imil^iU-^UM^JA . ' i iiitiltiftili MM 'uli'iiiii'ji'ijlii'ii dfornell Initteraitg ffiibtatg JItliaia, iStm fork LIBRARY OF LEWIS BINGLEY WYNNE A.B..A.M,. COLUMBIAN COLLEGE. 'Tl, '73 WASHINGTON, D. C. THE GIFT OF MRS. MARY A. WYNNE AND JOHN H. WYNNE CORNELL '98 1922 Cornell University Library arvisea Church communion as practiced by the Ba 3 1924 031 175 189 olin,anx Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 924031 1 751 89 Church Communion, AS PRACTICED BY THE BAPTISTS, Explained and Defended. By W. W. GARDNER, Professor of Theology in Bethel College, K-ussellville, Ky. " And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." — Acts ii : 42. ** Now I praise you, brethren, that ye . . . keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. — For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," &c. — Paul. CINCINNATI : GEORGE S. BLANCHARD & CO., Boston : Gould & Lincoln. New York : Sheldon & Co. Louisville : Sherrill & Son. Atlanta, Ga.: J. J. Toon. Memphis : Southwestern Publishing Company. 1869. PEICE AND TERMS. Single cop7 $1.00 ; do. per mail, postage free, $1.25. Twelve copies $10.00 ; Fifty copies $40.00; One Hundred copies $75.00. Terms, Cash. Addresp Geo. S. Bi,anchabd & Co., No. 39 "West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, or either of the associate firms, or the Author, giving specific directions as to forwarding. S^' Forty per cent, discount (or One Hundred copies for $60.00) to Theological Students who act as Agents during vacations, and who furnish good recommendations from their Professors. For instructions, address Kev. W. W. Gabdnbe, ItusseUmlle, Ky. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by W. W. GARDNEB, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the District of Kentucky. BTEEEOTYPED AT THE FEANKLIN TTPE FOTJNDKT, CINCINNATI. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 1. Christ, the only Head and Lawgiver to his churches. 2. The powers of a church judicial and executive only. 3. Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper the only positive rites. 4. Bap- tism hriefly defined. 5. Communion and fellowship distin- guished. 6. The communion of saints on earth is of three kinds only — Ghrisiian, Church, and Denominational. 7. The Lord's Supper the appointed token, not of Christian nor of de- nominational, but of church fellowship; 8. Summary statement of the threefold communion of saints on earth 11-23. CHAPTER I. POINTS OF AGBBEMENT. I. As to the Nattjbe of the Lord's Supper. All agree, 1. That it is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ. 2. That it is a positive ordinance established by positive law. 3. That it is a church ordinance, and, as such, involves and expresses church fellowship. 4. That it is a commemorative ordinance. 5. That it is an ordinance of frequent recurrence. 6. That it is a perpetual ordinance. II. As to the Design of the Lord's Supper. All agree that it is designed, 1. As a sacred memorial or remembrance of Christ. 2. As an emblematic exhibition of Christ's death. 8. As a symbolic declaration of our spiritual union and com- munion with Christ by faith. III. As to the QuAiiFicATioNS for communion at the Lord's Table. AH agree, 1. That the new birth is a scriptural qual- ification. 2. That valid baptism is a scriptural qualification. 8. That regular church membership is a scriptural qualifi- cation 24-53. CHAPTER II. BAPTIST PBACTICB EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED. 1. The Baptists practice Church Communion on principles held in common with mixed communionists. 2. The question, then, arises: " Why do they differ in practice, since they agree in princi- ple?" 3. The Baptists can not remove the barriers to inter- communion without the sacrifice of admitted principles, while others can do it without any such sacrifice. 4. The Baptists hence are unjustly blamed for their practice of Church Com- munion at the Lord's Table. .5. It is both inconsistent and unkind in others either to ask or invite intercommunion with the Baptists. 6. Scriptural views of the Lord's Supper would entirely relieve the minds of Baptists and others in regard to Church Communion 54-96. (iii) IV CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. OBJECTIONS TO CHURCH COMMUNION ANSWERED. Objection 1st. "His the Lord's yaftfe, and therefore all the Lord's children have a right to it." 2d. " We have no scriptural right to judge of the fitness of communicants for the Lord's Table." 3d. " Church Communion, as practiced by the Baptists, imohris- tianizes all other denominations." 4th. "It not only Unchris- tianizes, but also ukcAmi-cAcs all others." 5th. " It deiars many pious persons from the Lord's Table who have been immersed." 6th. " It divides God's people, &nA prevents love and union among them." 7th. "It is ' exclusive, illiberal, and selfish' in the Baptists." 8th. "All Christians will commune together in heaven, and ^Aere/oj-e all should commune together on earth" 97-172. CHAPTEE IV. EVILS OP MIXED COMMUNION EXPOSED. 1. Mixed communion is unscriptural, and, as suoh, not binding upon the churches. 2. It perverts the design of the Lord's Supper, and hence invalidates the ordinance. 3. It tends to destroy the effect of church discipline, and compels a church to commune with its own excluded members. 4. It is glaringly inconsistent in the present divided state of the Christian world. 5. It compels its advocates to indorse and fellowship what they believe to be error. 6. It violates the declared principles of those who practice it. 7. It is not only bad policy, but suicidal to the Baptists 173-243. CHAPTER V. FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 1. Church Communion, as practiced by the Baptists, is both con- sistent and scriptural. 2. Mixed communion is not only unscrip- tural and inconsistent, but a great evil. 3. It is not " close com- munion" in fact, but close baptism that separates the Baptists and others at the Lord's Table. 4. Mixed Communicants, by their unholy opposition to Church Communion, do great injus- tice to the Baptists, and great injury to the cause of Christ and the souls of men. 5. free Communion Baptists are very inconsistent, and practically surrender their denominational principles. 6. The Campbellite? are the most inconsistent of all others in their professions of mixed communion. 7. There is not, in fact, any such thing as "open communion" in exist- ence. 8. The duty of all Christians, and especially of the Baptists, in regard to the Lord's Supper 244r-281. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 1. Recapitulation. 2. The duty of Mixed Communionists. 3. The duty and interest of Baptists. 4. The special duty of Baptist ministers. 5. All boasting and severity disclaimed. 6. Desire and prayer of the Author. 282-294. PEEFACE. The substance of tlie following treatise on Church Communion was preached, by special ap- pointment, before the "Bracken Baptist Asso- ciation," of K"orthern Kentucky, in the fall of 1853; and in the fall of 1856, the author was requested by that body to condense the sermon into a circular letter for the churches composing the body. Several thousand copies were printed and circulated with profit to the members. This accounts for the fact that the present book re- tains somewhat the form of the original dis- course. A. copy of the minutes containing the circular was sent to the "Southern Baptist Publication So- ciety," then located in Charleston, S. C, and, in 1858, that society requested permission to repub- lish the letter in a permanent form, as "A Tract for the People." The request was granted, the author reserving the right to revise and use it VI PRBrACB. at pleasure. With all its defects, the little "mis- sile " was highly commended- by many of our ed- itors and ministers in the South and West, and several thousand copies were sold the first year. During the war, however, the plates were lost, and the tract is now out of print. Not long before our late war commenced, the author was urged by judicious brethren to revise and expand the tract into a small book. Ac- cordingly, he did so, and sent the manuscript to the Southern Baptist Publication Society for examination. It was examined, approved, and ordered to be printed. The corresponding sec- retary of said society wrote the author several letters commendatory of the work. But the un- settled state of our country and other causes in- duced the author to recall the manuscript, and its publication was indefinitely postponed. Receiitly,^ however, a number of brethren re- newed the request for its publication, believing that a small practical work of the kind was needed by our churches. In compliance with this oft-repeated request, the author has em- ployed his scraps of time for a few months past in correcting, improving, and enlarging the trea- tise, which has grown into a small book. The revision has been hastily made, under a press of PfiEFACB. Vn other duties, and hence the work is by no means satisfactory to the author. Still, it embodies many important facts, and claims to be a work of author- ity, so far as the numerous quotations and state- ments are concerned; while the positions assumed and the views advanced are believed to be both denominational and scriptural. The book contains some new matter, and possesses a character of its own. The author has labored extensively, both as evangelist and pastor, in Middle, I^orthern, and Southern Kentucky, and hence has been compelled to grapple with mixed communion in its various forms, as held by Campbellites, Pedo- baptists, and uninstructed Baptists, and he here gives but the results of twenty-five years' experi- ence and preaching on the subject. The following treatise has been written, not for critics, but for the people, and hence its style is designedly plain and simple. The Com- munion question has been so complicated that repetition was unavoidable. "With more leisure, the work might have been condensed with ad- vantage, but the author's engagements prevented it. His sole design in writing at all was to do good, and if he fail in this, his object will be de- feated. The subject to many is distasteful, and he can expect to reap no lanrels from its discus- VIU PREFACE. sion. The argument is somewhat ad hominem, but it is presented in all kindness, and with a sincere desire to promote truth and righteous- ness, and to suppress error and prejudice among God's people. It is confidently believed that the better Chris- tians of different denominations understand each other's views and practice on all religious sub- jects, the more charity will they feel one for an- other, and the sooner they will come to the unity of the faith. It is a melancholy fact, however, that the views and practice of the Baptists, in re- gard to the Lord's Supper, are generally misun- derstood, and hence every- where misrepresented ; and even some Baptists, owing to mistaken views of the nature and design of the ordinance, are disposed rather to excuse than to defend our practice. These things ought not so to be. The only proper means of correcting such evils is to instruct the people generally, and the Baptists in particular, on this subject. Owing to the false teachings of mixed communionists, many young converts, holding Baptist sentiments, and even some of our young members, are troubled in regard to our Church Communion. The author himself was greatly troubled on this subject when he first made a profession 'of religion. All such PREFACE. IX persons ought to be supplied with suitable Books and Tkacts on Communion, and pastors ought to •preach, frequently on the subject. There is really nothing offensive in our practice of Church Com- munion when rightly understood; and if our views are explained and defended in a Christian spirit, no one will take offense, but all will see their reasonableness. The chapter on the "Soils of Mixed Commun- ion" contains the substance of an essay which was written by appointment, and read before the "Bethel Baptist Minister and Beacon's Meeting" of Southern Kentucky in 1864; and after free criticism, was unanimously requested for publica- tion in tract form ; but the limited means of the author prevented compliance with the request. The positions assumed in the treatise on Church Communion, respecting the administrator of bap- tism, seem to require something more on that sub- ject than could be given in the body of the work. Hence, the author has prepared a " Missile " on the subject, to accompany the book, showing Who is a Scriptural Administrator of Baptism; it being the substance of a sermon recently preached to his own congregation, and requested for publication by his brethren who heard it. The subject, though overlooked in our works on X PEEPACB. baptism generally, is a vital one, and demands special consideration. It is a point in the bap- tismal controversy on whicb Baptist ministers and churches ought, if possible, to harmonize in their views and practice. On this, as on all other points of faith and practice, the IJfsw Testament, and not expediency, must be our sole guide. What our inspired Creed requires, all true Bap- tists will obey. Free use has been made of the best works, in the author's possession, on the subject treated, and his indebtedness to Drs. Curtis, Howell, Hibbard, and others is hereby gratefully acknowledged. The author holds himself responsible for the cor- rectness of every quotation made, and, as far as possible, has quoted directly from the original works, giving book, chapter, and page. If any mistake has been made, it was unintentional, and will be corrected, as far as possible. "With these prefatory remarks, the little book is commended to all sincere inquirers after truth, with the fervent hope and prayer that God will bless it to the good of his churches and the glory of his name. W. W. GAEDNEE. EnssELLViLLE, Kt., February 10, 1869. CHURCH COMMUNION. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 1. Christ, the only Head and Lawgiver to his churches. 2. The powers of a church judicial and executive only. 3. Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper the only positive rites. 4. Bap- tism briefly defined. 5. Communion and fellowship distin- guished. 6. The communion of saints on earth is of three kinds only — Ghristian, Church, and Denominational. 7. The Lord's Supper the appointed token, not of Christian nor of denominational, but of church fellowship. 8. Summary state- ment of the threefold communion of saints on earth. 1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church, and the only Lawgiver in Zion. His laws, therefore, as recorded in the N"ew Test- ament, and as interpreted by his inspired apostles, and illustrated in the practice of the churches es- tablished by them, furnish the only divine and au- thorized rule for the constitution and government of Christian churches to the end of the world. These laws, like their author, are perfect and unchangeable; and no church, convention, general assembly, or general conference has any divine (11) 12 CHURCH COMMUNION. right to alter, amend, add to, or to take one iota from them. Accordingly, our Lord most emphat- ically declares, that " If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the hook of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the hook of life." (Rev. xxii : 18, 19.) 2. No legislative power, therefore, is granted by Jesus Christ to any church or association of churches, to any minister or body of ministers whatever. It is his prerogative alone to enact laws and institute ordinances, and it is our bounden duty to obey those laws and keep those ordi- nances as they were first delivered to the churches by the Savior and his inspired apostles. The powers of a church, then, are judicial and execu- tive only, and not legislative; while that of asso- ciations, conventions, councils, etc., is merely advisory. Hence, the Bible, faithfully trans- lated from the inspired originals, and the Bible alone is the only rule of the faith and practice of Christians and Christian churches, and the su- preme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions must be tried. 3. Christ abolished the cumbrous rites of the Jewish ritual, and instituted two and but two positive ordinances for the perpetual observance of his people, viz. : Baptism and the Lord's Sup- per; the one an individual, and the other a church ordinance. He erected but two monumental pil- INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 13 lars in his kingdom — one without and the other within his churches ; on the first of these — that which fronts the world — ^he inscribed the name of the Triune God; on the other — that which is within his churches — he inscribed the Memo- rials of his death. Baptism, therefore, is the in- itiatory ordinance into his visible kingdom, and the vestibule to his churches in that kingdom ; and none have a divine right to cross the thresh- old and enter these sacred inclosures until they have received the print of the sacred Name in the appointed way by a properly authorized adminis- trator. 4. In the following treatise we shall confine our attention to the latter of these two ordinances, viz.: THE Lord's Supper; and shall take it for granted that valid baptism is the immersion in water into the name of the Trinity, of a professed penitent believer, not in order to, but in declaration of the remission of sins previously obtained through faith in Christ, by a scriptiirally-qualified admin- istrator; i. e., by a minister of the Grospel who has been thus baptized on a credible profession of his faith, and duly authorized to administer the ordinance by the authority of his church, through the conjoint agency of a presbytery of regularly ordained ministers. 5. l^ow, the term Communion, as used in the New Testament, has both a literal and a figur- ative signification. It is used, literally, to denote that spiritual union and fellowship which exists 14 CHURCH COMMUNION. between Christians as such. The word is, prob- ably, derived fi-om the Latin communis, common, and corresponds with the Greek term koinonia, which is generally rendered fellowship in the ISTew Testament ; as, for instance, in 1 John i : 3-7. Primarily, the term expresses, not a particular act, but the state of the mind and heart. And this, no doubt, is the reason why the word was translated fellowship, rather than communion, in the passage referred to above. The word communion is used once, figuratively, to denote the joint participation of the Lord's Supper by the members of a church, as in 1 Cor. X : 16, 17 ; where, by a figure of speech, the bread and wine are denominated " the communion of the body and blood of Christ." Here, the word evidently denotes an act or exercise, rather than a state of the mind and heart. This is the sense in which the term communion is generally used by Christians at the present day, though not strictly proper. Hence, we see that the literal meaning of koi- nonia is fellowship, and its figurative meaning is communion ; the latter denoting an act, the former a state. Communion, therefore, is the more in- tense, fellowship the more enduring. Thus we commune with God in prayer, and have fellowship with our brethren. With this explanation we shall employ the terms almost interchangeably in the following pages as the connection may require. CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 15 6. The communion of saints on earth is of three and only three kinds, viz. : 1. Christian fellow- ship; 2. Church fellowship; and 3. Denominational fellowship ; each of which has its appropriate acts and exercises by and in which it is enjoyed and expressed. "Whatever act or exercise is designed to indicate our fellowship with an individual, church, or society, is a token of that fellowship. All those acts and exercises, therefore, by p,nd in which we express and enjoy communion with Christians as such, with a church as such, or with a denomination as such, are properly tokens of our fellowship with them. Let us, then, briefly con- sider and compare these three kinds of commun- ion, with their respective tokens. I. Christian Fellowship, with its Tokens. Christian fellowship is based upon mutual Christian confidence, and embraces that spiritual union and communion which we have with each other as Christians, independent of outward ordi- nances and visible church relations. It grows out of similarity of moral character and oneness of spirit, and involuntarily springs up in the heart the moment we have evidence to believe that • an individual is converted. For instance, let a young convert relate his Christian experience, and instantly we have Christian fellowship for him, and can hold Christian communion with him. And this, indeed, is the basis of all true Christian 16 CHURCH COMMUNION. union, without which there can be no union of hearts. l^ow, Christiafl Communion, based as it is upon Christian fellowship, is fully enjoyed in religious conversation, social prayer and. praise, mutual ef- forts for the salvation of sinners, and in all those spiritual acts and exercises by which we express our mutual Christian confidence and love for each other as brethren in Christ, independent of posi- tive ordinances and visible church connections. In fact, Christian fellowship, based upon real or supposed piety, always exists prior to baptism and church membership. Hence we can and do enjoy full and perfect Christian Communion with our candidates for baptism, though we do not and can not hold Sacramental Communion with them until they have been baptized and admitted to church membership. Precisely so do we regard and treat our brethren of other denominations, whom we be- lieve to be pious. In proportion to their piety, we cherish Christian fellowship for them, and hold Christian Communion with them, irrespective of external ordinances and visible church relations; notwithstanding we can not commune with them at the Lord's Table — which, indeed, is not a token of Christian fellowship, but merely of church fel- lowship. Such, then, is Christian fellowship, with its tokens, embracing all those spiritual acts and exer cises which involve and express our mutual Chris tian confidence and love as brethren in the Lord CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 17 II. Chtjkch Fellowship, with its Tokens. Church fellowship presupposes Christian fel- lowship, but does not necessarily include it, and it is based upon mutual church relations. Hence it is more limited and more specific than Chris- tian fellowship, being restricted to the particular church of which we are members. "When prop- erly formed, it is not only more specific and re- stricted, but more ardent and intense than Chris- tian fellowship; just as the affection which we have for the members of our own particular fam- ily is more ardent and intense than that which we have for our friends and fellow-men in general. Indeed, it would be any thing else than a virtue for a man to love the wife aud children of an- other man with the same ardor and intensity that he does his own. The affection due to a wife and family is peculiar, aud differs vastly from that regard due to friends and fellow-citizens. It is both reasonable and scriptural, therefore, that we should feel a more ardent and intense affection for the member of our own particular church or family than for those of any other church, even of the same faith and order; while we should cher- ish an ardent affection for all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, irrespective of all ordi- nances and visible church connections. . ISTow, as church fellowship grows out of mutual church relations, and hence is restricted to the members of each particular church, so Church 18 CHUKCH COMMUNION. Communion grows out of church fellowship, and is necessarily limited to those church acts and, priv- ileges which belong to the members of the same particular church. Such communion is fully enjoyed in choosing a pastor, electing deacons, providing for tha poor, receiving and dismissing members, celebrating the Lord's Supper, and in all those church acts and exercises which pertain exclusively to church members. In all these church acts and exercises, the members of no other church, not even of the same denomination, have any scriptural right to participate, any more than the members of one family have a right to con- trol the domestic affairs of another family. For illustration: A member of one Baptist church has no more right to claim the privilege of voting in another Baptist church than has a Campbellite, Methodist, or Presbyterian. The same is equally true of communion at the Lord's Table, which is a church act, and the ap- pointed TOKEN, not of the Christian nor denom- inational, but of the church fellowship subsisting between communicants at the same table. Hence it follows that a member of one Baptist church has no moi-e right, as a right, to claim commun- ion in another Baptist church than he has to claim the right of voting, for both are equally church acts and church privileges. The Lord's Supper being a church ordinance, as all admit, and every church being required to exercise dis- cipline over all its communicants, it necessarily DENOMINATIONAL FELLOWSHIP. 19 follows that no church can scripturally extend its Communion beyond the limits of its discipline.- And this, in fact, settles the question of Church Communion, and restricts the Lord's Supper to the members of each particular church as such. Such, then, is church fellowship, growing out of church relations; and such are its tokens, among which is the joint participation of the Lord's Supper by the members of the same particular church. ni. Denominational Fellowship, with its Tokens. As Christian fellowship is based upon mutual Christian confidence, and church fellowship upon mutual church relations, so denominational fellow- ship presupposes both, and is based upon mutual agreement in the doctrines, ordinances, and polity of the Gospel. In the days of the Apostles, denominational fellowship was unrestricted, be- cause there was perfect unify of faith and prac- tice among all the churches. There was "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4: 5), and all the churches were similarly constituted, governed, and oiiicered. Heuce, wherever the Apostles and Evangelists found "disciples" or churches, they were recognized as members of the same Christian denomination, and cordially cooperated in every good word and work. They voluntar- ily united their efforts and means to spread the Gospel and save sinners at home and abroad. It 20 CHURCH COMMUNION. was on this very ground that Paul urged the .Gentile churches to aid the poor saints in Judea. Accordingly, they not only contributed " beyond their ability" to this charitable object, but ear- nestly engaged in the work of home and foreign missions; thus obeying the apostolic injunction, to " do good unto all men, especially unto the household of faith." But while the first Christians thus recognized each other as members and ministers of the same denomination, and extended to each other the ap- propriate tokens of denominational fellowship, still they exercised great caution, and required satis- factory evidence of correct faith and practice. For instance, when Saul of Tarsus first went up to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, he attempted to join himself to the "disciples;" but they would not believe that he was a disciple, until Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles, and declared that he had seen the Lord in the way, and had boldly preached the Gospel at Damascus in the name of Jesus. (See Acts ix: 26-28; Gal. i: 15-18.) And John not only exhorted Christians to receive and help all true brethren in their labors of love and works of faith, " that they might thus he fellow-helpers to the truth" (3 John 5-8), but he also warned them against receiving and encouraging " any " who might come to them and bring not the doctrine of Christ, adding : " For he that biddeth him God- speed, is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 9-11.) DENOMINATIONAL FELLOWSHIP. 