though it be true that this mission of ours, to use a common and convenient term, is attended with the danger of unduly magnifying these ordinances, or of think- ing more highly of ourselves than we ought to think, on account of our adherence to the primi- tive pattern in respect to them, yet we do not feel at liberty to decline to fulfil the assigned duty on account of the attendant danger. Baptists not responsible for the Separation. — But if it were certain that the joint participa- tion of the Lord's Supper by Baptists and other denominations was the particular manifestation of Christian union just now imperatively demanded, we should still feel at liberty to ask, On whose part is the change of practice called for ? With OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 95 whom rests the responsibility of perpetuating this lamentable separation ? With those who have kept the ordinances as the Lord delivered them, or with those who have perverted them ? Nay, more, the position of many of our Pedobaptist brethren justifies us in asking, Which ought to make the sacrifice for the sake of union, — we, of our convictions of duty, or they, of their conven- ience and preference ? For while we cannot conscientiously admit the validity of their bap- tism, they almost universally admit the validity of ours ; and while we cannot conscientiously re- gard infant baptism as anything more than a hu- man ceremony, a large and growing proportion of them declare plainly, by their practical neglect of it, that they can with a good conscience give it up. To all this numerous class of Pedobaptists we say, that if our separation from them at the communion table is any obstacle to the progress of Christian union, or any grief to them, it belongs to them to remove it, and not to us. If they are enough in love with Christian union to be will- ing to forego their preferences, instead of asking us to violate our consciences, there is no reason why this stumbling-block should not be wholly 96 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. taken out of the way, so far as we and they are concerned, in the course of a few years. If they will henceforth practise only believers' baptism by immersion, which they certainly can do with- out any scruple of conscience, even if they cannot go to the extent of admitting that infant sprink- ling is unlawful, the separating wall between us will soon be broken down. Baptism a Symbol of Ecclesiastical Union. — But this matter of baptism has a more direct and important connection with Christian union than through its relation to the Lord's Supper. There is quite as much reason for regarding the former rite as symbolical of the union with one another of all who are united to Christ, as there is for so regarding the latter. It is true that the Apostle says to the Corinthians, " We, being many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf;" l but it is equally true that the same apostle says to the same Corinthians, " By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." 2 And still more pertinent to our purpose are his words to the Ephesians, "Endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, l 1 Cor. x. 17. 2 xii. 13. OBJECTIONS COXSIDEEEI). 97 and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one bap- tism, one God and Father of all." x Pedobap- tists and we have not now one baptism. Theirs and ours, though called by the same name, are two distinct things. They are administered on different grounds, to different sorts of persons, and in different modes ; the acts are different, the sub- jects are different, the reasons are different : they cannot with any propriety be spoken of as one baptism. This passage then is our warrant for charging upon them the rupture of the bond of peace, the severance of the unity of the Spirit ; and for calling upon them to re-knit that bond, to repair that unity, by returning to that one bap- tism, the scriptural character of which is admit- ted by themselves, and attested by the unpreju- diced scholarship of the whole Christian world. Mixed Communion not a Cure, but a Cause, of Disunion, — But supposing we were at liberty to change our practice in regard to the commu- nion, w^e are not by any means convinced that Christian union would be promoted by the change. What light does the past history of the church 1 iv. 3-6. 98 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNIOX. shed upon this subject ? The desire for Christian union has grown up to its present dimensions, in spite, shall I say? of our alleged exclusiveness. The spirit of union has, undeniably I think, been constantly increasing, while we have been bear- ing our uncompromising testimony on the sub- ject of baptism. Zeal for Christian union has manifested itself most in those parts of Christen- dom where Baptists are most numerous. One of the greatest obstacles in the world to that union has been, and is, the civil inequality of different denominations, resulting from the unhallowed alliance between the church and the state ; and that hindrance to Christian union has been op- posed more constantly, at greater