21 The same is equally true of the Baptists as a denomination. Being of the same faith and or- der, and all our churches being similarly consti- tuted and governed, we can consistently and safely cooperate together as churches and minis- ters, and extend to each other the tokens of de- nominational fellowship. And while it is our duty to oppose all error and to reject all error- ists, still we may and should unite our efforts and means as a denomination in promoting home and foreign missions, establishing Sunday-schools, distributing Bibles, and other denominational books, endowing and sustaining our colleges and theological seminaries, and in advancing all those grand and comprehensive schemes of Christian benevolence which contemplate the salvation of our lost world and the universal triumphs of Messiah's kingdom. Such cordial cooperation and united effort among Baptists is essential to the accomplishment of our great mission on earth. It is on the basis of denominational fellowship,, growing out of unity of faith and practice among our churches, that our associations, conventions, and missionary unions are formed; and on the same basis the whole denomination might and ought to unite in one common effort to build up the cause of Christ at home and abroad. Such associated and cooperative bodies are purely vol- untary, and can in no way interfere with church independence and church sovereignty. "Onion 22 CHUECH COMMUNION. is strength;" and it gives each the combined strength of the whole body. Of course, our denominational fellowship for others can extend only so far as we agree, in faith and practice. With some of them, as the Con- gregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, we agree substantially in what is essential to salvation, however much we may differ as to baptism, communion, and church polity; and hence we can consistently cooperate with them as Christians in the great work of conversion, and in whatever else we agree, though we can not extend to them the tokens of church fellow- ship. Summary Statement. Such, then, is the threefold communion of saints on earth, with its peculiar tokens, viz. : 1st. Christian Communion based upon christian fellowship. Christian Communion extends to all Christians, as such, irrespective of positive ordi- nances and visible church relations, and it em- braces all those spiritual acts and exercises by and in which mutual Christian fellowship is expressed and enjoyed. Such communion is enjoyed fully in heaven. 2d. Church Communion, based upon church fellow- ship, growing out of mutual church relations. Church Communion is necessarily limited to the members of the same particular church, for such only sustain STJMMAKT STATEMENT. 23 mutual church relations. It embraces all those church acts and privileges by which church fellow- ship is expressed and enjoyed, and in which none but members of the same church have a right to participate. For instance, the Lord's Supper be- ing a church ordinance, as all agree, and as such, expressive of church fellowship, none but those who sustain mutual church relations can prop- erly participate together. 3d. Denominational commiinion, based upon de- nominational fellowship, arising from unity of faith and practice. Denominational communion prop- erly extends to all the churches and ministers of the same denomination, but it is necessarily re- stricted with others to those points of faith and practice in which they mutually agree. Among Baptists, for example, there is unity of faith and practice; and hence, we can and do extend to each other all those tokens of denominational fel- lowship which properly belong to such commun- ion. As we have shown, the joint participation of the Lord's Supper is a token, not of Christian nor of denominational, but of church fellowship; and when we intercommune by invitation, we re- gard each other as members of the same particular church for the time being, and treat each other as such in that act. It is still Church Communion. CHURCH COMMUNION. CHAPTER I. POINTS OP AGREEMENT. I. As to the Natuke of tie Lord's Supper. All agree, 1. That it is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesug Christ. 2. That it is a positive ordinance established by positive law. 3. That it is a church ordinance, and, as such, involves and expresses church fellowship. 4. That it is a. commemorative ordinance. 5. That it is an ordi- nance of frequent recurrence. 6. That it is a perpetual ordinance. II. As to the Design of the Lord's Supper. All agree that it is designed, 1. As a sacred memorial or remembrance of Christ. 2. As an emblematic exhibition of Christ's death. 3. As a symbolic declaration of our spiritual union and com- munion with Christ by faith. III. As to the Qualifications for communion at the Lord's Table. All agree, 1. That the new birth is a scrijftural qual- ification. 2. That valid baptism is a scriptural qualification. 3. That regular church membership is a scriptural qualifi- cation. Now the Baptists and Protestant denominations generally agree in theory on the following points, viz. : ■ (24) POINTS OF AQKEEMENT. 25 I. As to the l^ATURE of the Lord's Supper, 1. All agree that it is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ. For instance, the Episcopalians declare, that " There are two sacraments ordairied by Jesus Christ in the Gospel, namel}"-, baptism and the supper of the Lord." (See Book of Common Prayer, Art. 25.) The Methodists declare the same thing in the same words. (See Discipline for 1868, Art. of Eelig. 16.) And the Presbyterians declare, that " Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, insti- tuted^ the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper," etc. (See Confession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1.) The Congeegationalists hold and teach the same on this point. (See Platforms, Con- fession of Faith, chap. 30, sec. 1.) So the Camp- bellites, Lutherans, and all othei-s believe and teach. 2. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is a positive ordinance, established, by positive law. The supper, like baptism, is established by pos- itive law, as all agree, and hence the obligation to observe it differs essentially from that of a moral requirement. For example, duties imposed by moral law are right in themselves; they are founded in the nature of things; and grow out of the im- mutable principles of truth and justice. But Aw- ties imposed by posiYiye law are right simply because a righteous God has commanded them, and for 3 26 CHURCH COMMUNION. no other reason. They are based solely upon the authority of the lawgiver, and are designed to evince the love and test the loyalty of his sub- jects. In short, a moral duty is comraauded be- cause it is right; & positive duty is right because it is commanded. A moral requirement may be obey- ed acceptably in any way that comports with the spirit of the law; as, for instance, the duty of love to God and our neighbor, which may be dis- charged in various ways. But a positive require- ment must be obeyed according to the very letter of the law, and in the exact manner, and for the specific design prescribed by the lawgiver ; as, for instance, the Jewish passover. Christian bap- tism, or the Lord's Supper. To alter or change a positive institution in any respect whatever, is to destroy its validity, and to insult the King in Zion. Happily, on this important point all Christian denominations agree in theory, if not in practice. For example, Bishop Butler, of the Church of England, in showing the distinction between what is moral and what is positive in religion, says: " Moral precepts are precepts, the reason of which we see; positive precepts are precepts, the reason (jf which we do not see. Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case, prior to external command. Positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but from external command; nor would they be duties at all, were it not for such com- POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 27 mand received from Him, whose creatures and subjects we are." Yet he adds, " That commands merely positive, admitted to be from Him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them ; an obli- gation moral in the strictest and most proper sense." {Analogy of Religion, part 2, chap. 1, pp. 225, 229.) And Bishop Hoadley, a distinguished Episco- palian, remarks on this point, that " The partak- ing of the Lord's Supper is not a duty of itself, or a duty apparent to us from the nature of things, but a duty made such to Christians by the positive institution of Jesus Christ. All positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely on the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently to the due manner of performing them It is plain, therefore, that the nature, the design, ^nd the due manner of the Lord's Supper, must of necessity depend on what Jesus Christ, who instituted it, has said about it." (Hoadley' s Works, vol. 3, pp. 845, et seq.) 3. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, and as such, involves and expresses church fellowship. In proof of this all appeal to the facts, that Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Supper as a church ordi- nance, and that the Apostles and first Christian churches observed it as such. For example, the 28 CHURCH COMMUNION. " model church " at Jerusalem observed the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance, and none but the members of that church participated together in the " hrealdng of bread." Accordingly, Luke says : " Then they that gladly received his word {i. e., rejoiced in the pardon of their sins through faith in Jesus Christ) were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them (i. e., to the church, Acts 1 : 15 ; 2 : 47) about three thousand souls.- And they (the members of that particular church) continued steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." (Acts 2: 41, 42.) Such was the practice of the first gospel church established by Christ himself, acting under the immediate instructions of His inspired Apostles. Again : " The disciples," or church at Troas, observed the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance when assembled in church capacity. (Acts 20 : 7.) "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." Here we are expressly told that these disciples came to- gether for the very purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper, and that they observed the ordinance according to the Apostle's directions. And again : the church at Corinth was instructed to observe the Lord's Supper as a church ordi- nance, and was sharply rebuked for celebrating it otherwise. Says Paul : " When ye come together POINTS OP AGREEMENT. 29 into one place {i. e., in the mamier ye do), this is not to eat the Lord's Supper;" i. e., acceptably to Grod. " For in eating every one taketh before others his own supper; and one is hungry and another is drunken." That is, some feasted to excess on their own bread and wine, while others had noth- ing, instead of all partaking of the sacred ele- ments together, as a church, in remembrance of Christ. They had thus mistaken the nature and perverted the design of the ordinance, so that it was not in fact the Lord's Supper. Hence the Apostle charged them with having vitiated the ordinance, despised the Church of Grod, and in- curred great guilt. (1 Cor. 11: 20-30.) Other examples might be given, but these are sufficient. The Lord's Supper was unquestiona- bly regarded by Christ and his Apostles as a church ordinance, and all the primitive churches were taught to observe it as such. No instance to the contrary is recorded in the ITew Testament. !N"or have we any certain evidence that the mem- bers of one Apostolic church ever partook of the ordinance with any other church, even by invita- tion. So all believe and teach on this point. How much soever the Baptists and others may differ as to baptism and church polity, still they agree that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. For instance, Dr. Hibbard, a standard Methodist writer on this subject, says : " The eucharist, 30 CHURCH COMMUNION. from its very nature, is a church ordinance, and as such cau be properly participated in only by church members. As a chureli ordinance, it never can be carried out of the church. This is so evident that no words can make it more plain or add to its force. (See Hibhard on Baptism, part 2, p. 185.) And the Presbyterian Co?ifession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1, declares that " Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world," etc. Thus the Congrega- TiONALiSTS hold and teach. (See Platforms, Conf. of Faith, chap. 30.) So all believe and teach. 4. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is a commemorative ordinance. This is plain from the language of our Savior and his Apostles. Luke says: "He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you ; this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22 : 19.) And Paul says : " The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said : Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. 11: 28-26.) On this point also there is perfect agreement between all denominations. For example, the Presbyterians declare that " The Lord's Supper POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 31 is to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world ; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death." (See Confes- sion of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1.) Dk. "Whitby, of the Church of England, in his Commentary on Matthew 26: 26, remarks: "Our Lord saith, ^Do this in remembrance of me:' i. e., eat this bread broken in remembrance of my body broken on the cross." And the eloquent and pious Mblvill observes : " Inasmuch as the bread and the wine represent the body and blood of the Savior, the administration of this ordinance is so commemorative of Christ's having been offered as a sacrifice, that we seem to have before us the awful and mysterious trans- action, as though again were the cross reared, and the words 'It is finished' pronounced in our hearing. (See 3Ielvill's Thoughts, p. 240.) 5. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance of frequent recurrence. As there is no positive command nor specific directions given in the New Testament as to the frequency of celebrating the Lord's Supper, the practice oi weekly communion can not be enjoined upon the churches as an imperative duty. It is simply said: "This do in remembrance of me;" and " as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." But as there seems to be Scripture evidence (Acts 20: 7, and 1 Cor. 11: 20) that some, at least, of 32 CHDRCH COMMUNION. the apostolic churches were accustomed to " break bread" every Lord's day, and as the records of church history teach that the practice was gen- eral for some two centuries after Christ, and as the design of the ordinance, as well as the lan- guage used, implies frequency in its observance, there can be no reasonable objection to iveekly com- munion. Certain it is that no objection can be urged against the practice on the ground that such frequency would diminish its solemnity, that might not with equal force be urged against weekly prayer, praise, and preaching in our churches. Many Baptist churches in Great Brit- ain, and some in the United States, have cele- brated the Lord's Supper every Lord's day, from the time of their constitution, with increasing interest and solemnity. For example, Dr. Car- son's Church, at Tubbermore, Ireland, has cele- brated the ordinance weekly for more than sixty years. And the Tabernacle Baptist Church (formerly Mulberry Street), ISTew York, which was gathered by the late Dr. Maclat, in 1809, and over which he presided as pastor for some thirty years, practiced weekly communion dur- ing the whole of his pastorate. This practice is still common among the Baptists and others in Scotland and L-eland; and it is to be regret- ted that it is not more common in this coun- try. (See Memoir attached to Carson on Baptism, p. 40; and also Benedict's PIistory oe the Bap- tists.) POINTS OE AGEEEMENT. 33 On this point all agree in theory, though they differ widely in practice. For instance, John Calvin, in complaining of the iufrequency of celebrating the Lord's Supper, remarks: "JSvery week, at least, the Table of the Lord should be spread for Christian assemblies 5 and the promises declared, by which, in partaking of it, we might be spiritually fed." (As quoted by Ohm, on the Lord's Supper, p. 219.) John Wesley, in his " Advisory Letter " to America, in 1784, says : " I also advise the el- ders to administer the Supper of the Lord every Lord's day." Dr. Thomas Scott, of the Church of England, in his Commentary on Acts 20 : 7, observes : " Breaking of bread, or commemorating the death of Christ in the eucharist, was one of the chief ends of their assembling ; this ordinance seems to have been constantly administered every Lord's day." Albert Barnes, in his E"ote3 on 1 Cor. 11 : 20, remarks: "The Apostle here particularly refers to their assembling to observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. At that early period it is proba- ble that this was done every Lord's day." Alexander Campbell and his followers, as is well known, enjoin weekly communion as a duty, and practice accordingly in their churches gen- erally. Dr. J. B. Jeter, in his " Campbellism Examined," p. 288, observes: "There is no objection to weekly communion, provided it is not imposed on the 4 34 CHUECH COMMUNION. churclies as a term of communion. The practice is not binding on the churches. But it is admit- ted that among the early Christians, it is highly- probable, that it did generally, if not universally prevail. I do not perceive any solid objection against returning to the practice. It maj' be well for our churches seriously and candidly to inquire, whether a more frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper — a rite so pregnant with instruction, and so eminently expressive — would not contribute to increase their piety and usefulness." And Professor Curtis adds: "Baptism is ap- pointed for each individual once, and but once. The Lord's Supper ' often.' 1 Cor. 11 : 26. The first Christians made it a part of their regular wor- ship." (Curtis on Communion, p. 73.) 6. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is a perpetual ordinance. This is expressly declared in 1 Cor. 11 : 26 : " For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come;" i. e., to judge the world. "An explicit declara- tion," says Melvill, "that there is in the Loi'd's Supper such a manifestation of the crucifixion of Jesus as will serve to set forth that event until his second appearing." (Melvill's Thoughts, p. 240.) Accordingly Buekitt, of the Church of Eng- land, in his I^J'otes on this passage, says : " The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was instituted as a standing memorial of Christ's death and suffer- ing for us." POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 35 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1, declares : " The Lord's Supper is to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world." And Albert Barnes, in his E'otes on 1 Cor. xi; 26, remarks: " Till he come; till he return to judge the world. This demonstrates that it was designed that this ordinance should be perpetu- ated and observed to the end of time. In every generation, therefore, and in every place where there are Christians, it is to be observed until the Son of God shall return; and the necessity of its observance shall cease only when the whole body of the redeemed shall be permitted to see their Lord, and there shall be no need of those emblems to remind them of him, for all shall see him as he is." Hence, we see that the Baptists and others agree as to the nature of the Lord's Supper ; all agree, 1. That it is an ordinance of the New Test- ament instituted by Jesus Christ; 2. That it is a positive ordinance established by positive laio; 3. That it is a church ordinance, and, as such, in- volves and expresses church fellowship ; 4. That it is a commemorative ordinance; 5. That it is an ordinance of frequent recurrence ; and 6. That it is & perpetual ordinance. 11. The Baptists and others agree on the follow- ing points as to the design of the Lord's Supper : 1. All agree that the ordinance is designed as a sacred memorial or remembrancer of Christ. 36 CHUKCH COMMUNION. In proof of this fact they appeal to the express declarations of the Savior and his Apostles. For instance, when onr Lord instituted the holy sup- per, he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, "saying : '" This is my body, which is given for you ; this do in re- membrance of me. Likewise, also, the cup," etc., Luke xxii : 19, 20. And Paul declares, " That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. xi : 23-25.) Accordingly, the Episcopal Prayer-Book, in the exercise for confirmation, contains the following question and answer : " Q. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained? " A. For the continual remembrance of the sac- rifice of the death of Christ," etc. Dr. Adam Clark (Methodist) says: "Do this in remembrance of me ia a command by which our blessed Lord has put both the affection and piety of his disciples to the test. If they love him, they will keep his commandments ; for to them that love him, his commandments are not grievous.'' {Discourse on the Eucharist, p. 31.) POINTS OP AGREEMENT. 37 The PsESBYTEEiANS declai'e that our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper "/or- a perpetual re- membrance of himself in his death," etc. (Confession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1.) The Consregation- ALisTS declare the same. (See Platforms, chap. 30, p. 125.) And Albert Barnes, in his N"otes on 1 Cor. xi : 25, remarks : " In remembrance of me. This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial or remembrancer ; designed to recall in a striking and impressive manner the memory of the Redeemer. It does this by a ten- der appeal to the senses — by an exhibition of the broken bread and the wine." So all believe and teach on this point. The Lord's Supper, then, is a sacred memorial or re- membrancer of Christ, designed to keep in remem- brance our absent Lord. It is a holy keepsake — a precious memento of him who loved us and gave himself for us. And as often as we partake of the sacred symbols, we declare the fact that he still lives in our memory, though absent in person. 2. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is designed as an emblematic exhibi- tion of Christ's death. " And as they were eating (the paschal supper), Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said. Take, eat ; this is (i. e., represents) my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; for, this is (z. e., repre- 38 CHURCH COMMUNION. sents) my blood of the 'Ebw Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt, xxvi: 26-28.) "For," adds Paul, "as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor. xi : 26.) Hence we see that the broken bread and the wine are the divinely appointed emblems of the broken body and shed blood of the Savior ; and as often as we eat this bread and drink this wine in a proper manner and with a scriptural design, "Jesus Christ is evidently set forth" — in emblem — " crucified among us." (G-al. iii: 1.) In the language of Dr. Howell, "The Supper of the Lord was intended to teach the most wonder- ful of all truths, and to exhibit the most won- derful of all transactions. ; It is a memorial of God's love to us, and of ImmanueVs death for us, in memory of whom it is received." {Howell on Com., p. 105.) Accordingly, the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, Ans. to Question 168, declares: "The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the ISTew Testament, wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the ap- pointment of Christ, his death is shown forth," etc. (See p. 344.) Dr. Adam Clark, in his Commentary on 1 Cor. xi : 26, says : " Te do show the Lord's death. As in the Passover they showed forth the bond- age they had been in, and the redemption they had received from it: so, in the Eucharist we POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 39 show forth the sacrificial death of Christ, and the redemption from sin derived from it." Albert Barnes, in his ISTotes on 1 Cor. xi: 29, observes: '^Not discerning the Lord's body. The humblest and obscurest follower of the Sav- ior, with the weakefet faith and love, may regard it (the Supper) as designed to set forth the death of his Hedeemer; and observing it thus will meet with the divine approbation." And the learned and pious Melvill, in speak- ing of the Lord's Supper, says: "It is like a pillar, erected in the waste of centuries, indel- ibly inscribed with the memorials of our faith, or rather, it is as the cross itself, presenting to all ages the immolation of that innocent victim who put away, sin by the sacrifice of himself." — (Mel- vill's Thoughts, p. 241.) Thus the Lord's Supper is, as all agree, designed to be an emblematic exhibition of Christ's death. 3. The Baptists and others agree that the Lord's Supper is designed as a symbolic declara- tion of our spiritual union and communion with Christ by faith. As in Baptism, we publicly "put on Christ," and declare once for all onr faith in a crucified, buried and risen Savior, with the effects of that faith in our death to sin, burial from it, and res- urrection to a new life : so, in the Lord's Supper, we symbolically declare from time to time our spiritual union and communion with Christ by faith. "And as in Baptism we profess to have received 40 CHURCH COMMUNION. Spiritual life ; so, in communicating at the Lord's Table, we have the emblems of that heavenly, food by which we live, by which we grow, and in virtue of which we hope to live forever." (See Booth's Vindication, p. 29.) Accordingly, Dr. Charles Hodge, speaking of Baptism and the Supper, remarks : " They are both divinely appointed symbols of our union with Christ, and of our participation of the ben- efits which flow from his mediation and death." {Way of Life, ^. 