sacrifices, and with greater success, by Baptists, than by any other denomination of Christians. If Christian liberty — freedom to worship God without inter- ference from the civil power — is an important means and an indispensable precursor of Chris- tian union, the verdict of history will show that Baptists have been foremost in promoting union in this respect. They have been standard bear- ers in many a hard-fought battle for freedom of conscience ; and they are doing and suffering in OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 99 the same cause in more than one kingdom of Europe even now. It does not appear, then, that Baptists are espe- cially responsible for the divisions that prevail among Christians. It does not appear that there is any special reason why ice should be called on to deny our conscientious convictions and forego our denominational existence for the sake of uniting the divided body of Christ. Since the cause of union has prospered so well and advanced so wonderfully, while we have adhered to our present principles and practice, there does not seem to be any reasonable prospect of pro- moting that cause by changing either. Nay, we think the prospect is just the reverse. Instead of healing the divisions of Zion by changing our rule of communion, w T e should be far more likely to increase them. The results which might reasonably be expected to ensue are such as these : 1. In the first place, extensive alienations of feeling, discord and division in Baptist churches. For the number of our churches must be very small indeed in which such a change could be introduced with anything like unanimity, or even 100 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. without energetic remonstrance and decided oppo- sition. 2. In the next place, it would result at once in adding one to the present number of Christian sects, at least in this country, by dividing the Baptist denomination into two. No one, I am persuaded, can soberly entertain the belief that our churches as a whole could be induced to acquiesce in such a departure from the principles which we have always held to be scriptural, and the usages which we have always held to be bind- ing. And although there are those who bear with us the common name of Baptists, who have always practised mixed communion, yet inasmuch as there are other doctrinal and ecclesiastical differ- ences which would prevent us from coalescing with them, the result would be, as before stated, the formation of one more sect. 3. And in the third place, such a change on our part as the adoption, by any considerable number of our churches, of the practice of mixed commu- nion, would introduce a new element of discord into other denominations. For our new practice could have no other justification than the princi- ple that baptism is not a prerequisite to the par- OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 101 ticipation of the Lord's Supper. This principle is admitted by the ablest advocates of mixed communion; and mixed communion has tended to give currency to this principle. There is no reason to suppose it would be otherwise in the case contemplated. But the principle which we thus call in question is one in which we and our Pedo- baptist brethren have hitherto been happily agreed. We can unite with them in the com- munion of the Lord's Supper only on a principle which neither we nor they nor any denom- ination of Christians admit. Thus at the outset we inaugurate a new controversy, which we and they alike deprecate, and take the most effectual method to introduce a new cause of division among all denominations. Those who would have our churches adopt a less strict rule of communion, for the sake of pro- moting union among the disciples of Christ, may well be asked to look at these probable conse- quences of the measure which they countenance. They would be sadly disappointed if their remedy should be found to aggravate the disease. There is no hope of advancing Christian union by a measure which threatens to rend asunder thou- 102 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. sands of Baptist churches, to split one of the largest and most united denominations in our country into two contending factions, and to cast a new apple of discord into the enclosure of every other religious sect. Mixed Communion a Fictitious Token of Union. — But the gravest objection to the pro- posed measure as an expression of union remains to be stated. It wears to my mind an aspect of duplicity and irreverence, — I might say of sacri- lege. Consider how the matter stands. We desire to unite with Pedobaptists at the Lord's table; but we profess ourselves to be Baptists still. We cannot receive them as baptized ; they do not wish to be received — they would not even dare to come — as unbaptized. We repu- diate them on the ground on which they come, and receive them on the ground which they repu- diate. We know that they come as baptized persons; they know that we receive them as unbaptized persons. Looking towards Pedobap- tists, we desire inter-communion on one ground ; looking towards Baptists, we defend it