261.) And Prof. T. F. Curtis, speaking of the Lord's Supper, observes: "It is on our part a ratifi- cation and re-affirmation of the baptismal pro- fession and pledge. It is a profession of our constant communion with Christ, of our feeding by faith upon him." {Curtis on Com., p. 76.) The Scriptures fully sustain these views. For instance, Paul in writing the Church at Cor- inth on this subject, said : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. X : 16, 17.) That is, the bread which we break, and the wine upon which we ask the Divine blessing, are the appointed symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood, and represent our spiritual union and communion with Him by faith; while the "joint participation" of the ordinance symbolizes POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 41 both the Christian and Church oneness of those who rightly partake together, as ia the case of the Corinthian Church. The Apostle is here exhorting the Corinthians not to partake with idolaters of meats offered to idols in their temples, for by such participa- tion they would be regarded as professing union and communion with idols. So when he speaks of the bread being " th.e communion of the body of Christ," and the wine "the communion of the Mood of Christ," he ' evidently means that the joint participation of the Lord's Supper by the members of a church, is a symbolic declaration of their spiritual union and communion with the Savior by /azYA; just as partaking with idolaters of meats offered to idols was a symbolic acknowl- edgment of union and communion with idols, although he affirms that "an idol is nothing, neither that which is offered in sacrifice to idols." (1 Cor. X : 14-22.) Accordingly, Neander remarks : " These sacri- fices bore the same relation to the heathen wor- ship — as the Lord's Supper to the social acts of Christian worship. And in accordance with this fact Paul says: 'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?' This can only mean that it marks, it represents this com- munion," etc. (Neander's Planting and Training, p. 277.) 42 CHURCH COMMUNION. Indeed, it is manifest from the very nature of the Lord's Supper, that no person can partake of it acceptably without hoth.- faith and a personal in- terest in Christ. For an unbeliever to partake of the ordinance — " not discerning the Lord's body " — would be a monstrous falsehood and a flagrant sin. (See 1 Cor. 11 : 29.) It is evident, there- fore, that the Lord's Supper is designed as a sym- bolic declaration of the spiritual union and com- munion of believers with Christ. So all believe and teach. Hence we see that the Baptists and others agree as to the design of the Lord's Supper on the fol- lowing points : 1. That it is designed as a sacred memorial, or remembrancer of Christ; 2. As an emblematic exhibition of Christ's death; and 3. As a symbolic declaration of the spiritual union and communion of believers with Christ. III. The Baptists and others agree as to the QUALIFICATIONS for communion at the Lord's Table. 1. All agree that the new birth is a scriptural qualification for communion. The new birth, or regeneration, embraces three things : (1.) A change of heart, or " the renewing of the Holj'- Ghost ; " (2.) A change of state, or jus- tification, including pardon ; (3.) A change of rela- tions, or adoption into the divine family. It is eli'ected by our Heavenly Father through the agen- cy of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of the truth, in immediate and inseparable connec- tion with repentance toward God and faith in our POINTS OP AGREEMENT. 43 Lord Jesus Christ. The subjects of this spiritual birth, therefore, are said to be " born of God — horn of the Spirit — bom again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God — created in Christ Jesus unto good works — passed from death unto life — quickened — washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spir/t of our God," etc. Hence they are said to be "accepted in the beloved ; " to be " complete in Him ; " — to be "the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus;" to be " saved by grace through faith ; " to be " heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ ; " to be " new crea- tures ia Christ, old things having passed away, and all things become new," etc. The necessity of this spiritual birth arises from the total depravity and desperate wickedness of man, and from the holiness and justice of God and the spirituality of his kingdom and worship. As it is written: " The heart is deceitful above all , things and desperately wicked. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Be ye holy, for I am holy. "Without holiness no man shall see (or enjoy) the Lord. Except a man be born again, he can not see (or enjoy) the kingdom of God. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Ye must be born again. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. He that be- lieveth not, shall be damned," etc. The evidences of the new birth are of two kinds, internal and external, or those which we feel and 44 CHURCH COMMUNION. those which we profess. He who is " born of God," is conscious of feeling a change of heart; and being justified by faith, he enjoys peace with Grod through our Lord Jesus Christ. He hates sin and loves holiness; he loves God and his peo- ple; he loves Christ and desires to obey him in all things ; he delights in prayer, praise, and preach- ing, and desires the salvation of sinners. All who feel these evidences, should profess the fact as God directs. InTow, from the beginning to the end of the apos- tolic age, we have no account of any person be- ing baptized and admitted to church membership and communion at the Lord's Table, who did not profess to be a subject of regenerating grace. Accordingly, the "Hudson River Association," in its Circular Letter, written in 1824, by the late Dk. S. H. Cone, states: " The children of God are . bound to give thanks always to their Heavenly Pather, because he hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation^ through scmctificatmi of the Spirit and belief of the truth, whereunto they are called by the Gospel ; and then as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy pi-iesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; and to manifest their attachment to the laws, doctrines, and ordinances once delivered unto the saints To the first Gos- pel Church in Jerusalem, it is said, ' The Lord ad- ded daily such as should be saved; and they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship. POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 45 and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.' The churcli at Corinth consisted of those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, and who called upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. The members of the church at Colosse, had put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him; and the brethren at Rome were the called of Jesus Christ, beloved of God, called to be saints. Ifow if the apostoHc churches received only such as professed to be 'born of God,' and gave evidence that they were ' begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ fi'om the dead,' we should imitate their example; and if there come unto us any, and bring not this doctrine, we are commanded not to receive them into our houses, neither to bid them God-speed ; for he that biddeth them God-speed is partaker of their evil deeds: and how can we more fully do this than to receive them to our communion and give them the ap- pointed tokens of church fellowship ? All candi- dates for church membership and communion, therefore, must give satisfactory evidence that they are bom of God. This is the first scriptural qualification for communion at the Lord's Tabic." (See Terms of Com., pp. 3, 4.) On this point all Protestant denominations agree with the Baptists in theory, however much they may difter in practice. It is for this reason that Pedobaptist churches debar their infant 46 CHURCH COMMUNION. members from their coniiiiunion tables — they do not, in fact, regard them regenerated. 2. The Baptists and others agree that valid bap- tism is a scriptural qualification for communion. As to what constitutes valid baptism, we must, for the present, refer the reader to the ]!^bw Tes- tament. But however much the Baptists and others may differ as to the action, subjects, de- sign, and administrator of baptism, still they all agree that valid baptism is an indispensable pre- requisite to church membership, and consequently to communion at the Lord's Table. In support of this position, they appeal to the teachings of the Savior and his Apostles, and to the practice of the churches established by them. (1.) All maintain that the order of Christ's commission to his disciples, establishes the pri- ority of baptism to the Lord's Supper : " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and teach {or disciple) all nations; 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. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28: 18-20. Compare Mark 16 : 15, 16 ; and Luke 24: 45-48.) This commis- sion, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is admitted by all to be the great Law of baptism for all ages and nations to the end of time. It expressly requires three things, viz. : (1.) To POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 47 preach the Gospel to every creature. (2.) To bap- tize those who repent and believe ; and (3.) To teach them to observe "all things whatsoever" Christ has commanded. Among these things is the command — " This do in remembrance of me." Accordingly, Dk. F. G. Hibbaed,* of the Gen- esee Conference, a standard Methodist writer on " Christian Baptism," remarks : " It is certain that baptism is enjoined as the first public duty after discipleship The very position, therefore, that baptism is made to occupy in rela- tion to a course of Christian duty, namely, at the commencement, sufficiently establishes the conclu- sion that the ordinance of the Supper, and all other observances which have an exclusive reference to the Christian profession, must come in as subse- quent duties And thus we hold that Christ enjoined the order, as well as the duties themselves ; and in this order of Christ, baptism precedes communion at the Lord's table." (Hib- bard on Baptism, part 2, p. 177.) (2.) All maintain that the teachings of the Apostles, and the practice of the churches planted by them, establishes the priority of baptism to the Lord's Supper. * Dr. Hibbard's book on "Christian Baptism" is recog nized by the General Conference of the M. E. Church as a standard work, and used as a text-book for their theological students in the "third year" of their "course of study." (See Discipline, p. 217, under the head ^^ Systematic Divinity." Ed. of 1852.) 48 CHURCH COMMUNION. On this point Dk. Hibbakd may be allowed to speak for all denominations. He says : " It will be more satisfactory to inquire, Mow the Apostles understood the commission with respect to the relative order of the Christian institutes? The argument from apostolic precedent is undeniably important. They were commissioned to teach the converted nations 'to observe all things whatso- ever' Christ had commanded. This was the ex- tent, and this the limit of their authority. . . What, then, did the Apostles teach and practice with respect to the time and relative order of bap- tism ? On the day of Pentecost, when the people inquired of the Apostles: 'Men and brethren, what shall we do ? Peter answered, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ' etc. (Acts ii : 38.) Luke sums up the glorious results of that memorable day thus : 'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doc- trine and fellowship, and in breaJdng of bread, and in prayers.' (Acts ii: 41, 42.) This was the first occasion on which the Apostles had been called upon to exercise their high commission. And here, indeed, we are called upon to notice particularly the order in which they enforced the divine precepts. Upon their anxious hearers they enjoined, ^rsi, repentance ; then baptism ; then the duty of church membership ; and then ' breaking POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 49 of bread,' or the Lord's Supper. Comparing the order here observed with the order of the words of the commissiou, we are struck with admiratiou at the prompt fidelity of the Apostles." {Hibhard on Baptism, part 2, pp. 176-179.) And after quoting Acts viii: 12; ix: 18; x: 47, 48; xiii: 36-38; xvi: 14, 15-33; and xviii: 8, on pages 179 and 180, "to illustrate the uniform 'practice of the Apostles" Dr. Hibbard adds : " The above quotations need no comment to make them plainer in their teaching respecting the relative order of baptism. They bear unequivocal testi- mony to the point that baptism was commanded and observed as i\yQ first act of religious duty after conversion. This was apostolic practice It will not be doubted that what the Apostles enjoined upon their converts, is equally binding upon the disciples of Jesus in all ages. ... Is not baptism binding upon ms as the next duty after conversion, as much as it was upon Cornelius or the converts on the day of Pentecost?" {Hib- bard on Bap. as above.) Such was the teaching of Christ and his inspired Apostles, and such the practice of the churches es- tablished by them. And the records of ecclesi- astical history clearly prove that for sixteen hun- dred years after Christ baptism was regarded by all churches as an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. In the truthful language of the late Abeaham Booth, of London : "If we appeal to the persua- 50 CHURCH COMMUNION. sion and practice of Christians in all ages and na- tions, it will clearly appear, that baptism was uni- versally considered, by all the churches of Christ, as a divinely appointed prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, till about the middle of the last (18th) century, when some few of the Baptists in Eng- land began practically to deny it, by defending and practicing mixed communion The ingenious author of the ' Pilgrim's Progress ' was one of the first who dared to assert that the want of baptism is 'no bar to communion,' and acted accordingly." {Booth's Vindication, pp. 20, 21.) Accordingly, Lord Chancellor King, a distin- guished Episcopalian, in his " Inquiry," part 2, p. 44, says: "Baptism was always precedent to the Lord's Supper ; and none were ever admitted to receive the eucharist till they were baptized. This is so obvious to every man that it needs no proof." So all denominations believe and teach at the present day. Hence it is that no church of any denomination, except a few Eree Communion Baptists, will admit any person, however pious, to its communion table, unless he has been bap- tized in some way. This is the great reason why the advocates of "open communion" with- hold the elements fi-om their own candidates for baptism, and from the pious Quakers, who deny all water baptism. 3. The Baptists and others agree that regular church membership is a scriptural qualification for communion. POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 51 This is evident from the very nature of the Lord's Supper. It is, as all admit, a church ordi- nance, and hence none but church members have a right to partake of it. The New Testament records no instance of any person's being admit- ted to the Lord's Table, who was not a regular church member. As we have shown, none but the members of the church in Jerusalem united together " in breaking of bread" or celebrating the Lord's Supper. The same was true of the church at Corinth, and of all the apostolic churches, so far as we have any record. On this point there is perfect agreement among all denominations. For example. Dr. Hibbard remarks : " The eucharist, from its very nature, is a church ordinance, and as such, can be properly participated in by church members only. As a church ordinance, it never can be carried out of the church. This is so evident that no words can make it more plain, or add to its force." {Hibbard on Baptism, part. 2, p. 185.) The Presbyterians declare, that " The Lord's Supper (is) to be observed in his church unto the end of the world." {Confession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1.) And the Congregationalists declare that " The Lord's Supper (is) to be observed in his churches to the end of the world," etc. {Platforms, Conf. of Faith, chap. 30, sec. 1.) The Campbell- ites and all omers believe and teach the same. Hence it is that no church or denomination, except the Methodists, who occasionally invite 52 CHURCH COMMUNION. their "seekers," will admit any person, however pious, to its communion table, who is not a regu- lar church member in good standing. This in- deed is the great reason why all churches concur in denying the communion to their own candidates for baptism, for none regard such persons as regu- lar church members until they have been baptized in some way. Thus, by universal consent, the terms of church membership are terms of communion in all churches. It is true indeed of all organizations, that their terms of membership are terms requisite to the enjoyment of their immunities ; as, for exam- ple, the Odd-Fellows, Masons, Good Templars, etc. Now, we have rights as citizens of this govern- ment. But no man can legally enjoy &nj peculiar right of citizenship — such, for instance, as the right of suffrage — without himself first being a qualified citizen. The terms of citizenship are necessarily terms of suffrage. And the same is equally true of the churches of Christ. The Lord's Supper is, as all admit, a church ordinance, and hence com- munion at the Lord's Table is a church privilege. ISTone, therefore, have a divine right to this privi- lege but regular church members, who have com- plied with the scriptural terms of church member- ship. So all hold and teach. For example, Dr. Hibbard (Methodist) says : " The concurrent voice of the Christian world excludes an unbaptized person from fellowship in the visible Church of God." (See Hibbard on Baptism as above.) POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 53 Dk. Ed-ward D. Griffin (Presbyterian), late President of Williams College, in his celebrated "Letter on Communion at the Lord's Table, ad- dressed to a member of a Baptist Church," in 1829, remarks : " That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not church members, even if we regard them as Christia7is." (See Fuller on Communion, p. 270.) And Dr. Nathaniel Emmons (Congregation- alist) observes: "As to the Gospel Church, it is plain that it was composed of none but visible saints. !N"o other but baptized persons were ad- mitted to communion; and no adult persons but such as professed repentance and faith, were ad- mitted to baptism, which shows that they were visible saints." (See Platforms, p. 2.) Hence, we see that the Baptists and others agree as to the Qualifications for communion. All agree, (1.) That the new birth is a scriptural qualification; (2.) That valid baptism is a scrip- tural qualification ; and (3.) That regular church membership is a scriptural qualification. Such, then, are the Points of Agreements be- tween the Baptists and others: (1.) As to the na- ture; (2.) As to the design; and (3.) As to the qualifications, for the Lord's Supper. 54 CHURCH COMMUNION. CHAPTER II. BAPTIST PRACTICE EXPLAINED AND DEPENDED. 1. The Baptists practice Church Communion on principles held in common with mixed communionists. 2. The question, then, arises: "Why do they differ in practice, since they agree in princi- ple? 3. The Baptists can not remove, the barriers to inter- communion without the sacrifice of admitted principles, while others can do it without any such sacrifice. 4. The Baptists hence are unjustly blamed for their practice of Clmrch Com- munion at the Lord's Table. 5. It is both inconsistent and unkind in others either to ask or invite intercommunion with the Baptists. 6. Scriptural views of the Lord's Supper would entirely relieve the minds of Baptists and others in regard to Church Communion. In explaining and defending Baptist practice, we observe, 1st. 27ie Baptists practice Church Communion on principles held in common with mixed communionists. As we have shown, all denominations, except the Quakers and Free Communion Baptists, agree in theory as to the scriptural qualification for com- munion at the Lord's Table. They all maintain that the new birth or regeneration, valid baptism, and regular church membership, are indispensable prerequisites to the Lord's Supper; in other words, that the terms of church membership are terms of communion in all churches. Accordingly, Mixed Communion Pedobaptists not only debar their BAPTIST PRACTICE. 55 candidates for baptism fi'om the Lord's Table, but also withhold the elements from their infant mem- bers, until they give evidence of conversion, not- withstanding they regard them baptized. And the creeds, disciplines, and standard writers of all denominations teach, that no person, however pious, has a Divine right to partake of the ordi- nance, who is destitute of any one of these scrip- tural qualifications. In proof of this, we need quote but a few of the many authorities, as no intelligent minister or member of any church will pretend to deny the fact. Eor example, De. Wail (Vicar of Shoreham, in Kent, and author of the celebrated " History of Infant Bap- tism," for which he received the thanks of the whole Pedobaptist clergy) says : " ISTo church ever gave the communion 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 be- fore he was baptized." (History of Inft. Bap., part 2, chap. 9, pp. 484 and 493.) Dk. Doddeidge, a learned and pious Independ- ent Pedobaptist, remarks: "It is certain that as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity ex- tends, no unbaptized person ever received the Lord's Supper. How excellent soever any man's character is, he must be baptized before he can be looked upon as completely a member of the Church of Christ." {Doddridge's Miscellaneous Works, p. 510.) 56 CHURCH COMMUNION. Dr. Timothy Dwight (Congregationalist), late president of " Yale College," affirms : " It is an indispev sable qualification for this ordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible Church of Christ in full standing. By this I intend that he should be a person of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion ; and that he should have been baptized." {Dwighfs Theology, vol. 4, p. 365.) Dr. John Dick (Presbyterian), in maintaining that " baptism is requisite to entitle a person to a seat at the table of the Lord," says: "I do not know that this was ever called in question till lately, that a controversy has arisen among the English Baptists, whether persons of other Chris- tian denominations may not be occasionally ad- mitted to the holy communion with them; and it became necessary for those who adopted the affirmative to maintain that baptism is not a pre- vious condition. This assertion arose out of their peculiar system, which denies the validity of infant baptism. But to every man who contents himself with a plain view of the subject, and has no purpose to serve by subtleties and refinements, it will appear that baptism is as much the initiat- ing ordinance of the Christian as circumcifiion was of the Jewish dispensation. An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the Passover, and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist." (^Dick's Theology, Lect. 92, p. 494.) BAPTIST PRACTICE. 57 Dr. Adam Clark (Methodist), in his "Dis- course on the Eucharist,"' remarks: "As no per- son could partake of the Paschal lamb before he was circumcised (Exod. xii : 43-48), so, among the early followers of God, no person was per- mitted to come to the Eucharist till he had been baptized." (See Eucharist, p. 46.) Dr. Hibbard, a standard Methodist writer, states : " It is but just to remark, that in one principle the Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from com- munion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized. Valid baptism they (the Baptists) consider as essential to constitute visible church membership. This ive (Pedobaptists) also hold. The only question, then, that here divides us is : "What is essential to valid baptism?" {Hib- bard on Bap., part 2, p. 174.) ■" E.0BERT Hall, the celebrated leader of Eree Communion Baptists in England, says: "Let it be admitted," as it unquestionably is by all other mixed communionists, " that baptism is, under all circumstances, a necessary condition of church fel- lowship, and it is impossible for the Baptists to act otherwise ; " i. e., than to restrict their commun- ion at the Lord's Table to their own churches. " The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridi- cule and silence the clamor of those who so loudly condemn the Baptists for a proceeding which, were they (Mixed Communionists) but to change 58 CHURCH COMMUNION. their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own principles wonld compel them to adopt. They both concur in a common principle (namely, that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper), from which the practice (of restricted communion), deemed so offensive, is the necessary result." {Hall's Works, vol. 2, p. 213.) And Alexander Campbell, the distinguished founder of the " current reformation," remarks : " The converts made to Jesus Christ by the Apos- tles were taught to consider themselves, and were addressed, as pardoned, justified, sanctified, recon- ciled, adopted, and saved persons by all who first preached the Gospel of Christ." (Christianity Restored, p. 191.) Of course, in Mr. Campbell's judgment, they had been baptized, for he boldly affirms that all these spiritual blessings are " con- sequents" of baptism. (See Campbell on Bap., pp. 275, etc.) Such is but a specimen of the teachings of all denominations on this point. Many other author- ities might be quoted, but these are sufficient to prove that the Baptists practice Church Commun- ion on precisely the same principles on which others practice Mixed Communion. The question, then, naturally arises here — 2. " Why do they differ in practice, since they agree in principle?" This is confessedly an important question, and it necessarily involves other questions equally im- portant, which our limits will not permit us to BAPTIST PRACTICE. 59 answer fully at present. Among the questions here involved are the following: (1.) What is essential to valid baptism? (2.) Is such baptism essential to visible church membership? and (3.) Is such church membership essential to commun- ion at the Lord's Table ? Let us, then, briefly in- quire, (1.) What is essential to valid baptism ? The answer to this question properly belongs to the baptismal controversy, and can be but partially given here. Suffice it to state, that baptism, to be valid, must include at least four things, viz. : A scriptural action; a scriptural subject; a scriptural design; and a scriptural administrator. If any one of these four things be wanting, the baptism is in- valid, even though it may be immersion ; just as was the baptism of "certain disciples" at Ephesus, whom Paul re-immersed, on finding their baptism defective in its administrator and design. (Seo Acts 19 : 1-7.) Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is a positive ordinance, established by positive law, and must therefore be right in its action, subject, design, and administrator, or it is not scriptural and valid baptism. (See Missile ISTo. 2.) l^I'ow, there is but " One Loed, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5); and we believe that this " ONE BAPTISM " is the immersion in water into the name of the trinity of a penitent believer, not in order to, but in declaration of, the remission of sins, previously obtained through faith in Christ, by a seripturally-qualified administrator; that is, 60 CHURCH COMMUNION. one who has been thus baptized on a profession of his faith and regularly authorized by a gospel church to administer the ordinance through the agency of a presbytery. In proof of the validity of such baptism, we confidently appeal to the primary meaning of the original word baptize; to the cir- cumstances and places where baptism was adminis- tered; to the Jigurative representations of the ordi- nance; to the general practice of the Christian world for thirteen hundred years after Christ; to the uniform practice of the Greek Church down to the present day ; to the numerous admissions of standard Pedobaptist writers ; and to the total want of Scripture proof for any other baptism. This "one baptism," like gold, is current every-where and in all churches. All denominations ^radica% admit its validity by receiving it as such, even where they refuse to immerse themselves. But if this is valid baptism, nothing else is, for there is but the "ONE baptism" ordained by Jesus Christ. Hence we see what is essential to valid baptism. (2.) Is such baptism essential to visible church membership? The scriptural order, as we have shown, is : Yirat faith, next baptism, and then church membership. The l^Tew Testament furnishes neither precept nor example to the contrary. Accord- ingly, all denominations regard valid baptism as necessary to visible church membership. For instance, the Presbyterians declare that " Baptism is a sacrament of the 'Sew Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only /or the solemn BAPTIST PRACTICE. 61 admission of the party baptized into the visible church," etc. {Confession of Faith, chap. 28, sec. 1.) " And whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into au open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's." {Larger Catechism, Ans. to Ques. 165.) Accordingly, Db. John Dick (Presbyterian), speaking of " The two sacraments of the Chris- tian Church," remarks : " I begin with baptism, by which we are initiated into the fellowship of the church, and which, in the order of dispensation, precedes the Lord's Supper," etc. {Dick's Theology, Xect. 88.) And Dr. Griffin (Presbyterian), in his able "Letter against Close Communion," observes : " I agree with the advocates for close communion in two points :* 1. That baptism is the initiating ordi- nance which introduces us into the visible church. Of * The Baptists regard valid baptism as a necessary qualifica- tion for church membership, and hence an indispensable pre- requisite to communion at the Lord's Table, but they deny that it is the ^^ initialing^' ordinance which ^'introduces" us into any visible church. Baptism introduces the penitent believer into the visible kingdom of Christ, and thus qualifies him for mem- bership in a visible church in that kingdom, but baptism does not confer membership in any church. The voice of a church, expressed or implied, confers membership in its body, and the same voice alone can dismiss or exclude from its mem- bership. For example, the converts on the day of Pentecost vrere first baptized, and then added to the "model church" at Jerusalem. (See Acts ii: 41-47.) 62 CHUECH COMMUNION. course, where there is no baptism there are no visible churches ; 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course, are not church members, even if we regard them as Chris- tians." (See Fuller on Com., p. 270.) "J admit," says Dk. N. L. Eicb, " That we can not get into the visible church without baptism; but I will not agree that we can not be pardoned before baptism." (See Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 488.) The Episcopaluns hold and teach the same doctrine. (See Book of Common Prayer, Axt of Eelig. 19.) They not only require baptism, but also confirmation by a diocesan bishop, in order to full church membership, and to communion at the Lord's Table. Accordingly, Db. Manton, a distinguished Epis- copalian, says : "N'one but baptized persons have a right to the Lord's Supper." (See Supplement to Morning Exercises, p. 199.) The Methodists hold and teach the same doc- trine as the Episcopalians on this subject, omitting confirmation. (See Discipline, Art, of Religion 1-3.) They recognize no person as a church mem- ber who has not been baptized in some way. Accordingly, Dk. J. L. Dagg remarks: "Bap- tism has been placed by Christ, at the beginning of all outward duties which he requires of his fol- lowers. It is, therefore, an initiatory service. But all agree that, as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, baptism does not introduce to member- BAPTIST PRACTICE. 63 ship in a particular church ; and it is clear that an individual must be a member of Christ's spirit- ual body by faith, before baptism or any other duty- can be acceptably performed Bap- tism is, therefore, a qualification for admission into a church of external organization ; but it does not confer membership." (As quoted in " Church Pol- ity," by Dr. J. L. Reynolds, pp. 47, 48.) Accordingly, Dr. Hibbard, who has been styled the "Carson of Methodism on baptism," says: "Baptism, from its very nature, stands at the opening of the visible career. It is a badge of the Christian profession — the seal of the Gospel cov- enant — the ordinance of admission into the visible Church of Christ. Previously to baptism, the in- dividual has no rights in the visible Church. . . . l>J'o society of Christians would receive an unbap- tized person into their community, and tender to him the privileges of their body. So far as proper church rights and privileges are concerned, he is regarded in the same light as any unconverted man. The converts on the day of Pentecost were first baptized, and then added to the church. The concurrent voice of the Christian world excludes an unbaptized person from fellowship in the visible Church of God." {Hibbard on Baptism, part 2, pp. 184, 185.) Even the late Egbert Hall, of England, whose peculiar views of communion compelled him to deny that baptism is, under all circumstances, a necessary prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, says : 64 CHURCH COMMUNION. "The Apostles, it is acknowledged, admitted none to the Lord's Supper hut such as were pre- vioushf baptized." (See Hall's Works, vol. 1, p. 360.) If this was the practice of the inspired Apostles — the founders and instructors of Christ's churches to the end of the world — what right have we to practice otherwise? And Baptist W. IsToel, who adopted Mr. Hall's views of communion, in giving his " Reasons " for leaving the Pedbbaptists and uniting with the Baptists, states : " In the first place, there is no in- stance in the !N"ew Testament of an unbaptized person, after the institution of Christian baptism by our Lord, coming to the Lord's Table; and, therefore, if we should continue to attend the Lord's Table without being baptized, knowing that Pedobaptism is not the baptism appointed by Christ, we should be acting contrary to all the precedents of the 'New Testament." (As quoted by Curtis on Communion, p. 247.) As to the late Alexander Campbell and his followers, it is scarcely necessary to remark, that they regard valid baptism as not only prerequisite to church membership and to communion at the Lord's Table, but also as an indispensable condition of pardon, like faith and repentance. Indeed, their peculiar views of the design of baptism force them to the conclusion that a penitent believer is "unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian life and enjoy- ment," until " the very instant " he is put under BAPTIST PKACTICB. 65 the water (see Christianity Bestored, p. 196) ; and hence, consistency compels them to regard all persons who have not been immersed for the actual remission of their sins, as disqualified for church membership and for communion at the Lord's Table. And yet they intercommune with Pedobaptists ! Many other authorities might be adduced, but these are sufficient to show conclusively that all denominations regard valid baptism as essential to visible church membership, and to communion at the Lord's Table. Then let every believer go to THE !N"ew Testament for himself, and, with a meek and lowly heart, there learn what valid bap- tism is. As there is but " one Lord and one faith," so there is but " one. baptism." If it is immer- sion, then it is not sprinkling or pouring; and vice versa. The BIBLE must settle this question. (3.) Is visible church membership essential to communion at the Lord's Table ? After what has been said on this point it is unnecessary to dwell here. As was proved both from the Ifew Testa- ment and standard authorities, regular church membership is a scriptural qualification for com- munion at the Table of the Lord. On this point th ere is perfect agreement among all denominations. Accordingly, Dr. Hibbaed, having proved con- clusively that baptism is essential to visible church membership, adds: "On the contrary, the Etjcha- RiST, from its very nature, is a church ordinance, and as such can be properly participated in only 66 CHURCH COMMUNION. by church members. As a cliiireli ordinance, it never can be carried out of the church. This is so evident that no words can make it more plain, or add to its force. And here lies the relative de- pendence of the ordinances. Baptism is the ordi- nance of initiation into the church; it is therefore applied, not to church members, but to persons without, in order to bring them within the pale and fellowship of visible Christianity. But the Eucharist is not an- initiatory ordinance ; it be- longs to those who have been brought into the church by baptism; to recognized and acknowl- edged members. Hence it has a retrospective rela- tion to baptism." {Mibbard on Baptism, part 2, p. 185.) And De. Griffin, after admitting that " Where there is no baptism there are no visible churches," and that "we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized," and hence " not church members, even if we regard them as Christians" adds: " Should & pious Quaker so far depart from his principles as to wish to commune with me at the Lord's Table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is such a re- lationship established between the two ordinances that I have no right to separate them; in other words, I have no right to send the sacred ele- ments out of the church." (See Fuller on Com., p. 270.) So all denominations believe and teach on this point. It is the " concurrent voice of the Christian BAPTIST PRACTICE. 67 world" that valid baptism is essential to visible church membership, and that visible church mem- bership is essential to communion at the Lord's Table. It is plain, then, that the great question which separates the Baptists and others at the communion table, is : "What is valid baptism ? Nothing can be valid baptism but what Christ has commanded and obeyed himself. And until all Christians are willing to take the J^^bw Testa- ment as their sole guide on this subject, and to submit to "one baptism," on a profession of "■one faith" in "one Lord," we must continue to differ in practice, notwithstanding we agree in principle. But while it is true that baptism is the princi- pal barrier to intercommunion between the Bap- tists and others, still it is not the only barrier. There are others, which we can but mention here ; such as apostolic succession, church government, infant baptism and church membership, baptismal remission, sacramental salvation, etc. For instance, we can not hold communion at the Lord's Table with the Campbellites, who practice exclusive immer- sion, and whose church government was borrowed from ours, because they make baptism a necessary condition of pardon, and virtually discard the fun- damental doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. "We can not hold intercommunion with Protestant Pbdobaptists, because they have sub- stituted adult and infant sprinkling and pouring for believer's immersion, and have changed the bo CnUECH COMMUNION. constitution and government of Christ's churches, by admitting infants to membership, and by ex- alting the ministry above the churches in power. !N"or can we intercommune with the Roman Cath- olic Chukch in any way, because she is the em- bodiment and source of all the above errors, and many others; and hence is not now, and never was a true Church of Christ, but has ever been "Antichrist" — "THE MOTHER OF HAR- LOTS AJSD ABOMINATIONS." (Rev. 17: 5.) In short, we can not consistently and innocently intercommune at the Lord's Table with any of the above-named denominations, for two reasons es- pecially: (1.) Because they all hold and propagate fundamental errors — errors for which we would exclude our own members and ministers ; and (2.) Because by such intercommunion we would nec- essarily indorse their errors, and thus become partakers of their sins. But, aside from all these barriers, we never can commune with others at the Lord's Table, so long as they remain separate and distinct denomina- tions. The Lord's Supper being a church ordi- nance, as all admit, there can be no scriptural communion at the Lord's Table without church- fellowship; there can be no church -fellowship without church relations; and there can be no church relations without valid baptism. 'So such relations do exist nor can exist between the Bap- tists and other denominations. Therefore it would be false in symbol either to give or receive BAPTIST PRACTICE. 69 the divinely appointed tokens of church-fellowsliip, where no church relations do nor can exist. Accordingly, Dk. Hibbaed, after showing that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, and as such involves church fellowship, remarks: "If the celebration of the Lord's Supper be a recognition and acknowledgment of church fellowship among the communicants, I know not how it is to be ex- tended to those who hold no such fellowship with Christians." {Sibbard on Bap., part 2, p. 185.) And Prof. Curtis appropriately adds: "The Lord's Supper being then a church ordinance, indi- cates church relations as subsisting between the parties who unite together in its celebration. It is much more than a recognition of the Christian character; it indicates a visible church felloioship as existing between them. ISTot to extend an invita- tion to the Lord's Supper, therefore, merely shows the absence of church, and not of Christian rela- tions. A Jew, merely because he was a Jew, had no right to go into any Jewish house he pleased to celebrate the Passover, with any other family than his own, except by mutual consent and invita- tion ; nor was he obliged to invite every Jew, or any person out of his own family, to partake with him. Not to invite any one out of his family to the Pass- over, therefore, was no indication that he was not regarded as a true and pious Israelite ; because that was a family, as this is a church ordinance. The Lord's Supper was instituted by our Savior at one of those Paschal feasts with the " twelve," his more 70 CHUECH COMMUNION. especial family of disciples. Each Christian church is a family of such disciples now ; and the Lord's Supper was so constituted as to express, not merely the Christian, but the church fellowship of those who unite at the same table." (See Curtis on Com- munion, pp. 136, 137.) ISTow, if the Lord's Supper be a church ordi- nance, as all admit, and as such involves church relations and expresses church fellowship as sub- sisting between communicants at the same table, of course none can consistently and seripturally unite together in its celebration, except those between whom such relations and fellowship either do exist or might exist, without any change of faith and practice, as between members of the. same church or denomination. But no such relations and fellow- ship do exist or can exist between persons belonging to churches of difierent denominations, and there- fore they can not consistently and seripturally par- ticipate together at the same table. For such persons to unite together in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, is not only false in symbol, but it is to express more than they would be willing to realize in action. Hence we see why it is that the Baptists and others differ so widely in practice, though they agree in principle. 3. The Baptists can not remove the barriers to in- tercommunion without the sacrifice of admitted princi- ples, while others can do it without any such sacri- fice. The advocates of mixed communion, without BAPTIST PRACTICE. 71 an exception, admit that Baptist churches are true Gospel churches, and that regular Baptists possess all the scriptural qualifications for com- munion at the Lord's Table. This is evident both from their practice and teachings. For in- stance, while the Pedobaptists and Campbellites generally claim to practice open communion, they deny each other's qualifications for the Lord's Supper; and, hence, do not invite each other, as such, to their respective communion tables; still, they all admit the _^^ness of Baptists for the ordi- nance, and cordially invite them to partake with them. This is also true of the Old and ITew School Presbyterians, and many others. They debar each other from their communion, but wel- come the Baptists, and complain bitterly because we refuse to accept the invitation. Thus, while Mixed Communionists generally deny each other's fitness for the Lord's Supper, they all ■practically admit that the Baptists are scripturally qualified, and " keep the ordinances " as they were delivered unto the first churches by Christ and his inspired Apostles. But it is certain that we, as Baptists, can never reciprocate the courtesy, without thereby surren- dering our admitted -principles, and indorsing grave errors, which we regard as subversive of the very constitution and government of Christ's churches. As we have shown, the advocates of mixed com- munion all maintain that valid baptism is essen- tial to visible church membership, and that visible 72 CHURCH COMMUNION. church membership is essential to communion at the Lord's Table. And each charges the other with holding errors so fundamental, that they can not consistently and safely unite together in per- manent church relations; hence the continued existence of distinct and separate denominations ; and hence, also, the ceaseless strife and warfare between them, notwithstanding their boasted " open communion." l^ow, we fully agree with Mixed Communionists as to these fundamental principles and errors ; and, while we cheerfully grant that many of them are Christians, and, as such, we can and do hold Chris- tian Communion with them in prayer, praise, and all those acts and exercises which Christ has enjoined as expressive of such communion; still we can not hold communion at the Lord's Table with any of them, without thereby sacrificing our ad- mitted principles, and sanctioning their acknowl- edged errors. While, therefore, we most gladly recognize their piety in all proper ways and on all proper occasions, we never can admit the validity of their baptisms, or acknowledge them to be Gospel churches, which we would do by such intercommunion with them; for if valid baptism be essential to visible church membership, and visible church membership essential to communion at the Lord's Table, as all admit; and if the^' be destitute of such baptism, as we verily believe, then it follows, as a necessary consequence, and by their own consent, that they are not Gospel BAPTIST PRACTICE. 73 churches. In the truthful language of Dr. Grif- fin, we say : " Where there is no baptism there are no visible^ churches ; " and, therefore, " 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 " (see Fuller on Com- munion, p. 270); for, adds Dr. Hibbard, "The concurrent voice of the Christian world excludes an unbaptized person from fellowship in the visible Church of God;" and "if the celebration of the Lord's Supper be a recognition and acknowledgment of church fellowship among the communicants, I know not how it is to be extended to those who hold no such fellowship with Christians " (see Hib- bard on Bap., part 2, p. 185); as most unques- tionably is the case with Baptists and Mixed Communionists. The Lord's Supper, then, being a church ordinance, and, as such, expressive of church fellowship, as all admit; and valid baptism being by universal consent essential to visible church fellowship and to communion at the Lord's Supper, we can not consistently and scrip- turally either give or receive the appointed tokens of such fellowship from those whom we believe to be destitute of such baptism, " even if we regard them as Christians." Hence, we see that Baptists can not remove the barriers to intercommunion at the Lord's Table without the sacrifice of admitted principles and the indorsement of acknowledged errors, while others can do it without any such sacrifice or in- 7 74 CHUKCH COMMUNION. dorsement; for, as before shown, they can and do practically admit that we possess all the scrip- tural qualifications for communion at the Lord's Table, and that we are true Gospel churches. But how much soever the advocates of mixed communion may differ with the Baptists as to the action, subjects, design, and administrator of baptism, still they all admit that ouk baptism is valid, and habitually receive it as such; while, on the other hand, we do not and can not conscien- tiously admit that adult and infant sprinkling or pouring, or immersion for the actual remission of sins, is scriptural and valid baptism at all, and, therefore, we can neither admit the validity of such baptism nor give up our own baptism, with- out the sacrifice of admitted principles and the indorsement of acknowledged errcfrs. But, as before remarked, others can dispense with adult and infant sprinkling or pouring, and immersion for the actual remission of sins, and still have a baptism which they all practically acknowledge to be both scriptural and valid; for OUE BAPTISM, like pure gold, is current every -where and in all churches. For instance, a Baptist in good and regular standing in his own church, can join any church of any denomination in Christendom on his baptism, without the slightest change of faith or practice, which is not true of a member of any other church or denomination in the world. This is notoriously true and can not be success- fully denied. It would, indeed, be a new thing BAPTIST PRACTICE. 75 under the sun for a regular and worthy Baptist to be denied admission into any church on ac- count of his baptism. It is evident, therefore, that so far as baptism is concerned, the advocates of mixed communion can remove this insuperable barrier to intercom- munion without the sacrifice of a single admitted principle, or the indorsement of a single admitted error; for Baptists have an undisputed baptism, and no one blames them for what they do believe and practice in regard to the ordinances, but merely for what they do not believe and practice. That others can remove the barriers to intercom- munion at the Lord's Table without any sac- rifice of admitted principles or indorsement of acknowledged errors, will appear, not only from their uniform practice on this subject, but also from their declared principles. For example : The Episcopalians can adopt our baptism with- out sacrifice. Their Book of Common Prayer di- rects : " Then shall the minister take each person to be baptized by the right hand; and placing him conveniently by the font, shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying: 'I bap- tize thee in the name,' " etc. (See Ministration of Baptism, p. 133.) Accordingly, De. "Wall, the champion of Pedo- baptism, speaking of the first century, says : " Their general and ordinary way was by immersion, or dip- ping the person," etc. And he adds : " This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages. 76 CHURCH COMMUNION. that, as one can not but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it; so also we ought to disown and show dislike of the jprofane scoffs which some people give to the English Anti-Pedobaptisis (or Baptists) merely for their using dipping." (See History of Infant Bap., part 2, chap. 9, sec. 2, p. 384.) And De. Whitby, a learned Episcopalian, in his Commentary on Rom. 6 : 4, remarks : " It be- ing so expressly declared here and Col. 2 : 12, that 'we are buried with Christ in baptism,' by being buried under the water; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence, and this immersion be- ing religiously observed by all Chkistians for THIRTEEN CENTURIES, and approved by our church, and the change of it into sprinlding, even with- out any allowance from the AUTHOR of this institution, or any license from any covMcil of the church — it were to be wished that this cus- tom (of immersion) might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinici {i. e., the sick), or in present danger of death." The Lutherans can adopt our baptism without sacrifice. For instance, Martin Luther, their distinguished founder, asserts : " For to baptize in Greek is to dip, and baptizing is dipping. Being moved by this reason, I would have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word doth express, and as the mys- BAPTIST PRACTICE. 77 tery dotli signify." (See Lather's Works, Wit- temb., Ed., vol. 2, p. 79.) Accordingly, Dr. Mosheim, a standard Lutheran writer, speaking of the first century, states : " The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." {Ecel. Hist., vol. 1, p. 46.) And Dr. Nbakder, a learned Lutheran, remarks : "Baptism was originally administered by immer- sion, and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of a resurrection with Christ, and both taken together represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life." (See Church History of 1843, p. 197.) The Presbyterians can adopt our baptism with- out sacrifice. Though they rarely administer im- mersion of late years, still they practically admit its validity by receiving Baptists on their immer- sion. Their Confession op Faith, chap. 28, sec. 3, declares : " Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly adminis- tered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the per- son." That is, dipping is not indispensable, but pouring or sprinkling will answer. The veiy lan- guage implies that dipping is valid baptism, while it assumes that pouring or sprinkling will do. 78 CHURCH COMMUNION. For illustration, if I assert that sending a son to college is not necessary ; but that he may obtain an education in a private school, my language implies that sending him to college is right and : proper, but that some other means will answer the purpose. If dipping is not valid baptism, why declare that it is not necessary, but that baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling ? Now the Calvinistic reformers all admit that immersion is scriptural and valid baptism, and that it was the practice of the apostolic churches. For example, John Calvin, the illustrious founder of Presbyterianism, says : " But whether the per- son who is baptized be. wholly immersed, and whether once or thrice, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no impor- tance ; churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect, to act according to the difference of coun- tries. The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church." (Institutes of Eeligion, vol. 2, bk. 4, chap. 15, sec, 19, p. 491, by Allen.) Dk. George Campbell, a distinguished Scotch Presbyterian, in his "!N'otes" on Matt. 3: 2, says: " The word baptizein (infinitive mode, present tense, of baptizo), both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was ren- dered by TertuUian, the oldest of the Latin Fa- thers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which BAPTIST PRACTICE. 