on another. Such a union as this reminds us very forcibly of some compromises of which we read in the earlier OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 103 history of the church, to say nothing of more modern and secular platforms, where a form of words is devised in which the two differing parties can easily unite, by the simple contrivance of understanding the same words in two opposite senses. So is it whenever we unite with Pedo- baptists in the Communion. We and they are known to put different and contradictory con- structions upon our act of union. Is this the measure that is to heal our divisions ? Is not this new Henoticon, this ambiguous reconciler, who comes into the church with a lie in his right hand, and sits down to play a game of dissimulation at the table of the Lord, worthy to be rejected, with equal abhorrence, by both Baptists and Pedo- baptists ? V. WHY NOT INVITE BAPTIZED MEMBERS OF PEDOBAPTIST CHURCHES? Some persons who admit the legitimacy of the terms of Communion already laid down, and assent to the propriety of our rule in ordinary cases, find fault with our strictness in not making an exception in favor of that numerous and con- 104 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. stantly increasing class, the baptized members (k Pedobaptist churches. They, it is urged, possess the qualifications which we deem indis- pensable, and may therefore properly and con- sistently be received ; or, as some would prefer to say, cannot properly and consistently be rejected. Besides, by receiving such, we should, it is thought, conciliate the favor of our Pedo- baptist brethren, at least of those among them who are already favorably disposed towards our principles, and thus prepare the way for a more rapid diffusion of our views of baptism. But the practice of inviting such to partake with us of the Lord's Supper seems to me liable to these three weighty objections : — 1. It is a very invidious proceeding. It wears the aspect of an attempt to sow the seeds of dis- cord in our neighbor's ground. Why should we invade their borders, and attempt to apply such personal discriminations within the circle of their church enclosure ? It is certainly far more dig- nified, fraternal, and Christian, to deal with them collectively as churches and as denominations. 2. Secondly, this proceeding seems to me ob- jectionable on a more specific and personal OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 105 ground. These members of Pedobaptist churches, though themselves baptized, are actively pro- moting, by the influence of their example, those errors against which our duty to protest is the only charter of our right to exist as a denomi- nation. 3. But, thirdly and chiefly, this practice seems to me to be deprecated on the ground that the communion of the Lord's Supper proj>erly sym- bolizes church fellowship, and is committed to the guardianship of churches as such. It was not designed, and cannot properly be used, as a token of our fellowship for individuals, irrespective of their church relations. The rule which applies to the whole, applies to all its parts. Separation into different denominations implies church disfellow- ship ; union at the communion table implies church fellowship. If our separation is justifiable, there is no consistent basis for inter-communion ; if inter-communion is proper, there is no justifi- able ground of denominational separation. Bap- tist and Pedobaptist churches, immersing and sprinkling churches, cannot hold fellowship with each other without holding fellowship with what they believe to be contrary to Christ's command. 106 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. We believe that only immersion on a profession of faith is valid baptism ; they believe that bap- tism may be valid without either of these con- ditions. We believe that infant baptism is contrary to the Lord's will and appointment; they believe, some of them still, — and this is what their creeds and confessions still declare, — that infant baptism is of divine appointment and obligation. Neither party can consistently coun- tenance what they regard as the errors of the other. And this is a sufficient bar to their inter- communion. VI. PLEA FOR DISPENSING WITH THE RULE IN EXTREME CASES. Another special exception to our ordinary rule and practice may be pleaded for by some, in favor of particular individuals who happen to be so situated that if they do not partake of the communion in our churches, they will be de- prived of the privilege altogether, These are extreme cases, and comparatively few in number. Such persons, if they desire to partake of the communion in our churches, are entitled to be treated respectfully and tenderly. But we do OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 107 not think we have any liberty to depart from what we regard as a Scripture rule, in order to gratify their desire. And even if we did not regard such a departure as unlawful, we should still think it inexpedient ; for a wholesome gen- eral rule must not bend to accommodate indi- vidual feelings, except in very extraordinary