79 was by immersion. It is always construed suita- bly to this meaning." And Dk. Chalmers, the great light of the Pres- byterian Church, in his Lectures on Romans(Lec. 30 on chap. 6 : 3-7), says : " The original meaning of the word baptism, is immersion, and though we regard it as a point of indiffei'ency, whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the preva- lent style of the administration in the Apostles' days, was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water. We advert to this for the purpose of throwing light on the analogy that is instituted in these verses." SiE David Brewstee, editor of the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Art. Baptism, says : " The word baptize means to immerse, or Paul would never have said, that we are ' buried ' with Christ by baptism. Immersion was practiced by all Chris- tians UNTIL THE beginning OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. The Council of Eevenna, held in 1311, Jirst sanctioned sprinkling ; but corrupt as was the Church of liome, whose council this was, it did not enjoin sprinkling, but merely said, that it was admissible." Accordingly John Calvin, in his Commentary on John 3 : 23, remarks : " Erom these words we perceive how baptism was administered by the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water.'' And he adds : " The Church (i. e., the Church of Rome) did grant liberty to herself, since the begin- 80 CHURCH COMMUNION. ning, to change the rites (i. e., of baptism and the Lord's Supper) somewhat, excepting the sub- stance." And Dr. Hodge, a learned Presb^aterian, and professor in the Princeton Theological Seminary, ill his "Way of Life," says: "Believers are said to be ' buried with Christ in baptism,' that as he arose from the dead they also should walk in newness of life." (See Way of Life, p. 264.) The Methodists can adopt our baptism without sacrifice. They not only admit that immersion is scriptural and valid baptism, but their Discipline recognizes it as such, and requires their elders and ministers to administer it both to adults and infants, if preferred by the parties. In chap. 3, sec. 4, the Discipline directs : 1. " Let every adult person, and the parents of evefy child to be bap- tized, have the choice either of immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. 2. We will not on any account whatever make a change for administering baptism,"* etc. Accordingly, John Wesley, the acknowledged founder of Methodism, immersed both adults and * Since 1850, the Methodist bishops have reversed the above order, placing immersion after sprinkling and pouring; and in the baptismal service, immersion is included in a parenthesis. Kext we may expect its exclusion from the Discipline. Indeed, Pedobaptists are evidently endeavoring to prepare public sen- timent for a revision of the New Testament, in which all allu- sion to immersion shall be excluded. But God has intrenched believer's immersion in the original Scriptures, and history bears testimony to the practice through all the past; and the Baptists will be on hand to defend Christ's ordinance. BAPTIST PRACTICE. 81 infants, and refused to sprinkle or pour, except in case of sickness. In his " Journal," of February 21st, 1736, he writes: "Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of Eng- land — by immersion." And in his " Notes " on Eom. vi : 4, he says ; " Buried with him — alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immer- sion." Hence, in his "Journal," of May 5th, 1736, vol. 3, "p. 24, (published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the M. E. Church, ITew York, 1831,) Mr. Wesley adds : " I was asked to baptize a child of Parker's, second bailiff of Savannah (Geo.) ; but Mrs. Parker told me, 'Neither Mr. Parker nor I will consent to its being dipped.' " I an- swered, "If you certify that the child is weak, it will suffice (the rubric says) to pour water .upon it." She replied, "Nay, the child is not weak, but I am resolved it shall not be dipped." This argument I could not confute, so I went home, and the child was baptized by another person." And George Whitefibld, the worthy coUeg-gue of John Wesley, in his 18th Sermon, p. 297, re- marks: "It is certain that in the words of our text, Eom. vi : 3, 4, there is an illusion to the manner of baptizing, which was by immersion, which is what our church allows," etc. The CoNGREGATioNALiSTS can adopt our baptism without sacrifice. On this point, they perfectly agree with the Presbyterians, and use the same language. (See Platforms, Conf. of Faith, chap. 82 CHURCH COMMUNION. 29, p. 124.) They not only receive our immersion as valid baptism, but their standard writers admit that it is scriptural. For example, The late Moses Stuakt, long a distinguished Professor in the "Andover Theological Sem- inary," (in the "Biblical Repository" for April, 1833, p. 298,) says: "Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the reader's pa- tience, while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation, which seems to leave no room for doubt. Take the following ex- amples from the classics," etc. (See Stuart on Baptism, pp. 51, 52 ; published by Graves, Marks Sf Co.) " Prof. Stuart does not pretend, that in practicing immersion, we deviate either from the command of Christ or the example of the Apos- tles; but he thinks we are pharisaically rigid, and superstitiously attached to rights and forms, in that we will allow of no alteration of the original form of the institution." (See Stuart on Bap., p. 229.) So Congregationalists generally believe and teach. The Campbellites, of course, can adopt our baptism without sacrifice. Alexander Camp- bell, their great founder and leader, and many of their ablest and best ministers, together with the most pious portion of their ruling elders BAPTIST PRACTICE. 83 and private members, were regularly immersed on a profession of their faith before they left our churches ; and if our baptism answered for them, lohy would it not answer for all? It is a well- known fact, that from the very birth of the " cur- rent reformation," they have made almost super- human efforts to proselyte Baptists to their new faith, and we have yet to learn that any Baptist was ever rejected on account of his baptism. It is evident, then, both from the practice and teachings of Mixed Communionists that they can adopt our baptism without the sacrifice of princi- ple or the indorsement of error, and thus remove the greatest barrier to intercommunion at the Lord's Table. Hence, we see that the Baptists can not remove the barriers to intercommunion without the sacrifice of admitted principles, while others can do it with- out any such sacrifice. In the language of the late Dk. Howell, we say, then : " All classes of Protest- ant Pedobaptists confess that we are unquestionably baptized. They can, therefore, if they think us orthodox and orderly, commune with us without the sacrifice of principle. We do not, we can not, believe that Pedobaptists are baptized. And as they teach us by their example to act, not upon their faith, but upon our own, they thus nullify all their arguments against us, for the same reasons that they decline communion with the Qtjakeks." (See Howell on Communion, p.. 109.) From all this we learn — 84 CHURCH COMMUNION. 4. That the Baptists are unjustly blamed for their practice of Church Communion at the Lord's Table. I^ow, if it be true, as we have shown, that the Baptists practice Church Communion on precisely the same principles upon which others practice mixed communion ; and if the great question which separates the Baptists and others at the Lord's Table is, What is valid baptism ? and if the Baptists can not remove the barriers to intercom- munion without the sacrifice of admitted principles, while others can do it without any such sacrifice, THEN it is manifestly unjust and unreasonable in the advocates of mixed communion to abuse and blame us for our practice of Church Communion. Yet it is a melancholy fact that we are constantly abused and misrepresented on account of our Church Communion. On almost every sacra- mental occasion, and in almost every Mixed Com- munion church, as well as in the social circle and by the way-side, we are held up before the world as " bigoted," " exclusive," " illiberal," " uncharitable," and "selfish," both by grave ministers and their misguided people; while our practice of Church Communion is denounced as an " unchristian dog- ma," supported by "the exclusive spirit of sectarian bigotry," etc. ; and many simple-hearted persons believe the slander. By this means the public mind is filled with prejudice against us as a denomination, and many pious persons, entertaining Baptist sentiments on every other subject, are thus turned away from BAPTIST PRACTICE. 85 the truth, and deluded into Mixed Communion churches — holding radical errors, which such per- sons do not, and never can believe and practice; as, for instance, apostolic succession and confir- mation, adult sprinkling or pouring, infant bap- tism and church membership, clerical domination and rule, baptismal regeneration and remission, and numerous other errors ; and all this through the misrepresentation and slander of those who pro- fess to agree with us in principle, but differ with us in practice on this subject. [N'ow we solemnly protest against such unchris- tian treatment, and boldly denounce it as unjust and uncharitable. While Mixed Communionists admit the correctness of our principles in theory, they habitually violate them in practice; and then abuse and vilify us both privately and publicly because we carry out these admitted principles in our practice. Such a course of inconsistency and injustice may secure a temporary advantage, but it will ultimately recoil on the heads of those who are guilty of it. For our part, we have ever acted upon the principle that "honesty is the best pol- icy" in religion as well as in every thing else; and "hitherto the Lord hath helped us." So that we may boldly say: "The Lord is our helper, and we will not fear what man shall do unto us." (Heb. 13 : 6.) But the truth is, we cherish the most ardent affection for " all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," so far as we know them, and we 86 CHURCH COMMUNION. give the most substantial evidences of the sin- cerity of our love in all those acts of Christian worship which properly belongs to the " commun- ion of saints," as such. In the language of Dk. Howell, we ask: "Who are more ready to ac- knowledge the Christian character of our brethr ren of other denominations than ourselves ? Do we not feel as much fraternal regard for them ; as ardently participate with them in social wor- ship, and in efforts to save sinners ; and give as unequivocal testimony of sincere sympathy and friendship as any of them do toward each other? In these particulars we are certainly not inferior to any of our opponents, and are, therefore, to say the least, as free and liberal in our commun- ion. But in sacramental communion — in this we are told we do not unite with others. But even at the Lord's Table we are not the only close communionists ; indeed, in this particular, we do not hesitate to say, that we are still more liberal than any of the sects around us," as we shall presently show. (See Howell on Com., p. 229.) In short, we hold spiritual communion with all those with whom we spiritually agree and to whom we are spiritually united in Christ; but ceremonial communion with those only with whom we cere- monially agree and with whom we are united in visible church relations and fellowship. Ifothiug could be more consistent than this. Accordingly, Prof. Curtis says: "If it be con- ceded, as it must, that the Lord's Supper is ever the BAPTIST PEACTICE. 87 symbol of particular church relations, then it is im- possible that Baptists should be rightly charged with bigotry or want of charity. There is no unjust closeness of communion in not inviting those who, as not having in our view a valid baptism, could not, according to our principles, be received into the membership of any of our churches, and whose standards would forbid them to enter into church relations with us. Much more justly might the charge be brought against those who refuse to ad- mit more than half their own members to the Lord's Table; who, contrary to all the antiquity to which they appeal, first receive infants into their membership by baptism, and then withhold the tokens which belong to members. The Bap- tists have no such close communion as this." (See Curtis on Com., p. 138.) Hence we see that it is manifestly unjust in Mixed Communionists to blame the Baptists for their practice of Church Communion at the Lord's Table. They are, in fact, the only consistent peo- ple upon earth in their practice of communion. They faithfully carry out in their practice the principles which they hold in common with others, while all others knowingly violate them. Hence we remark— 5. That it is both inconsistent and unkind in others either to ask or invite intercommunion with the Baptists at the Lord's Table. As before proved, Mixed Communionists admit that our baptism is valid, and that we possess all 88 CHURCH COMMUNION. the Scriptural qualifications requisite to commun- ion at the Lord's Table ; and hence they feel at liberty to invite us to partake with them. To the unthinking multitude, this might appear consist- ent and kind. But the very reverse is true. It is both inconsistent and unkind in them to ask or invite such intercommunion with us. They know, at the very time they invite us to their commun- ion, that we can neither accept the invitation nor reciprocate the courtesy, without the abandon- ment of our admitted principles, and the indorse- ment of their acknowledged errors. For instance, the Pedobaptists know that we regard the substitu- tion of pouring and sprinkling for baptism and of infants for believers as a flagrant violation of the positive laws of Christ, fraught with innumerable evils. And the Campbellites know that we consider baptism for the aetual remission of sins as both unscriptural and dangerous. In a word, they all know that, with our views of the action, subjects, design, and administrator of baptism, wo are bound to regard them as unbaptized persons, and, consequently as not regular church members ; and as such, disqualified for the Lord's Supper. And they know that we practice Church Communion on precisely the same principles on which they prac-. tice mixed communion. This is admitted by their own standard writers. For example. Dr. Hib- BARD, in speaking of the Baptists, saj's : " Their views of baptism force them upon the ground of strict communion, and herein they act upon the BAPTIST PRACTICE. 89 same principles as other churches; i. e., they admit only those whom they deem baptized persons to the Communion Table. Of course, they must be their own judges as to what baptism is." (See Hibhard on Bap., part 2, p. 174.) Witli a knowledge of these facts, how incon- sistent and unkind is it in others to invite Bap- tists or to ask the privilege of communing with them, especially when they know that compliance on our part would involve the sacrifice of our con- scientious principles, and compel us to fellowship what we believe to be unscriptural and of evil ten- dency. !N"or is it any abatement to plead that others believe themselves qualified for the Lord's Supper; this we cheerfully grant. But we are responsible to Grod for our own faith and practice, and therefore must be governed in our action, not by what others believe, but by what we ourselves believe to be the requirements of Christ on this subject. In this we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, under similar circumstances. At the same time, we should not regard Mixed Communionists as enemies, but faithfully admon- ish them as brethren in error. They have been mistaught on this subject, and are rather to be pitied than blamed. From their earliest recollec- tion many of them have been accustomed to hear their pai'ents and pastors abuse and denounce the Baptists as " bigoted, exclusive, illiberal, and sel- fish," and they have grown up with prejudice against our practice, without a knowledge of our 90 CHURCH COMMUOTON. principles. Often have they seen their loved parents and friends contemptuously leave the house of God while the Baptists were devoutly cele- brating the Lord's Supper; and their prejudice against our Church Communion has thus grown with their growth and strengthened with their strength. Indeed, many of them are so preju- diced that they will neither hear nor read our views. We should, therefore, exercise great char- ity toward such deluded brethren and sisters, and endeavor to teach them the way of the Lord more perfectly. ''In meekness," says Paul, "in- structing those that oppose themselves ; if God perad- venture will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may he delivered from the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (2 Tim. ii : 25, 26.) Hence we remark, 6. That scriptural views of the Lord's Supper would entirely relieve the minds of Baptists and others in regard to Church Communion. The celebrated Robert Hall eloquently depicts : " The uneasiness and anguish felt on sacrainental occasions by good men seeing their most intimate friends and persons of exalted piety compelled to withdraw from the Lord's Table." (See Hall's Works, vol. 1, p. 243.) -That "good men," in- cluding some uninstructed Baptists, feel such " uneasiness and anguish " on sacramental occa- sions, we readily admit. But the question arises. Why is it so ? Evidently because they misappre- hend the true nature and design of the Lord's BAPTIST PRACTICE. 91 Slipper. Such persona confound Christian fellow- ship with church fellowship, and hence they do not fully apprehend the symbolic import of the Lord's Supper as being not only the emblem of Christ's broken body and shed blood, but also the ap- pointed token, not of the Christian, but of the church fellowship subsisting between communicants at the same table. If the Lord's Supper be a church ordinance, as all admit, and as such, expressive, not of the Christian, but of the church fellowship existing between those who celebrate together, then there can be no good reason for " uneasi- ness and anguish " on account of the " most inti- mate friends and persons of exalted piety " not partaking of the ordinance together, who do not and can not consistently sustain visible church re- lations with each other, as is the case with Chris- tians of different denominations. "While such persons may and should unite on all suitable oc- casions in all those Christian acts and exercises which properly belong to the " communion of saints," as such, irrespective of visible church re- lations; still they can not consistently and scrip- turally unite together in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, because it is confessedly a church ordinance, and, as such, says Dr. Hibbard, " a rec- ognition and acknowledgment of church fellow- ship among the communicants," which does not, and can not, exist between persons belonging to churches of different denominations. And if " the most intimate friends and persons of exalted 92 CHURCH COMMUNION. piety " can not conscientiously unite together in the same visible church, they can not consistently and scripturally unite together in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which is universally ad- naitted to be a church ordinance. As we have shown. Christian communion and sacramental communion are entirely distinct, and either may be in full and perfect exercise in the absence of the other. We may, and often do, en- joy Christian Communion with those with whom we do not and can not hold sacramental com- munion, as in the case of our candidates for bap- tism; while, on the other hand, we may hold sacramental communion with those with whom we can not enjoy Christian Communion, as in the case of members of the same church with us in whose piety we have no confidence. The two things, therefore,-are entirely distinct; so distinct, that the one may, and often does, exist where the other can not. Hence, we see that it is perfectly consistent and proper for Baptists to hold Chris- tian communion with Christians of all denomina- tions, just as we do with our candidates for bap- tism, and at the same time restrict sacramental com- munion to the members of their own churches ; and, in so doing, we in no sense reflect on the Christian character of our brethren of other churches. A correct understanding of this distinction be- tween Christian and sacramental communion, to- gether with the admitted fact that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, would entirely re- BAPTIST PRACTICE. 93 lieve the minds of Baptists and others of all "un- easiness and anguish " arising from " the most intimate friends and persons of exalted piety," who belong to churches of different denomina- tions being separated at the Lord's Table. For instance, husbands and wives, parents and chil- dren, brothers and sisters, belonging to different denominations, may enjoy the most unrestricted Christian communion with each other as Chris- tians, irrespective of visible church relations, just as they hope to enjoy it in heaven; and at the same time restrict their communion at the Lord's Table to their ow7i churches with perfect consist- ency, and without, in any sense, reflecting upon each other's Christian character. In the one case, they commune with each other as Christians in prayer, praise, etc. ; and, in the other, they commune merely as church members in showing forth the Lord's death, and not their love for one another as Christians ; and such persons have no more reason to feel " uneasiness and anguish " on account of being debarred from the commun- ion tables of each other's churches, than the pious Quaker or their own candidates for bap- tism have, on account of being denied the com- munion elements in all churches. The Lord's Supper, then, being a church ordinance, as all agree, and, as such, necessarily involving and ex- pressing the visible church relations and fellowship subsisting between communicants at the same table, of course none can consistently participate 94 CHUKCH COMMUNION. together, except those between whom such rela- tions and fellowship actually do exist, or might exist, as between members of the same denomin- ation. And if the Lord's Supper be a church ordinance, communion at the Lord's Table is a church act and a church privilege; and, therefore, a member of one church has no more right to complain of another church, even of the same denomination, for not inviting him to her com- munion table, than he has to complain of her for not inviting him to vote for the reception or exclusion of a member; nor has he any more right, as a right, to claim the one than the other, for both are equally church acts and privileges. This view of the Lord's Supper also relieves the Baptists of the charges of "bigotry" and " exclusivism," etc., so often preferred against them by Mixed Communionists. In the lan- guage of Pkof. Curtis, we say : " The effect of a right understanding of this principle will be entirely to relieve Baptists from all possibility of being charged with bigotry on account of their views and practice in regard to the Lord's Supper. It is frequently urged that we refuse Christian communion with the members of different denom- inations, and thus commit the most flagrant of oftenses against the law of charity. This is an error. On the contrary, we seek communion with them all in proportion to their piety. But we do not consider them, nor symbolize our com- munion with them, as belonging to the same par- BAPTIST PRACTICE. 95 ticular church as ourselves; and, as we have shown, the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. Wher- ever we find Christians, we commune with them as such. But the Lord's Supper, being a church ordinance, none but the members of a particular church or Christian congregation can claim to par- take of it. Even members of another church of the same denomination only do so by special request, and not by right. There is nothing, therefore, in our views of the Lord's Supper to prevent our having the most perfect charity and fellowship as Christians with those who differ with us in many respects. We can and do commune with them as such. As, indeed, we never baptize any person until we believe him to be a Christian already, his baptism never can introduce him to our Christian fellowship. We never do regard, and never have regarded, the outward act of bap- tism as an essential to Christian character, and it is impossible we ever should." {Curtis on Com., pp. 92, 93.) " Proper views of the Lord's Supper," says De. Howell, " will also serve to remove another perplex- ity often found to exist in our churches. E"ot unfrequently does a member absent himself from the Lord's Table on account of the presence of some other member who has offended him. He will not take his seat there, because he imagines that by doing so he will express a fellowship that does not actually exist; and he chooses not to falsify by his act the true convictions of his 96 CHURCH COMMUNION. heart." (See Howell on Com., p. 115.) Such con- duct is wrong. It proceeds upon the erroneous supposition that conamunion at the Lord's Table involves and expresses Christian fellowship. Now, our blessed Lord has given specific directions for the settlement of personal difficulties between brethren in Matthew, 18th chapter, and it is the immediate duty of the offended party to seek redress accord- ing to those directions. But so long as individu- als remain members of the same church in good standing, they are sacredly bound to commune to- gether at the Lord's Table, let their personal feel- ings toward each other be what they may, just as they are under obligations to perform all other church duties. The duty of a.brother, under such circumstances, is to " examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the wine," not in token of his love for his brethi-en, but to " show the Lord's death till he come." " This do," says Jesus, " in remembrance of me." 'Eov is there any thing in- consistent or wrong in this, since the Lord's Sup- per is a church ordinance, and, as such, involves and expresses, not the Christian but the church fellowship subsisting between communicants at the same table. Hence, we see that scriptural views of the Lord's Supper' would relieve the minds of Bap- tists and others of all difficulty on the subject of Church Communion. It is evident, therefore, that Church Communion, as practiced by the Baptists, is both consistent and scriptural. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 97 CHAPTER III. OBJECTIONS TO CHURCH COMMUNION ANSWERED. Objection 1st. "It is the Lords Table, and therefore all the Lord's children have a ryht ioii." 2d. "We have no scrip- tural right to judge of the fitness of communicants for the Lord's Table." 3d. " Church Communion, as practiced hy the Bap- tists, unchristianizes all other denominations.'' 4th. " It not only unchristianizes, but also unchurches all others." 5th. "It de- bars many pious persons from the Lord's Table who have been immersed." 6th. "It divides God's people, a,nd prevents love and union among them." 7th. "It ia ' exclusive, illiberal, 3>nd selfish^ in the Baptists." 