cases. And it would be very difficult to fix any precise and permanent limits to exceptions of this sort. They would be likely to encroach more and more, until the rule became merely nominal. The same principle applies to members of Baptist churches who are so situated that they cannot receive the Communion unless they re- ceive it in Pedobaptist churches. If they are fully and intelligently convinced in their con- sciences that their Baptist principles are right, they will be likely to think it a greater privilege, and a more important means of grace, to act according to those principles, than to partake of the Communion contrary to them. I know that some Baptists take the position, that as baptized persons they have a perfect right to partake of the Lord's Supper whenever and wherever they have opportunity. I think that 108 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. such persons have not duly considered the matter, either as a question of propriety and courtesy, or of principle and responsibility. In the former view, I do not see how we can decently claim a privilege which we refuse to reciprocate. And in the latter view, I do not see how we can regard our act otherwise than as an indorsement of their views of the proper qualifications for receiving the Lord's Supper. When we volunta- rily unite with others in any act, it seems to me to be a very expressive acknowledgment, on our part, of the fitness of the act on theirs. VII. ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY OF OUR PRACTICE. Another objection which some bring against our practice of strict communion is, that we are not consistent with ourselves. This objection takes several forms. 1. We expect to commune with Pedobaptists in Heaven. — It is very common for objectors to say to us, " You admit that your Pedobaptist breth- ren are Christians, and therefore you expect to have communion with them in heaven ; how inconsistent then to refuse to commune with them OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 109 on earth." This seems to some a very conclusive way of settling the question. But if they will only consider that they are but playing at fast and loose with a word, they will see at once how little reason we have to be embarrassed by their objection. They confound two very dis- tinct kinds of fellowship, the personal and the ecclesiastical, two very distinct senses of the word communion, the spiritual and the ritual. In the former sense of the word, we do have communion on earth with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, whether Baptists or Pedobaptists ; we have spiritual fellowship with them all. In the latter sense of the word, we do not expect to commune in heaven with any, whether Baptists or Pedobaptists ; we do not expect to partake of the Lord's Supper in heaven. "Whichever sense of the word they choose, it equally neutralizes the dilemma in which they would involve us, and relieves us of the charge of inconsistency. They have no right to employ one of these senses in their premises and the other in their conclusion. 2. We reject the Better and receive the Worse. — Another form in which this charge is preferred 110 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. against us is this : "You acknowledge the Chris- tian character and eminent piety of many of your Pedobaptist brethren ; you know that they are far superior, in these respects, to many members of Baptist churches; and yet you give the Com- munion to the latter and refuse it to the former ; you reject the better and receive the worse." While we freely admit the facts on which this objection is founded, the superior worthiness of many whom we reject in comparison with many whom we receive, we yet find no difficulty in meeting this charge of inconsistency. We believe that the Lord requires, as qualifications for coming to his table, certain conditions, partly moral and spiritual, and partly external and ceremonial. The former are certainly much the more impor- tant, in a general estimate of character ; but both are equally required in the case in question, and we have no more authority to dispense with the latter than we have to dispense with the former : we have no authority to dispense with either. The former are, from the nature of the case, sus- ceptible of being more readily ascertained, and more perfectly applied, than the latter. But because we are inevitably liable to err, in endeav- OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. Ill oring to apply one part of our Lord's rule, it does not follow that we are at liberty to be negligent in applying another part of it, where there is no such difficulty. The objection here urged does not lie against us more than others. How is it with Pedobaptists ? Do they not withhold the Communion from all whom they regard as unbap- tized, however much some of these may excel in piety many of their communicants? Yet this does not argue that they think baptism more important than piety. The truth is, that the principle on which this objection is founded, however specious it may seem, is entirely falla- cious. Our rules of ecclesiastical proceeding, of according or withholding church privileges, cannot be based on the comparative piety of different individuals or denominations. " We have a more sure word, unto which we do well to take heed." The argument which rests on this principle refutes itself by proving a great deal too much. "The Lord loves and honors our Pedobaptist brethren ; therefore, we ought to give up our strict communion, that we may be one with those whom the Lord owns." That is one application of the principle. "The Lord 112 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. loves and honors us Baptists, too ; therefore, our Pedobaptist brethren ought to give up their sprinkling and infant-baptism, that they may be one with those whom the Lord owns." That is another application of precisely the same princi- ple. Perhaps our Pedobaptist brethren would think us assuming if we went farther, and inti- mated, that, in regard to the chief matters in dispute between us, the Lord is showing which he loves and honors most, by the growing favor with which our views are received among them. Nay, let us rather regard it as a proof of his love to them^ that he is revealing his truth to them more and more clearly. In this we have a right to rejoice. 3. We recognize Pedobaptist s as Brethren. — There is one more form in which we have to meet the charge of inconsistency. "You co-operate with your brethren of other denominations in enterprises of Christian benevolence, — in Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday-School Unions, and various other evangelical and mis- sionary works; you do not scruple to unite with them in Union prayer meetings, and in devotional exercises generally ; you do not even OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 113 hesitate to acknowledge their ministers as faithful ministers of the gospel, by inviting them into your pulpits ; and yet you will not admit them to the Lord's table." We do indeed co-op- erate with them, and. recognize them, in these various ways, as brethren in the Lord, honored and beloved. We do so cheerfully, heartily, and, as we think, consistently, although we cannot invite them to unite with us in celebrating the Lord's Supper. Our justification is, that none of the forms of fraternal fellowship in which we so freely and gladly associate with them, imply what our inter-communion with them in that rite would imply. None of these acts of ours imply that they are members of our churches, or quali- fied to become such. None of these acts imply that we are in church fellowship Avith them. None of these acts imply that we regard them as baptized persons. Our view of the instituted relation between the two ordinances of the Lord's house is such, that we dare not invite to a participation of the Lord's Supper many with whom we rejoice to mingle in various inter- changes of Christian fellowship. The fact that they are in our view unbaptized is a specific and 8 114 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. absolute bar to that particular form of fellowship •which union at the Lord's table symbolizes and expresses. YIII. ALLEGED IMPOLICY OF OUR PRACTICE. This consideration is pertinent only on the supposition that Ave are at liberty to change our practice if we judged it expedient. Conceding this, for the sake of argument, I maintain that we should gain nothing by the change. Mr. Hall presents the opposite view in the following words : after laying down the principle, " that no set of men are entitled to prescribe, as an indis- pensable condition of communion, what the New Testament has not enjoined as a condition of salvation," he says, "the writer is persuaded that a departure from this principle in the denomination to which he belongs has been ex- tremely injurious, not only to the credit and prosperity of that particular body (which is a very subordinate consideration), but to the general interests of truth; and that but for the obstruction arising from that quarter, the views they entertain of one of the sacraments would OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 115 have obtained a more extensive prevalence. By keeping themselves in a state of separation and seclusion from other Christians, they have not only evinced an inattention to some of the most important injunctions of Scripture, but have raised up an invincible barrier to the propagation of their sentiments beyond the precincts of their own party." l Reasoning from general principles, the oppo- site conclusion seems to me altogether more just. Any particular truth or principle will be likely to attract attention, respect, and examination, just in proportion to the openness, firmness, and con- sistency with which those who receive it manifest in practice their sense of its importance. But it is unnecessary to discuss the question on abstract grounds. The evidence of facts is decisive. Those which I have already cited under a former head show that, in England, the practice of mixed communion has operated to suppress dis- cussion, — not only to prevent the extension of Baptist principles, but even to deprive Baptists themselves of the liberty of avowing and advo- cating them. When Robert Hall died, thirty 1 Vol. i. p. 285. 