8th. "AU Christians will commune together in heaven, and therefore all should commune together on earth.'' Among the many objections urged against the Baptist practice of Church Communion, the fol- lowing are the most plausible, viz. : 1st Objection : "It is the Lord's Table, and therefore all the Lord's children have a right to it." We grant that it is the Lord's Table, and there- fore we are compelled to debar all those from it who have not complied with the Lord's acknowl- edged terms of communion. If it were our table, then we should feel at liberty to prescribe the terms of admission to it ; and hence, would most coi'dially welcome all our brethren and friends to partake with us on these terms, just as we do in the hospitalities of social life. None could be 9 98 CHDKCII COMMUNION. more free than the Baptists. But inasmuch as it is the Lord's Table, it must.be governed by His laws. "We have no right to make laws for its government, nor to prescribe the terms of admis- sion to it ; nor are we at liberty to invite any per- son to it who has not, in our judgment, complied with the Lord's terms of admission. The mere fact of being a Christian does not of itself entitle a person to communion at the Lord's Table in any church; there are other qualifications which the advocates of mixed communion, as well as the Baptists, regard as indispensably necessary ; such as valid baptism, and regular membership in a visible church of Christ. As this point has already been established, we need add but a few practical illus- trations of the fact. For example. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania (Episcopalian), after inviting " all the Lord's chil- dren to His Table," some years since, felt con- scientiously bound to " refuse the bread and wine to a pious Quaker," who desired to partake with him, because he had not, in the bishop's judg- ment, been baptized, although the honest Quaker considered himself baptized, and was known to be in good standing in his own church. And Bishop Williams, of Connecticut, recently declared that "N"o member of any religious so- ciety, outside of the church, can receive her holy communion without a violation of & fundamental law of the liturgy ; and no clergyman can admin- ister it to such a person without a violation of OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 99 his ordination vows. The rubric commands that no persons shall be admitted to the holy com- munion until they have been, or are ready to be, CONFIRMED." {Meligious Herald.) Dr. Griffin (Presbyterian), as quoted for an- other purpose, says : " We ought not to com- mune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians." He then instances a ^^ pious Quaker," and adds : " Should he desire to com- mune with me, while he yet refused to be bap- tized, / covld not receive him ; because I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the church." (See Fuller on Com., p. 270. Also, Conf. of Paith, chap. 29, sec. 1.) Dr. Hibbard (Methodist) says : " It is but just to remark, that in one principle the Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the Table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellow- ship to all who have not been baptized." {Hibbard on Bap., part 2, p. 174.) Dr. Emmons (Congregationalist), in his '^Plat- forms of Ecclesiastical Government," says : " And as to the Gospel Church, it is plain that it was composed of none but visible saints. No other but baptized persons were admitted to communion; and no adult persons but such as professed repent- ance and faith, were admitted to baptism, which shows that they were visible saints." (See Flat- forms, p. 2.) 100 CHURCH COMMUNION. And Alexander Campbell, in 1835, held a friendly correspondence with the Rev. "William Jones, of London, a distinguished Baptist minis- ter, who inquired : " Do any of your churches admit unbaptized persons to communion, a practice that is becoming very common in this country?" Mr. Campbell replied : " Not one, so far as knoion to me. I am at a loss to understand on what principles — by what law, precedent, or licence, any congregation, founded upon the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone, could dispense with the practice of the primitive church — with the commandment of the Lord, and the authority of the Apostles. Does not this look like mak- ing void the word or commandment of God by human traditions?" (See Millennial Harh., vol. 6, p. 18.) Sq all denominations hold and teach on this sub- ject, notwithstanding the practice of some to the contrary. The mere fact, then, of being a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus, does not of itself entitle any one to communion at the Lord's Table in any church. Accordingly, no church of any denomination will admit its own candidates for baptism to its communion table, until they have been baptized in some way, notwithstanding it regards them as the Lord's children. The objec- tion, therefore, that we have no right to debar any of the Lord's children from his table, rests as heavily against Mixed Communionists as it does against the Baptists, for they all claim and exercise OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 101 this right. And surely we are not sinners above all others because we do what all othei's do. 2d Objection: " We have no scriptural right to judge of the fitness of communicants for the Lord's Table." In support of this objection the advocates of Mixed Communion, with great confidence, quote the language of Paul in 1 Cor. 11 : 28 : " Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." From this passage it is contended that every eoiTimunicant must judge of his own qualifications for the Lord's Supper, and that no church has a right to sit in judgment on his fitness for the ordinance. This objection is based upon a misapplication of the Apostle's lan- guage, as is evident from the context. Paul was not here addressing a mixed multitude of persons belonging to different churches, but the members of that particular church at Corinth who already possessed the scriptural qualifications for com- munion at the Lord's Table, but who had miscon- ceived the nature and perverted the design of the Lord's Supper. (See verses 20-32.) Hence the Apostle first explains the nature and design of the ordinance, and then enjoins the individual duty of each communicant to examine hvcasA? preparatory to receiving the sacred elements, which in no sense confiicts with the prior duty of every church to judge of the fitness of applicants for member- ship and communion in its own body. That this is the true meaning of the passage, is admitted by 302 CHURCH COMMUNION. those who deny the right to Baptists. For ex- ample — BuKKiTT, an Episcopalian commentator, in his "!N"otes" on this verse, remarks: "We learn hence that it is the special duty of all those that desire safely and comfortably to approach the Table of the Lord, to examine themselves before they come," etc. Albert Barnes, a popular Presbyterian com- mentator, in his "Notes" on this passage, says: "Let him examine himself, and see whether he have the right feelings of a communicant, and can approach the Lord's Table in a proper manner." And Adam Clark, a standard Methodist com- mentator, in his " !N"otes" on the same verse, says : " Let him try whether he has the proper faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and whether he discerns the Lord's body; and whether he duly considers that the bread and wine point out the crucified body and spilt blood of Christ." But while this passage refers exclusively to the individual duty of communicants, the same Apos- tle elsewhere enjoins upon all churches the duty of judging of the fitness of communicants at their respective tables. For instance, in 1 Cor. 5: 11- 13, he says : " Now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idola- ter, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat ; " i. e., at the Lord's Table. And he adds : " Do not ye judge them that OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 103 are loithm?" i. e., witliin your own communion. Here the Apostle clearly teaches that it is both the duty and privilege of each church to judge of the fitness of those who come to its communion table. And this is as reasonable as it is scriptural. In- deed it is an inherent right of every church, and essential to the purity of its communion. But if there is any force in this objection, it rests as heavily against Mixed Communionists as it does against the Baptists; for they all claim and exercise the right of judging of the qualifi- cations of applicants for membership and com- munion in their respective churches, as is evident both from their teachings and practice. For in- stance, the Presbyterians {Confession of Faith, form of gov., bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1), declare : " That every Christian church, or union, or asso- ciation of particular churches, is entitled to de- clare the TERMS of admission into its communion, etc., that, in the exercise of this right, they may, notwithstanding, err in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow ; yet even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own." Accordingly, whole synods have declared it inexpedient for Presby- terians to hold intercommunion with those de- nominations who entertain Arminian sentiments; such as the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Campbellites, and others. For example, we quote the following exti'acts from " Synodical Records," 104 CHURCH COMMUNION. published per order in the " Union Evangelist and Presbyterian Advocate," h\ 1832, vol. 3, p. 240 : "The committee on a former resolution of synod on the subject of intercommunion reported. The report was adopted as follows, viz. : ' The committee are of opinion that for Presbyterians to hold communion in sealing ordinances with those who belong to churches holding doctrines contrary to OUR STANDARDS (as do Baptists, Methodists, and all others), is incompatible with the purity and jpeace of the (Presbyterian) Church, and highly prejudicial to the truth as it is in Jesus. JSTor can such communion answer any valuable purpose to those who practice it, etc. In accordance with these views, your committee are of opinion that the practice of inviting to the communion all ivho are in good standing in their own churches, is calculated to do much evil, and should not be continued; while every church session is, however, left at liberty to admit to occasional communion membei'S of other denominations, after having conversed with them, and received satisfaction as to their soundness in the faith and Christian practice.' " These " Church rights," as declared in the Con- fession of Faith, and indorsed by whole synods, are fully sustained by the highest tribunal of the Presbyterian Church. The General Assembly, in 1839, declared unanimously that — "Every Chris- tian church, or association of churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its com- munion." (See "Protestant and Herald," of Ken- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 105 tucky, 'as quoted by Howell on Com., p. 240.) Hence we see that the Presbyterians claim the right, not only to judge of the fitness of communicants, but also to declare the terms of admission to their communion. The Methodists, or rather their preachers, are required to judge of the fitness of applicants for membership and communion in their church. In answer to the question, " How shall persons be received into the church?" the Discipline says: " 1. When persons ofl'er themselves for church membership, let the preacher in charge inquire in- to their spiritual condition, and see that they are acquainted with the moral discipline of the church, and receive them into the church when they have given satisfactory assurances of their desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins ; al6o of the genuineness of their faith and of their willingness to keep the rules of the church. 2. When satisfied on these points, let the preacher bring the candidates before the congrega- tion, whenever practicable, and baptize them, if they have not been baptized," etc. (See Discipline for 1868, chap. 3, sec. 1, pp. 90, 91.) Accordingly, Bishop Hbdding, in his able " Dis- course on the Administration of Discipline," pp. 72, 73 (delivered before the IS'ew York, !N"ew England, Providence, and Maine Conferences, and published by their request), asks: "Is it proper for a preacher to give out a general invi- tation in the congregation . to members in good 106 CHURCH COMMUNION. standing in other cliurclies to come to the Lord's Supper?" To this the bishop gives the following emphatic answer: •"N'O; for the most unworthj'^ persons are apt to think themselves in good stand- ing, and sometimes persons who are not members of any church will take the liberty from such an invitation to come. And again, there are some communities called churches, which, from hereti- cal doctrines or immoral practices, have no claim to the privileges of Christians, and ought not to be admitted to the communion of any Christian people. The kule," says he, "in that case, is as follows: '2. Let no person be admitted to the communion without examination, and some token given by an elder or deacon. 3. No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among lis who is guilty of any practice for lohieh we would exclude a member of our church.' " (See Discipline for 1868, chap. 5, sec. 1.) Accordingly, Dr. Hibbard remarks: "In ad- mitting persons to church fellowship, we do not act upon discretionary powers as to the terms to be dictated. Those terms are already settled by the great Head of the Church. All our discre- tion in the premises consists in judging of the con- formity of the candidate to the terms already prescribed, whether he comes within the provis- ions of the charter, and may claim its rich and heavenly immunities." (Hibbard on Bap., part 2, p. 187.) The CoNGREaATioNALiSTS also claim and exercise OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 107 the same right. For instance, Dr. Emmons ob- serves : " That every church has a right to admit members into their Christian communion accord- ing to the rules of the Gospel. It is essential to every voluntary society to admit vrhom they please into their number. They are the only proper and competent judges to determine who are worthy or unworthy to be admitted. It would be very irrational to suppose that any particular church is obliged to admit every one that offers to join their holy communion. They have an un- doubted right to judge of the qualifications of propo- nents, and receive or reject them according to an impartial judgment of Christian charity. This right they never ought to give up." (See Flat- forms, pp. 6, 7.) And the Campbellites claim the same right, whether they exercise it or not. Hence Alexan- der Campbell remarks : "As the government was upon the shoulders of the Great King, the church had not so much to do with it as we moderns im- agine. Some things, it is true, are left to the brethren ; such as the reception of members, the selection of officers," etc. (See Christian Baptist, vol. 6, pp. 236, 237.) The same is true of the Episcopalians, Luther- ans, and all other denominations. They do judge of the qualifications of applicants for membership and communion in their respective churches, and the New Testament makes it the duty of all to do it. The Lord Jesus Christ has established the 108 CHURCH COMMUNION. terms of membership and communion in his churches, and every church is solemnly bound to debar all persons from her communion who have not, in her judgment, complied with those terms. ,The ordinances were committed to the churches (1 Cor. 10: 2), and Christ requires every church to guard his Table against unworthy persons, and to allow none to approach it except those who possess the scriptural qualifications for commun- ion. If a church has no right to judge for itself of the fitness of its communicants, then it has no right to debar any person from the Lord's Table, and the holy ordinance is at once exposed to the unholy and profane. But the fact is, as we have shown, that all churches not only have the right thus to judge of the fitness of communicants, but they are solemnly bound to exercise that right; for the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, and every church is responsible for its purity and safe keeping. In conclusion we ask, "What do Baptists more than others in regard to the Lord's Supper? We simply claim and exercise the right, in common with all Protestant churches, of interpreting the Scriptures for ourselves, and of judging accord- ingly of the fitness of applicants for membership and communion in our own churches. And if the objection urged against our practice had any force, it would rest as heavily against Mixed Commun- ionists as against Baptists, for, as we have proved, they all claim the right to do themselves what OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 109 they condemn in us. But the "legs of the lame are not equal." 3d Objection: "Church Communion, as held and practiced by the Baptists, unchristianizes all other Christians." This objection is based upon the false assump- tion that Christian fellowship and church fellow- ship are one and the same. They are not identi- cal, however, but are essentially distinct, as we have already shown. Yet many honest Christians have fallen into this sad mistake through erroneous teaching and consequent prejudice. But our prac- tice of Church Communion in no way whatever affects the Christian character of others. By our practice we simply declare our honest belief that they are not baptized, and consequently not regular church members ; and, as such, we can not consist- ently and scripturally partake with them at the Lord's Table; for they, as well as we, hold that valid baptism and regular church membership are indispensable prerequisites to communion at the Lord's Table in any church. In the language of Prof. Curtis, we say: "There is nothing in our views of the Lord's Supper to prevent our having the most perfect charity and fellowship, as Chris- tians, with those who differ from us in many re- spects. We can and do commune with them as such. As indeed we never baptize any person until we believe him to be a Christian already, his baptism never can introduce him to our Christian fellowship. "We never do regard, and never have 110 CHURCH COMMUNION. regarded, the outward act of baptism as an essential to Christian character, and it is impossible we ever should. INor do we any more refuse Christian communion with other denominations, than did the Savior with the seventy, or with his mother Mary, the blessed and highly favored among wo- men." (Curtis on Com., p. 93.) Hence we see that the charge of " unchristian- izing" others by our Church Communion \& false. As before remarked, aur practice simply declares that, in our judgment, they are unbaptized, and hence not regular church members ; it does not in any sense reflect upon their Christian character. We regard all those who have heartily repented of their sins, and believed in Jesus Christ, as the children of God, and, as such, Jit subjects for bap- tism; and we regard and treat all such persons of other denominations precisely as we do our own candidates for baptism. 'No Baptist church will receive any person as a candidate for baptism, un- less he gives scriptural evidence of being " washed, justified, and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6 : 11) ; nor will any admit such a person to the Lord's Table, until he has been baptized on a pro- fession of his faith, and received into regular church fellowship. There is nothing peculiar in our practice on this point. The advocates of Mixed Communion, as well as the Baptists, hold that Christ has placed valid baptism and regular Church membership between every believer and OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Ill the Lord's Supper, and hence they all deny the bread and wine to their candidates for baptism. In the meantime, we regard our candidates for baptism as brethren in Christ, just as Ananias did Saul of Tavans previous to his baptism (Acts 9 : 17) ; and we hold unrestricted Christian Commun- ion with them, and love them, just as well before baptism as we do after they have submitted to the ordinance, notwithstanding we dare not admit them to the Lord's Table until they have com- plied with the Lord's terms of communion. Pre- cisely so do we feel and act toward our brethren of other denominations. "We love them as Chris- tians, but can not consistently and scripturall^' extend to them the tokens of church fellowship, because we do not regard them baptized, and hence not regular church members. It is evident, therefore, that our practice of Church Communion in no way tends to unchristianize others, and it can not be so regarded by any, except those who consider baptism and the Lord's Supper as " effi- cacious means of salvation." In this particular, however, the Baptists act on principles held in common with Mixed Commun- ionists. They treat their candidates for baptism, and all others whom they regard as unbaptized, precisely as we do ; not one of them (except the Methodists, who violate their own declared princi- ples by admitting " seekers" to the Lord's Table) will receive such persons to their communion until they have been baptized in some way and admit- 112 CHURCH COMMUNION. ted to regular church membership, notwithstand- ing they may regard them as Christians. In this they are as close in their communion as we are, and act upon the very same principles. Yet no person ever supposed that they unchristianized their can- didates for baptism and others by thus debarring them from the Lord's Table; they merely declare by the act that, in their judgment, such persons are not baptized, and of course not church members. Why, then, should the Baptists be charged w^ith " unchristianizing^' all others by doing only what all others do? But even if it were as true, as it is false, that our practice o{ Church Communion does unchristian- ize others, it would be equally true of the practice of Mixed Communionists ; for, while they charge us with " close communion," and vauntingly in- vite " all Christians in good standing in their own churches" still they actually debar from their com- munion nineteen-twentieths of those who profess to be Christians, all of whom are in good standing in their own churches, to say nothing of infant members, constituting one-half of Pedobaptist churches. For instance, there are about one hun- dred and thirty diflerent denominations in Chris- tendom, all claiming to be Christians, some fifty of whom reside in the United States ; and not more than eight out of the whole number will admit each other's members to their communion tables. Of the seven different branches of the Presbyterian Church, there are six that hold the OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 113 "Westminster Confession of Faith, and yet 7io two of them will commune together at the Lord's Table, although they subscribe to the same creed, and regard each other as Christians. Do they '^unchristianize" each other hj their restricted com- muuion? Verily, Mixed Communionists should set their own houses in order before they stop to throw stones at the Baptists for doing the very thing which they themselves do. Hence it is evident that our practice of Church Communion has no tendency whatever to "un- christianize" others, and even if it had, the same would be equally true of Mixed Communionists ; for they all withhold their communion from many whom they admit to be Christians. 4th Objection: "Church Communion not only unchristianizes, but also unchurches all other denomi- nations." Well, if Mixed Communion churches are not Gospel churches, the sin rests upon themselves, and. not upon the Baptists. If valid baptism be essen- tial to visible membership in a church of Christ, as all admit, and if Campbellites and Pedobap- tists be destitute of such baptism, as we verily believe, then it follows of necessity that they are not Gospel churches; and our practice of Church Communion merely declares an existing fact, for which we are in no way responsible.^ If Camp- bellite baptism be defective in its administrator, design, and subjects, as every intelligent Baptist must admit, then it is not scriptural and valid 114 CHUKCH COMMUNION. baptism ; and, with such baptism, how can Camp- bellite churchea be Gospel churches? And if Pedobaptist baptism be defective in its adminis- trator, action, design, and subjects, as all Bap- tists must concede, then it can not be scriptural and valid baptism; and according to their own principles, Pedobaptist churches are not Gospel churches. But while this is unquestionably true, our practice of Church Communion is in no sense responsible for it ; they have unchurched themselves by substituting immersion for the actual remission of sins, on the one hand, and adult and infant sprinkling and pouring, on the other hand, for be- liever's baptism. The remedy, however, for these evils is at hand, if they will employ it. We have A BAPTISM which they all practically admit to be both scriptural and valid, and our churches are, by universal consent. Gospel churches; all, there- fore, can adopt our baptism and our church polity without sacrifice, and still they refuse to do it. But this objection is founded upon the unscrip- tural idea of a " universal visible church, of which all particular visible churches are branches." This error was the root of popery. Having imagined a " universal visible church," consistency required a " visible head " for the body, and the Pope, with his successors, was constituted that head. And all those Protestant churches, which either directly or indirectly came out of the Church of Pome, brought this error with them ; hence arose " Epis- copal bishops," and clerical denomination and rule OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 115 over the people, as well as infant baptism and mem- bership, by which the very constitution and govern- ment of Christ's churches were radically changed. Now, this erroneous assumption of a " universal visible church " is the very ground on which Mixed Communionists claim the right of all Chris- tians in good standing in their own churches to partake of the Lord's Supper together. They say that "all who profess the true religion" (see Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 25, sec. 2) are members of this "catholic" or "universal" church, and, therefore, have an inalienable right to partake of the Lord's Supper wherever they may find it. This no honest and intelligent advocate of mixed communion will deny. This, indeed, was the leading argument of the late Robebt Hall (whose father brought this error with him from the Presbyterians) in support of his boasted " Free Communion ; " and it is .the only ground on which any can practice such communion. But what is a Gospel church according to the Scriptures ? In the New Testament the word church has two, and only two, significations, viz.: 1st. It is used figuratively to denote the spiritual body of Christ, embracing all the saved, living, and dead, in heaven and on earth (see Matt. 16: 18; Eph. 5: 25-27; Col. 1: 18; Heb.l2: 23, etc.); and 2d. It is used literally to denote particular visible congregations of baptized believers, each sepa- rate and independent, worshiping together stated- ly in one place ; as the church in Jerusalem, Acts 11 : 116 CHURCH COMMUNION. 