116 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. years ago (1831), there were more than 100,000 Baptists in England, and less than 400,000 in the United States. The population of England has increased since then from 13,000,000 to 20,000,- 000; but the number of Baptists remains about the same. The population of the United States, which was then about the same as that of Eng- land, has fully doubled ; but the number of Bap- tists has much more than kept pace with this rapid increase, having risen from less than 400,000 to more than 1,000,000. Thus it appears that in England, where mixed communion has gen- erally prevailed, our numbers have diminished, compared with the population, in the ratio of thirty-three per cent. ; while in this country, where strict communion has been the rule, our numbers have increased, relatively to the population, in the ratio of about fifty per cent. And it ought to be taken into account, moreover, that this increase has taken place in our country under the signal disadvantage, that our growth has been derived in great part from immigration and the accession of new territory ; and that, of the population thus added, a large proportion has been composed of Romanists, and a very small per cent, of Baptists; CONCLUSION. 117 while in England the increase of population has been mainly natural. Add to this, that in our country the influence of Baptist principles has greatly modified the views and usages of other denominations, so that immersion is quite exten- sively practised, and infant baptism quite exten- sively neglected, by those who are not called Baptists ; whereas no such approximation to our views and practice has taken place in England. It is plain that Mr. Hall was mistaken, in sup- posing that the best way for Baptists to obtain credit and currency for their principles would be to practise inter-communion at the Lord's table with other denominations. Where the obstruc- tion which he deplored has been removed, we have lost ground ; where it has been retained, we have rapidly advanced : his invincible barrier has proved a mighty lever of progress. As a ques- tion of policy merely, there can be no dispute about the expediency of adhering to our strictness. CONCLUSION. Thus, from every view which we take of the question, we come back to the conclusion, that 118 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. our restricted communion rests on good grounds of reason and Scripture. It is right; it is con- sistent ; it is expedient. Let us very briefly sum up, in conclusion, the grounds on which we object to mixed communion. If we are to practise inter-communion with Pedobaptists, we must seek our justification for it in one of these four princi- ples; either, 1. That baptism is not prerequisite to the participation of the Lord's Supper ; or, 2. That immersion on profession of faith is not essential to baptism ; or, 3. That the individual, and not the church, is to be judge of his qualification for admission to the Communion; or, 4. That the church has no responsibility in regard to the qualifications of those who come to her communion. If we say that baptism is not prerequisite to the Communion, we place ourselves in opposi- tion to the belief and practice of all times and churches. If we say that immersion or profession of faith is not essential to baptism, we renounce Baptist principles altogether. CONCLTTSIOX. 119 If we say that the individual, not the church, is to be the judge of his qualification for the communion, we adopt a principle which is con- trary to sound reason, and fatal to the very ends for which the church of Christ was constituted. For if the conscience of the individual is to be the rule of the action of the church in regard to his admission to the Lord's Supper, why not also in regard to his regeneration, and his doctrinal belief, and his obedience to Christ's commands generally ? If we say that the church has no responsibility in regard to admitting persons to the table of the Lord, we abandon the cherished principle of the independence of the churches, and their accountableness to Christ, and we overthrow the foundations of all church discipline. Finally, brethren, I am persuaded that we do well in this matter to continue in the path of strictness in the application of scrijotural princi- ples to both the ordinances of Christ's house. God has greatly honored and blessed us in the course which we have hitherto pursued, and I hear no voice of his providence or his Spirit bid- ding us to reverse our practice. I think we have 120 PREREQUISITES TO COMMUNION. abundant reason to be satisfied with the position which we occupy as a denomination in reference to the two symbolical rites of our religion. Nay, more, I think our position in reference to the Christian ordinances is eminently adapted to give exercise and discipline to the noblest qualities of Christian manhood. It allows us to indulge our fraternal regards, and extend our fraternal cour- tesies, towards all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, up to the point where we must choose whether complaisance to them, or loyalty to him, shall be our guiding principle ; and there it bids us stop. It allows us to show that we love Christ's people much, but compels us to show that w^e love Christ himself more. It gives large liberty for the exercise of Christian charity, but insists imperatively on the exercise of Christian consci- entiousness. "Christo et JEcclesice" 'is its motto: not the Church and Christ ; not union with our brethren first, and then, as far as may be, with him ; but union with him, fidelity to him, first, by all means, and at all hazards ; and then union with our brethren, as far as may be, as far as he has already made plain to us and to them a common rule to walk by. We shall never find, and need CONCLUSION. 121 never covet, a position more honorable and more Christian than this. And as it must be by acting on just these principles, if at all, that all Christians will come at last to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, so it is by a steadfast adherence to these principles that we shall best perform our part, as a denomination, towards insuring and hastening that much-desired and long-sought consummation. Ja- 24 1861 m fafaMe ffl&nxfo, PUBLISHED BY GOULD AND LINCOLN, 59 WASHINGTON STREET, BOSTON. -^7 ) <^J^nPU , 3s~. P^cjfa J gtttomtMttflnal 98orft& Progress of Baptist Principles in the Last Hundred Years. By T. F. Cuktis, Prof, of Theol. in Lewisburg Univ., Pa. 12mo. Cloth. $1.25. Eminently worthy of the attention, not only of Baptists, but of all other denominations. In his preface the author declares that his aim has been to draw a wide distinction between parties and opinions. Hence the object of this volume is not to exhibit or defend the Baptists, but their principles. It is confidently pronounced the best exhibition of Baptist views and prin- ciples extant. History of American Baptist Missions, in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America, from their earliest commencement to the present time. Prepared under the direction of the American Baptist Mis- sionary Union. By William Gammell, Prof, in Brown University. "With seven Maps. 12mo. Cloth. 75 cts. Church-Member's Manual of Ecclesiastical Principles, Doctrines, and Discipline. By William Crowell, D.D. Introduction by H. J. Ripley, D. D. 12mo. Cloth. 75 cts. Church-Member's Hand Book; a Plain Guide to the Doctrines and Practice of Baptist Churches. By the Rev. William Crowell, D. D. 18mo. Cloth. 38 cts. Memoir of the Life and Times of Isaac Backus. By Alvah Hovey, Prof, of Eccle. History, Newton Theol. Institution. I2mo. Cloth. $1.25. An account of a remarkable man, and of a remarkable movement in the middle of the last century, resulting in the formation of what were called the "Separate" Churches. It supplies an important deficiency in the his- tory of New England affairs. For every Baptist, especially, it is a necessary book. Memoir of Roger Williams, Founder of the State of Rhode Island. By Prof. Wm. Gammell, A. M. lGmo. Cloth. 75 cts. Historical Vindications; or, the Province and Uses of Baptist History. With Appendixes containing Historical Notes and Con- fessions of Faith. By S. S. Cutting, D. D., Prof, in the University of Rochester. 1 Jmo. Cloth. 75 cts. An admirable contribution to Baptist History, tracing the origin and rapid growth of Baptist principles in England at the time of the Reformation, and suggesting important lessons for future guidance. The Appendixes contain historical facts worth twofold the piice of the volume. Exclusiveness of the Baptists; an Examination of Dr. Albert Barnes on " Exclusivism." By H. J. Ripley, Prof. Newton Theo. Inst. 16mo. Printed cover. 10 cts. A kind yet manly and most triumphant refutation of Dr. Barnes' serious charges against the Baptists of" Exclusivism," etc. Prerequisites to Communion ; or, the Scriptural Terms of Admission to the Lord's Supper. By the Rev. A. N. Arnold, D.D. 16mo. Cloth, 38 cts. Printed cover, 20 cts. Essay on Christian Baptism. By Baptist W. Noel. With fine steel Portrait of the Author. 16mo. Cloth. 60 cts. Bible Baptism. A beautiful Steel Engraving, nine by twelve inches in size, representing in the centre a Church, a Baptismal Scene, &c, and in the marain are arranged all the texts of Scripture found in the New Test>ment alluding to the subject of Baptism. An elegant orna- mental picture for the parlor. 25 cts. Jewett on Baptism. The Mode and Subjects of Baptism. By Milo P. Jewett, late Minister of the Presbyterian Church. Twelfth thousand. Cloth. 25 cts. Judson on Christian Baptism; with many Quotations from Pedobaptist Authors. By Adontram Judsost, D. D. Fifth edition, revised and enlarged. Cloth. 23 cts. (ff) TS L ^ ^ ^ ==: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ .rtr:rTz. ^ J ) V Wwy^^^yy^^w^^^^^^ WW mmmmmmmmmm, *mmmm vmvwvywwyyrrv J VWr; v Vv m^^m ^fefeyyww; MWy MKS?w W vj v ^^u WMW^M Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEAOER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-2111 jCMvyppy /VW< iTCOBHMr^ WVVW' " ^WVwvvu:,w-v^WWUW ^ww%'y»u i^wvuuvvUMAA ^VUv W vwjjibii^^