22 ; the cliurch at Antioch, Acts 13 : 1 ; the Church of God at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1 : 2, etc. ; and churches ofJudea, Gal. 1 : 22 ; churches of Galatia, 1 Cor. 16 : 1 ; churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8 : 1, etc. The spiritual body or church of Christ has no ordi- nances, no visible organization, and never did and never will meet together on earth till the final judg- ment. To this body or church all true believers be- long, of whatever name and order they may be, whether they have been baptized or not. Indeed, union with this spiritual body by faith is a primary qualification for baptism and membership in a vis- ible church. But to the visible churches of Christ, as such, his laws and ordinances were committed (see 1 Cor. 11 : 2), and they are the executive bodies in his visible kingdom; charged with discipline, formative and corrective, and the proper adminis- tration of baptism and the Loi'd's Supper. In perfect accordance with these views. Prof. Curtis remarks: " To the visible churches of Christ belong ordinances and means of grace, things tem- porary in their nature, and to be observed only 'till he come,' who is the Head of the Church. To the universal church, as such, which is a spirit- ual, and, therefore, invisible body, ordinances are impossible, since it can not be convened; and means of grace are unnecessary, since its members all drink from the fountain-head, and enjoy the grace of the means." And he adds : " The records of church history plainly show that originally the Lord's Supper was every -where regarded as a OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 117 church ordinance. For, even after centuries of gradual corruption had altered the forms of church government in manj' respects, and many separate congregations were united under the care of one bishop, and were considered as only one church, there was ever one, and hut one, altar to each bishopric, at which alone the elements of the Eucharist were consecrated. To set up another altar or com- munion table was considered a violation of unity or a declaration of church independency." {Cur- tis on Com., pp. 39 and 139.) Such, then, are Gospel churches, and none others are G-ospel churches. The iN^ew Testament knows nothing of a " universal visible church " with its numerous " branches," such as the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, etc., embracing all the particular churches or societies belonging to those denominations. There is no such " universal church" with its "branches," and there never was any such Church of Christ. Hence the ab- surdity of representing the different denomina- tions as " branches of the visible church," of which Mixed Communionists speak. If all these various denominations be the "branches," where is the trunk? There is no such trunk except the Church of Eome, and Baptists are not now, and never were, branches of that rotten trunk; for all history goes to show that we never had the re- motest connection with that "MOTHER OF HARLOTS AFD ABOMHSTATIONS." We are 118 CHUKCH COMMUNION. neither a daughter nor a granddaughter of such a mother. But the absolute independence of all Baptist churches frees us from the charge of "unchurch- ing " other denominations by our Church com- munion. Eor instance, one Baptist church is under no scriptural, obligation to invite the mem- bers of other Baptist churches to partake with her at the Lord's Table, and yet the refusal to invite them on the part of one church would in no way interrupt the denominational relations and fellowship existing between all the churches, for each church is independent of all others, ex- cept so far as they may voluntarily associate themselves together as advisory and cooperative bodies for educational and missionary purposes. Hence, we see that Baptist Church Communion does not unchurch other denominations ; they have unchurched themselves by their uvscriptural bap- tism, in spite of our ceaseless protests against it. 5th Objection: "Baptist Church Communion de- bars many pious persons from the Lord's Table who have been immersed." In general, it would be a sufficient answer to this objection to state, that such persons belong to churches of other denominations, with whom we sustain no ecclesiastical connection whatever, and it would be false in symbol to extend to them the appointed tokens of visible church fellowship, when no such fellowship does nor can exist. Moreover, the Scriptures require every church to OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119 exercise a watchful and restraining discipline over all its communicants, and to debar unworthy per- sons from its communion table. In proof of this, see Eom. 16: 17; 1 Cor. 5: 4-12; 2 Thess. 3: 6, etc. Indeed, this duty grows out of the very nature of the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance. N'ow, since every church is required to discipline and restrain all its communicants, and since one church has no disciplinary power over the mem- bers of another church, it follows of necessity that we can not scripturally invite even the immersed members of other churches to partake with us at the Lord's Table. We have no right to extend our communion beyond the limits of our church discipline. And this of itself is a sufficient reason for our practice, were there no others. But more particularly, those immersed persons in Pedobaptist churches are justly chargeable with '^walking disorderly," and we are "commanded" to ^^ withdraw ourselves" (i. e., our church fellowship and communion) from such (see 2 Thess. 3:6); for, notwithstanding they have been immersed on a profession of their faith, still they are know- ingly and willfully giving their influence and sup- port to churches holding fundamental errors, which they do not and can not believe and practice ; as, for instance, adult and infant sprinkling and pour- ing for believer's immersion, sacramental salvation, clerical domination and rule, and many others. Such persons are responsible to God and to men for their influence, and they are acting both inconsist- 120 CHURCH COMMUNION. ently and wickedly by thus continuing to give their influence and support to churches holding and propagating these grave errors. Nor will it ex- cuse such immersed believers to plead, " We do not believe and 'practice these errors." This is no doubt true; but no person thus holding Baptist senti- ments, can belong to a Pedobaptist church with- out giving his or her influence to it, and virtually indorsing its errors, though he or she may not believe and practice them. In the language of Peof. Curtis : " Such are their terms of member- ship, that a conscientious person, holding Baptist sentiments, could not join one of their churches. If he did, so are their creeds, confessions of faith, and church covenants framed, and that purposely, that he would be obliged to support infant bap- tism. If he had children, he would be pledged to bring them forward for baptism. This a consci- entious Baptist could not do. It is nothing to say that many, and an increasing number, do practically neglect it — neglect it because they have no faith in it. The standards of these churches are purposely so framed as to make it the cove- nant obligation of every member to conform to it." {Curtis on Com., p. 98.) Accordingly the Presbyterian . Confession of Faith, chap. 28, sec. 4, enjoins — " That infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." The Congregational Confession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 4, enjoins the same duty upon parents. (See Platforms, p. 124.) OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 121 The Methodist Discipline, Art. of EeHg. 18, says : " The baptism of young children is to be re- tained in the church ; " and in chap. 3, sec. 3, Ans. 5 to Questiori "What shall we do for. the rising generation?" the Discipline says: "Let the minis- ter diligeyitly instruct and exhort all parents to dedi- cate their children to the Lord in baptism as early as convenient; and — cav^e them to be faithfully instructed in the nature, design, privileges, and obligations of their baptism," etc. And the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, Art. of Relig. 27, says: " The baptism of young chil- dren is in anywise to be retained in the church," etc. So all Pedobaptist churches hold and teach. In- fant baptism is a church doctrine and a church duty in all Pedobaptist bodies, and those members who do not believe and practice it, are guilty of willfully violating the covenant vows resting upon them. Hence we see that it would not only he incon- sistent, but sinful in Baptists to encourage im- mersed persons belonging to Pedobaptist churches, in such disorder and wickedness, by inviting them to the Lord's Table and giving them the tokens of regular church fellowship, and thereby become "partakers of their evil deeds." (See 2 John 9-11.) It is unkind and unreasonable to ask it. But still more. Many of those pious persons have been immersed by Pedobaptist ministers who were never immersed themselves, and who are in the habit of denouncing immersion as " unscrip- 11 122 CHURCH COMMUNION. twral, indecent, and dangerous ; " and of course they administered the ordinance reluctantly, not in obedience to Jesus Christ, but merely to gratify the "lohims" of the candidates, and to prevent their joining the Baptists. "While the Old School Presbyterians are very inconsistent in receiving Baptist immersions as baptism, they certainly deserve credit for ceasing to administer immer- sion to any one. Consistency and common hon- esty require all Pedobaptists either to abandon immersion or cease opposing it. 'Now we do not, and can not, regard such unauthorized and un- willing immersions as scriptural and valid baptism at all. Though the candidates may submit to it with proper intentions, yet the administrators, believing immersion to be " unscriptural, inde- cent, and dangerous," must administer the ordi- nance in unbelief; and '^whatsoever is not of faith is sin," says Paul, Rom. 14 : 23. IJfow if they themselves regard immersion not only " indecent and dangerous," but " unscriptural," as many of them say, how can they expect Baptists to rec- ognize and regard it as scriptural baptism? And yet they do it ; while some modern Baptist churches are inconsistent enough to receive it as baptism, though they would exclude their own ministers for holding and preaching the same errors. In our judgment there is far less sin in Pedobaptist sprinkling or pouring than there is in their im- mersions, though neither is scriptural and valid baptism. Such immersed persons, then, are de- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 123 ceived; they have no baptism at all, and there- fore have no scriptural right to the Lord's Supper in any church. And we would most affectionately address all such inconsistent and erring brethren and sisters in the language of Scripture: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6 : 17, 18.) There are many pious persons among the Camp- BBLLiTES who Were immersed on a profession of their faith by Baptist ministers before they entered the ranks of the " current reformation," with whom we do not and can not consistently and scripturally unite at the Lord's Table. They are not only members of other churches, and hence beyond the limits of our church discipline, but they were excluded from our churches on account of having embraced or fellowshiped the errors of Alexandee Campbell ; and while we still love many of them as brethren in Christ, yet we are bound to regard them as excluded members in dis- order and error, and as such, we can neither invite them to our communion, nor accept an invitation to partake with them, without trampling upon our own church discipline and indorsing their errors and irregularities. And as the causes of their exclusion ■ still exist, they have no more right to ask or ex- pect intercommunion with us, than their own ex- 124 CHUECn COJSIMUNION. eluded members have to ask or expect it with them. IsTow, if they should ever renounce their errors and return to their former faith and prac- tice, we would most cordially restore them to our church fellowship, and then, and not till then, can we consistently and scripturally extend to them the tokens of such fellowship. This, indeed, was the very ground on which the Old School Presbyterian General Assembly, in 1845, in the city of Philadelphia, refused the fraternal invita- tion of the I^Tew School General Assembly to unite with them in the joint celebration of the Lord's Supper; the former having excluded the latter from their church fellowship. There are also pious persons among the Camp- bellites who never belonged to our churches, with whom we do not and can not commune at the Lord's Table. Some of them were converted un- der our own preaching, and others under that of Pedobaptists before they united with the Camp- bellites. They are fit subjects for baptism, and have been immersed by Campbellite preachers, but, like those immersed believers in Pedobaptist churches, they are " walking disorderly " by giving their influence and support to radical errors; and, as before shown, we are commanded to "with- draw" our church fellowship and communion from all such. (2 Thess. 3 : 6.) N"ow, if these erring brethren and sisters have any confidence in their own conversion, they never can believe the peculiar doctrines of Campbellism ; such as OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 125 baptismal remission, etc., for they profess to have experienced pardon and peace through faith in Christ previous to baptism. All the religion they have they thus obtained prior to and independent of their baptism; and how can they believe that baptism is in order to obtain pardon ? And yet they are giving their influence and support to a denomination whose distinguishing tenet is, that baptism is equally necessary with faith and repent- ance to forgiveness. ITow, such pious persons are not only living in disorder and sin, by thus giving their influence and support to this soul destroying error, but they are destitute of scriptural and valid baptism, al- though they have been immersed ; and, as such, they are disqualified for communion at the Lord's Table in any church. Their baptism was radi- cally defective both in its administrator and design, and hence is wanting in two of the four essentials to valid baptism. The authority of a Gospel church is necessary to qualify any man to administer the ordinances, as all admit, and, in our judgment, Campbellite ministers are not thus authorized ; and even if they were, they administer baptism with an unseriptural design. Notwithstanding those pious persons professed to have obtained pardon and peace through faith in Jesus Christ previous to and independent of baptism, still those unauthorized preachers administered the ordinance to them in order to obtain the remission of their sins. The very act, therefore, involved a contradiction, and 126 CHURCH COMMUNION. was/aZse in symbol. 'No doubt the candidates sub- mitted to the ordinance with the intention of obeying Jesus Christ, just as the believer may submit to Pedobaptist sprinkling or pouring, but the administrators performed the act with an un- scriptural design, and hence the sin rests upon them, and not upon the candidates. Such immer- sion is far more dangerous, and no more valid than Pedobaptist sprinkling or pouring; the one is wrong in the administrator and action, while the other is wrong in the administrator and design; and both are equally unscriptural and invalid. Nor can we, as Baptists, consistently and inno- cently indorse or recognize such unauthorized and unscriptural immersions as valid baptism, which we would do by interconmiunion with such im- mersed persons. How is it possible for Baptists to indorse or receive such "alien immersions" as valid baptism without being guilty of the grossest inconsistency, not to saj' sin ? For illustration, sup- pose a Baptist minister should embrace the errors of Campbellites and Pedobaptists on this subject,- and, like their ministers, preach and practice those errors, would not his own church exclude him, and that justly ? And should he continue to preach and practice the same errors while ex- cluded, would any regular Baptist Church re- ceive his immersions as valid baptism? But suppose he join either of said denominations holding and propagating those errors, and should immerse believers on a profession of their faith, OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 127 would his immersions be any more valid ? Surely not. How glaringly inconsistent, then, must it be in Baptist churches to indorse and receive the immersions of Campbellite and Pedobaptist min- isters as valid baptism, when they deny the valid- ity of their ordinations, and would exclude their own ministers for preaching and practicing the same errors that those ministers preach and prac- tice! Let modern Baptists, like the apostles and an- cient Anabaptists, stand firm to God's truth, and unitedly reject all such unseriptural immersions, and we will not only have a conscience void of oft'ense toward God and men, but we will receive ten of those deluded brethren and sisters to where we would receive one by admitting the validity of such immersions. But in addition to these excluded Baptists and immersed converts in Campbellite churches, there is a large and growing number of pure Camp- bellites, who were immersed in order to obtain the remission of their sins, without professing a pre- vious change of heart and pardon, with whom we do not and never can intercommune until they experience conversion and are scripturally bap- tized, ^o intelligent Baptist or Pedobaptist cau regard such persons as either converted or bap- tized, and of course we can hold neither Christian nor sacramental communion with them, however highly we may esteem them as fi-iends or rela- tives. Accordingly, no regular Baptist church 128 CHUKCH COMMUNION. will receive such, immersed unbelievers as candi- dates for baptism, much less as church members, until they bring forth ^^ fruits meet" for repentance, and give scriptural evidence of conversion. It is impossible that any person can be a Christian who depends upon baptism in any sense for par- don. A faith that does not secure pardon before baptism, will not secure it in baptism ; and he who goes into the water unpardoned, will most certainly come out of the water unpardoned, though he may be satisfied with what he has done and indulge a, false hope of heaven, just like the deluded Catholic. The fact is, baptismal re- mission changes the whole ground of salvation by grace through faith, and makes it of works. Hence the boastfulness of such persons. It is evident, therefore, that either the Baptists or Campbellites are destitute of scriptural and valid baptism, for they difter as wide as the poles on the design of the ordinance. Both can not be right, and whichever party is wrong, has no valid baptism, and hence no scriptural right to the Lord's Supper in any church. This indeed is ad- mitted by the founder of Campbellism himself. For instance, Alexander Campbell, in his " Chris- tian Baptist," says : " When Paul was immersed, it was declared and understood by the parties that all his previous sins loere washed away in the act of immersion." (See Christian Baptist, vol. 5, Art. '■'■Ancient Gospel" K"©. 3, p. 173.) And in his Lexington Debate with Dr. If. L. Rice, in 1843, OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 129 Mr. Campbell said: "If our baptism is for any other end or purpose than was that to which Paul submitted, it is another baptism, as much as bath- ing for health is different from a Jewish ablution for legal uncleannesss or impurity. The action has a meaning and a design ; and it must be received in that meaning and for that design, else it is an- other baptism." (Campbell and Bice Debate, p. 439.) Now, if this view of the design of baptism be correct, it necessarily unbaptizes, if not unchris- tianizes, the whole Baptist denomination, together with Mr. Campbell himself and all his ministers and people who left our churches, for not one of them was baptized in order to obtain the remis- sion of sins, but all professed to have obtained forgiveness previous to baptism through faith in Christ. Hence it would seem that both they and we are destitute of valid baptism, and, as such, unfit for the Lord's Supper in any church. But while the whole Baptist family and every mem- ber of it utterly repudiates the doctrine of "bap- tismal remission," as held by Campbellites and others, still we admit the truth of Mr. Campbell's position, that an error in the design of baptism invalidates the ordinance and makes it " another baptism " than that to which Paul submitted ; so that all those who have been immersed with a wrong design, are as really destitute of scriptural and valid baptism, as are those who have sub- mitted to sprinkling or pouring. And such are all true Campbellites. 130 CHURCH COMMUNION. But a want of valid baptism is by no means the only reason why Baptists do not intercommune with Campbellites. We believe them to be hetero- dox in their views of repentance, faith, regenera- tion, justification, human depravity, spiritual influ- ence, and other fundamental doctrines of the Gos- pel, as well as in their views of the design of bap- tism, and therefore we can not "bid them God- speed" by receiving them to our communion, and thus giving them the appointed tokens of church fellowship, without becoming "partakers" of their evil deeds." (2 John 9-11.) These reasons are suf- ficient to justify the Baptists in refusing intercom- munion at the Lord's Table with all Campbellites. It is also true that there are a few small bodies of Baptists, including the Anti -Missionary, Free- Will, Seventh-Day, and others, who have seceded from the great Baptist body, with whom we do not and can not consistently intercommune, al- though we regard them as baptized Christians. They have no ecclesiastical connection with us, and hence are beyond the limits of our church dis- cipline, and we have no scriptural right to extend our communion beyond the limits of our discipline. Besides, they are factions, and hold doctrines which we can not fellowship. Though baptized, they are destitute of some of the essential qualifica- tions for communion at the Lord's Table. In short, the Lord's Supper, being a church ordinance, we can not consistently and safely commune with any ex- cept those with whom we sustain church relations. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 131 6th Objection: "Baptist Church Communion divides God's people, and prevents Christian love and union." ISTow we emphatically deny that the Baptists are in any proper sense responsible for the divis- ions which exist among God's people. There is nothing either in our principles or practices that legitimately tends to divide the Christian world. If others embrace error and oppose our scriptural principles and practices, and thus make them the occasion of division and strife, as our Lord fore- told that they would do (see Matt. 10: 34-36), we are not accountable for their sins, any more than Christ was for the opposition to his teachings and practices. On the contrary, Baptist principles are the only principles upon which God's people ever can consistently and safely unite. Our views of doctrine, as all admit, are scriptural and sound, and will save all who heartily embrace them. We have an undisputed baptism and communion ; all practically admit this fact. None blame us for what we do believe and practice; they only com- plain of what we do not believe and practice; while all can adopt our faith and practice without sacrifice. Nov does Baptist Church Communion prevent Christian love and union. If it did, mixed com- munion would promote such love and union among those who practice it. That intercommunion at the Lord's Table has no tendency to promote Chris- tian love and union among difierent denomina- 132 CHURCH COMMUNION. tions, is evident from the fact that there is quite as much, if not more, love and union between the Baptists and others, notwithstanding our Church Communion, than there is between the advocates of mixed communion themselves; and we oftener hold Christian communion together. Though a few denominations, and but a few, have professed to practice mixed communion for about sixty years past, still there is not at this moment any more brotherly love and union between these sects than there is between them and the Baptists. Is there' BOW any more Christian love and union between the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presby- terians, Congregationalists, and Campbellites than there is between any or all of these sects and the Baptists ? Let indisputable facts answer this ques- tion. True, these opposing sects come together oc- casionally in a kind of mass meeting, and, for the time being, suspend hostilities, while they profess- edly show their love one for another in a, joint cele- bration of the Lord's Supper, and thus in fact unite in one common effort against Baptist immersion, under the odious name oi^^ close communion" — just as "Herod and Pilate were made friends" on a certain day, in their common opposition to Jesus — but the volcanic fires of discord and strife burst forth again as soon as the baptismal controversy subsides, and the warfare continues until another communion season arrives, when the same solemn farce is repeated. Accordingly, Dr. T. G. Jones asks : "Are the in- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 133 tereommutiing denominations more united than the non-intercommuning? Are Presbyterians and Methodists more affectionate toward each other than Presbyterians and Baptists? If so, is it brought about by free communion among them? We think not. The fact is that there is nothing in the nature of mere ceremonial com- munion peculiarly adapted to produce such union and cooperation. Practically, open communion is a nullity. It is a mere theory. Pedobaptists, while extolling it, rarely practice it." (See The Baptist, p. 159.) The same is true of the Camp- bellites and others. The practice has no tendency to unite Christians. Hence we see that mixed communion has no tendency whatever to harmonize the views and feelings of different denominations, and to bring them together in love and union. The causes of separation between these different sects lie fur- ther back. They originate in an honest difference of sentiment in regard to the doctrines, ordinances, and requirements of the G-ospel. Intercommunion can never remove these conscientious differences, nor has it any such tendency. They may now and then "strike a truce," and "vaunt their superior catholicity " by an occasional communion together, but still the Presbyterian remains a Presbyterian, the Methodist a Methodist, the Episcopalian an Episcopalian; and so of all the others. Indeed, so far from mixed communion having a tendency to promote Christian love and union, 134 CHUECH COMM0NION. it needlessly exposes our holy religion to the deris- iou and scorn of the world. By the very act of intercommunion, the various sects profess, not only their mutual love as Christians, but also their church fellowship, when in fact no such fel- lowship does nor can exist between them. To- day they surround the communion table and professedly show their love one for another; to- morrow they engage in angry controversy and bitter denunciation. The world, seeing these things, holds religion accountable for such glar- ing inconsistencies and heartless professions of love and union; and thus Christ is wounded in the house of his professed friends. Accordingly, Dr. Howell, speaking of the sev- eral Protestant denominations, justly remarks: " They all hold that manifest corruption in doc- trine and worship is a disqualification for the re- ception of the Lord's Supper. Let that fact be remembered, and then how shall we answer the following interrogatories? Do not Methodists habitually and bitterly charge both these upon the Presbyterians, on the score of their Calvinism ? Are the Presbyterians less ready and adroit in hurling back upon the Methodists the same impu- tations on the score of Arminianism? Each, too, has its own internal war. Old School, New School, Cumberland, Hopkinsian, and other Presbyte- rians ; and Episcopal, Px'otestant, Whitefield, and other Methodists strive on the arena of- ecclesi- astical combat. Do they all commune together? OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 135 If they do, is it a feast of union, and the love of each other, for the truth's sake, wliich each denies is held by the other? If so, what means this clangor of arms, this shaking of shields, and the noise of their fierce combats which I hear ? If they unite in love at the Lord's Table, why do they denounce each other in derision immediately after, in the conference, the session, and the pul- pit ? " Surely, if such tokens of brotherly love as these fail to unite the Christian world, then it will require something more than mixed com- munion to eft'ect it! Hence it is manifest that Church Communion, as practiced by the Baptists, neither tends to divide God's people, nor to pre- vent Christian love and union on Christian prin- ciples. 7th Objection: "Baptist Church Communion is exclusive, illiberal, and selfish." These and many similar charges are constantly being urged against our practice, not only by the ignorant and irresponsible, but also by such men as Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia, a Presbyterian writer of distinction. In his recent treatise on « EXCLUSIVISM," directed chiefly against the Baptists, Dr. Barnes first classes us with "Roman Catholics" on the score of " exclusiveness " (p. 3), and then prefers specific charges against us, among which are the following : (1.) He charges the Baptists with " deliberately, and on principle, arrogating to themselves whatever there is of sanc- tity and influence, in being in possession of a true 13& CHURCH COMMUNION. ministry and valid sacraments" (p. 14). (2.) With excluding " all others from a public recognition as having any claim to the title of Christians," merely " on the ground of an external rite (p. 64). (3.) With classing " all others hut themselves, so far as their act can go, and so far as they can have any influence, with aliens and apostates, Saracens and skeptics, Brahminists and Buddhists — shut out from any covenanted mercy, and any promise of heaven," simply "by rebaptizing all who enter their com- munion," and " by excluding from their communion all who have not been subjected to the rite of im- mersion " (p. 66) ; and (4.) As if to concentrate all these villainies into one, he charges the Bap- tists with uniting with the Church of Rome " in one of its most offensive features — ^in claiming to be the only true church, and in denying to every other church all claim to be regarded as a part of the re- deemed body of Christ." (See JExclusivism, p. 21.) In conclusion. Dr. Barnes says : " We claim and demand of the Baptists, that they shall not merely recognize the ministry of other denominations, but their memhership also; that while, if they prefer it, they may continue the practice of immersion in baptism as a part of their Christian liberty, they shall concede the same liberty to others, (t. e., to practice adult and infant sprinkling or pouring for baptism ;) and while they expect that their acts of baptism shall be recognized by others as valid, they shall not offer an affront to the Christian world by rebaptizing all who enter their commun- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 187 ion, or by excluding from their communion all who have not been subjected to the rite of immersion. And we claim and demand of the Baptist churches that they shall recognize the members of other churches as members of the Church of Christ. We do not ask this as a boon, we claim it as a right." (See Barnes on Exclusivism, pp. 66 and 74.) These are grave charges and high claims and demands. Are these charges true, and should these claims and demands be met by the Baptists? We must emphatically deny all these charges, and most positively refuse compliance with any of these claims and demands. We deny that our practice of Church Communion is justly liable to any such charges ; and we also deny that Mixed Commun- ionists have a right to make any such claims and demands upon us. But as Albert Barnes is a prominent minister of his denomination, and as he but utters the charges of all Mixed Commun- ionists against our practice, and urges the claims and demands which all make upon us, we will briefly notice such as bear on the" subject under consideration : (1.) Then the Baptists are here charged with ^^deliberately, and on principle, arrogating to them- selves whatever there is of sanctity and influence in being in possession of a true ministry and of valid sacraments." (See Barnes on Exclusivism, p. 14.) This is bold and strong language. To " arro- gate " is " to make undue claims, from vanity or 138 CHURCH OOMMTJNION. ^ false pretensions to riglit or merit; as the Pope arrogated dominion over kings." ( Webster^ Arro- gance is a species of "moral usurpation ; a com- pound of folly and insolence." {Crabh.) Now, are Baptists chargeable with such arrogance when they claim the sanctity and influence of a true min- istry? Do not Mixed Communionists, including Dr. Barnes, admit that ours is a true ministry? Except the Episcopalians, who require Episcopal ordination, none will dispute this fact; and even Episcopalians admit the piety, the call, and the baptism of our ministry; they only deny the va- lidity of our ordination. And the same is true, to the fullest extent, of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper as administered by Baptists. As has been shown, all denominations practically admit the validity of our baptism, and none object to our communion, except as to its restriction. Baptists have an undisputed baptism and commun- ion. The charge of "arrogance," then, can be pre- ferred against us only on the supposition that we set up an exclusive claim to a true ministry and valid sacraments. Do we urge such a claim, in the sense here charged against us? That we do not, in rela- tion to the ministry, all must admit who under- stand our views. We deny that preaching is an official act. Our licentiates as truly preach the Gos- pel as our ordained ministers; and we maintain that a call to preach lies back of ordinances and ordination, and imposes the duty upon every man OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 139 who is divinely called, independent of ordination. Hence we encourage all in our churches to preach the Grospel, who give satisfactory evidence of per- sonal piety and a divine call to the work, previous to ordination. !N"or is there any thing in our views to prevent us from encouraging all such men of other denominations to preach the truth, though we may regard them in error on some points of faith and practice; and in doing this we by no means indorse their errors. There is no compro- mise of principle, or inconsistency, therefore, in our recognizing, as ministers of Christ, so far as preaching is concerned, those whom we can not receive as communicants at the Lord's Table ; over whom we have no disciplinary control, and whom we believe to be destitute of some of the essen- tial qualifications for communion. But, while preaching is not an official act, the administration of the sacraments is such; and hence we maintain that no man, however pious and gifted he may be, has a scriptural right to administer baptism to others who has not only been baptized on a profession of his faith, but also ordained by the authority of a Gospel church. The ordinances were originally committed to the churches (see 1 Cor. 11 : 2), and the authority to administer them can be derived only from the churches, through regular ordination by a pres- bytery. This is unquestionably Gospel order; nor does the ISew Testament furnish either precept or example to the contrary. And in this view 140 CHURCH COMMUNION. we are sustained by all Pedobaptists. The Pres- byterians, to whom Dr. Barnes belongs, may speak for all on this point : " There be only two sacra- ments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, baptism and the supper of the Lord ; neither of which may he dispensed by any but by a min- ister of the word, lawfully ordained." (See Confes- sion of Faith, chap. 27, sec. 4.) In this sense, then, and in no other, do we claim " whatever there is of sanctity and influence in being in possession of a true ministiy," for none others have received such ordination by the authority of a Gospel church. And this is the reason why the Baptists not only baptize, but also ordain, all those ministers who come from other denominations, before they allow them to administer the ordinances. If we recog- nize the baptism of others as valid, we are bound to recognize their ordination as valid also ; and the very fact that no Baptist church will receive their ordination, proves that we ought not to re- ceive their baptisms. Hence, while we can and do admit the right of all sxiitable men to preach the Gospel, though they may be irregular as to baptism and ordina- tion, still we do not, arid can not, recognize the official right of any to administer the ordinances, except our own ordained ministers; nor can we consistently and scripturally receive even the im- mersions of others as valid baptism, or welcome them to the Lord's Table. True, it is the duty of every man who is called to preach to be bap- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 141 tized on a profession of his faith, but the neglect of one duty can never release him from the obli- gation to exercise his gifts; and hence it is per- fectly consistent in Baptists to encourage all such men to preach who hold truth enough to save souls, while they debar them from their com- munion and reject their baptisms. It is plain, therefore, that laying "an exclusive claim to the possession of a true ministry is one thing, and not inviting the ministers of other denominations to leave their own communion table and partake at ours is quite another thing." (See Dr. Smith's Letter to Albert Barnes in answer to Exclusivism, page 21.) But do we lay exclusive claim to the possession of valid sacraments? In one sense we do, but in another we do not. The Baptists, as a body, do now, and always have claimed, that immersion, as held and practiced by them, is the only scriptural baptism; that of all others being radically defect- ive in one or more of the essentials to valid bap- tism ; and, as a ^positive ordinance, baptism- must be scriptural, not only in its action, but also in its administrator, design, and subjects, or it is not valid baptism. The fact that some modern Bap- tist churches may occasionally receive " alie7i im- mersions" as baptism only evinces their own in- consistency ; not so did the Apostles and ancient Anabaptists, as the New Testament and ecclesi- astical history clearly prove. "When Paul found " certain disciples " at Ephesus, whose baptism 142 CHTIBCH COMMUNION. was defective in its admiuistrator and design, he instructed ttem more perfectly and then baptized them on a profession of their faith, just as if they had not been immersed (Acts 19 : 1-7) ; and the pages of church history are stained with the blood of martyred Baptists, whose only crime was, that they refused to recognize the validity of Pedobaptist immersion, especially that of in- fants. No considerations of expediency could in- duce those faithful and true witnesses of Christ to receive such unscriptural baptisms. They bap- tized all those who came into their churches from other denominations. Hence they were reproach- fully styled Anabaptists; a name which they re- pudiated.* Are we told that this theory involves "an un- broken sitccession of authorized administrators of bap- tism from the Apostles till now?" With the New Testament in our hands, we boldly claim such a succession, whether we can trace it through the labyrinths of uninspired history or not. "We have the infallible promise of the Savior that "the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church," built as is each of all his true churches by faith upon him- self — the foundation-stone laid in Zion (see Matt. * See Mosheim's Church History, vol. 2, chap. 5, sec. 2, p. 296. See my "MISSILES OP TEDTH," No. 2, on "A ScRiPTOBAi, Administrator of Baptism," by Geo. S. Blanoh- ard & Co. Price 25 centa single copy, postpaid, or five copies for $1.00. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 143 16: 16-18; 1 Pet. 2: 4-6); and we believe that promise, though we might not be able, to trace its fulfillment. Then we have the special provi- dence of that God who has promised never to leave nor forsake his people. And we claim that history, recorded by our opponents, links the Baptists of to-day with the Baptists of apostolic times. It devolves upon those who deny this claim to disprove it ; the burden of proof is upon them, and not upon the Baptists. But we are told that "Koger "Williams, the reputed founder of American Baptists, was im- mersed by Ezekiel Holliman, an unauthorized lay- man, and thus the chain of our succession was broken." What if Eoger "Williams was baptized by an unauthorized man ? Does that disprove the fact that baptism, to be valid, must be adminis- tered by an authorized administrator? By no means. It only proves that the great champion of civil and religious liberty was a Baptist, but destitute of scriptural and valid baptism. "We deny, however, that any American Baptist living owes his baptism to Eoger "Williams, or to any one baptized by him. What are the facts of his- tory on this point ? Koger Williams was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman, March, 1639, and then he baptized Holliman and ten other persons. These formed a church or society, of which Williams be- came the pastor. In July following, four months after his baptism, Williams left the church, and never returned to it — being in doubt as to the 144 .CHUKCH COMMUNION. validity of his baptism. The church thus formed "came to nothing," or dissolved soon after he left it. About ten years after this, another church was formed, under Mr. Thomas Olney as its pas- tor, the only minister ever baptized by Williams. Olney continued to serve the church until his death, in 1682, something over thirty years. The church gradually declined, and became extinct about the year 1718. 'So ministers are known to have gone out from Olney's church. Olney's baptism, therefore, whether valid or invalid, was not propagated. No other Baptist minister re- ceived his baptism from Eoger Williams, or from any one whose baptism descended from his. The Baptist churches of America, then, did not, and could not, have descended from Eoger Williams, or from the ephemeral society formed by him. Their true descent is from the Baptist churches of Piedmont and Wales, extending back to the days of the Apostles. The slanderous charge, therefore, so often re- peated by Mixed Communionists, that American Baptists originated with Roger Williams, and that his baptism being defective, ours must also be de- fective, is refuted by the established facts tbat Williams never baptized any one who became a minister, save Thomas Olney; and that Olney bap- tized 710 one who baptized others; and consequently their irregular baptisms perished with them and the few private persons whom they baptized. With all due respect to that great and good OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. ' 145 man, we acknowledge no ecclesiastical depend- ence upon him or any other man; we claim to be " built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the coener- stonb" (Eph. 2: 20), and to keep " the ordinances'' as they were first delivered to the churches. And though it may be difficult to trace back the stream of our ecclesiastical descent through the "depths of antiquity," still we maintain that it did exist, and that it finds its source in Christ and his Apostles. But this exclusive claim to valid baptism by no means requires that we should be able to trace our apostolic succession back through the con- flicting and erring records of ecclesiastical history, any more than we are required to trace our gen- ealogy back to Adam in order to prove that we are his true descendants. We claim to be able to prove from the New Testament that, in every essential particular, the apostolic churches and Baptist churches are identical; and, in the truth- ful language of Dr. T. G. Jones, president of Rich- mond College, Va., "We respectfully submit, that in view of this identity, the latter have a right to claim that they are the true represent- atives and proper successors of the former, without being under any real necessity of tracing a chain of succession, and showing that no single link is wanting in that chain. Many a link in the deep darkness of the long and dreary past, amid its revolutions and convulsions, may have been vis- 13 146 CHURCH COMMUNION. ible to the eye of God, nay, to the eyes of men then living, yet invisible to ours. " For many centuries we have no connected and complete history of certain nations of marked peculiarities. "Who doubts their continued exist- ence throughout every hiatus in their history? For many centuries there was no written history of the human race. Yet who doubts the exist- ence of the race ? It existed as really and cer- tainly during all the unrecorded centuries as during the historic ages. Its existence was in no manner dependent either upon the knowledge or the ignorance of men unborn. The first man, Adam, stood at one end of the line; another man, just like him, stood at the other. Is it diffi- cult to believe, however wide and dark the inter- val which separated them, that the latter was the true and proper successor of the former ? So the churches of the apostolic age stand at one end of the ecclesiastical line ; the Baptists, just like them, stand at the other. Why doubt that the line has been continuous — though we may, in the dark- ness, or because of our own defective vision, be unable to see its whole extent — and that those who stand at this end, are the true descendants and successors of those who stand at that ? " (See The Baptists, pp. 37, 38.) Or, in the bold and strong language of Dr. J. WnBATON Smith to Albert Barnes, we say, that " Whatever is found in the New Testament is as worthy as if you traced it there. It is only a OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 147 doubtful practice whose thread must be traced thus carefully through the labyrinth of history with painful uncertainty, lest you reach its end while yet a century or two from Christ. Why, sir, if between us and the apostolic age there yawned a fathomless abyss, into whose silent dark- ness intervening history had fallen, with a Bap- tist church on this side, and a iN"ew Testament on the other, we should boldly bridge the gulf and look for the record of our birth among the hills of Galilee. But our history is not thus lost. That work is now in progress which will link the Baptists of to-day with the Baptists of Jerusa- lem." {Letter in answer to Exdusivism, pp. 37, 38.) Although the Baptists " own no subjection, and acknowledge no dependence either on contem- porary churches of their own country, or upon the churches of other lands or other times, ex- cept as those churches have held the same truth, clung to the same Head, and have exhibited the same spirit," but look directly and for themselves to the Savior, who pledged his presence to the end of the world, where two or three are gath- ered together in his name, still they claim a real succession or continuity of faith and practice from the Apostles ; and this claim based upon the infal- lible record of God's word, is acknowledged and sustained by ecclesiastical history as written by their opponents, only a specimen of which can be admitted here. For example — Dr. Mosheim (Lutheran), speaking of the Ana- 148 CHURCH COMMUNION. baptists, says : " The origin of that sect, which acquired the denomination of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites from the famous man to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hidden in the depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained. This uncertainty will not appear surprising when it is considered that this sect started up suddenly in several countries at the same point of time, iinder leaders of difl'erent talents and different intentions, and at the very period when the first contests of the reformers with the Roman pontiffs drew the attention of the world, and employed the pens of the learned in such a manner as to render all other objects and incidents almost matters of indifference. The modern Mennonites (or Anabaptists) not only con- sider themselves as the descendants of the Wal- denses, who were so grievously oppressed and persecuted by the despotic heads of the Romish Church, but pretend, moreover, to be the purest offspring of these respectable sufferers, being equally averse to all principles of rebellion on the one hand, and all suggestions of fanaticism on the other. "It may be observed," continues Mosheim, "that the Mennonites (or Anabaptists) are not en- tirely in an error when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and other OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 149 ancient sects who are usually considered as wit- nesses of the truth in times of general darkness and superstition. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, ma.ny persons who adhered tenaciousljr to the following doctrine, which the "Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites had maintained, viz. : ' That the kingdom of Christ, or the visible church which he established on earth, was an assembly of true and real saints,' etc. This maxim is the true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the religious doctrine and discipline of the Mennonites; and it is most certain that the greatest part of these pe- cularities were approved by many of those who, before the dawn of the Heformation, entertained the notion already mentioned relating to the visible Church of Christ." (See Mosheim's Church Hist., vol. 2, chap. 3, sees. 1 and 2, pp. 127, 128.) "To the great "Waldensian fraternity,'" says Dr. T. Gr. Jones, "belonged the so-called Ger- man Anabaptists and the Mennonites or Dutch Baptists, to whose high antiquity and apostolic ori- gin, testimony of the greatest weight by their opponents is borne. Cardinal Hosius, president of the Council of Trent, who, as a Papist, cer- tainly can not be charged with being too favor- able to them, affirmed that the Baptists, or Anabaptists, as they were then called, had existed for twelve hundred years. Zuinglius, a little ear- 150 CHUKCH COMMUNION. lier, says for thirteen hundred years — which would carry the Baptists up to the third century, when immersion was universally practiced as baptism, save, perhaps, in a few cases of extreme illness," . etc. And Dk. Jones adds : " The vsTiter of the article on the Baptists, in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, says : ' It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of Anabaptists. It is but justice to acknowledge that they reject the latter appellation with dis- dain, and maintain that, as none of the forms adopted by other churches are consonant to Scripture, the baptism of those churches is in reality no baptism. Hence, in their opinion, they do not re-baptize. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle fkom the time of Tek- TULLiAN (A. D. 160-245) to the present day.' " (See The Baptists, pp. 86-88.) ITot only Mosheim, but Limboech, ISTeander, and a host of other Pedobaptist historians bear unwilling testimony to the apostolic origin and suc- cession of the Baptists. SuflB.ce it to say, that within the present century, the king of Holland appointed his chaplain. Dr. J. J. Dermont, and Dr. IJpeig, Professor of Theology in the Uni- versity of Groningen, both of the Dutch Reformed Church, to draw up a permanent history of the Dutch Baptists. In the authentic volume which they prepared and published at Breda, in OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 151 181-9, they arrive at the following deliberate con- elusion : "We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennouites, were the original Waldenses, and who long in the history of the church, re- ceived the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the apos- tles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and interjial economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth cen- tury, was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics that their communion is the most an- cient." (See Hist. Neth. Bef Ch., as quoted in S. Bap. Rev., of April, 1859.) Such is but a specimen of Pedobaptist testimony, all combining to prove that the Baptists are the true representatives and real successors of the Apos- tles; and as such, they "deliberately, and on prin- ciple" claim of right "whatever there is of sanc- tity and influence, in being in possession of a true ministry and of valid sacraments." In this sense, then, we do claim to be in possession of the only scriptural and valid baptism. But in another and important sense we do not claim the exclusive '^possession" and use of "valid sacraments." To 152 CHURCH COMMUNION. all our brethren of other denominations we affec- tionately say, abandon your errors on this subject, and heartily receive and practice the " one baptism," on a profession of the "07ie faith" in the "one Lord " (Eph. 4 : 5), and the baptismal controversy will end forever. We claim no monopoly ; neither sanctity nor sacraments belong exclusively to us ; we only claim " whatever there is of sanctity and influence in being in possession of a true ministry and of valid sacraments." And, while we deny the validity even of Campbellite and Pedobaptist immersions, for the reasons already given, still we say to every true believer among them, come and welcome, and receive a baptism which all practi- cally admit to be both scriptural and valid; and thus at once remove the great barrier to intercom- munion at the Lord's Table. Where, then, is the " arrogance " of our claims, or the " exclusi veness " of our practice ? And what becomes of the bold as- sertions of Albert Barnes, that " as a denomination they (the Baptists) are but of yesterday?" And he adds : " We go but a little way back in history till we come to a point when, if their theory is correct, there was no true church on earth. There is as little in their origin to be proud of as there is in the origin of any organization, civil or ecclesias- tical, that has from a humble beginning worked its way into respectability." (See Exclusivism, p. 17.) Now, if such men as Albert Barnes display such a reckless disregard of the facts of histoiy, what may we expect from the misguided and prejudiced OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 153 multitudes who look to them for instruction ? For the present, we must hand Mr. Barnes over to his more candid Pedobaptist brethren, who reluc- tantly admit that " the Baptists mat be consid- ered AS the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel in all ages." (See Hist. Neth. Ref. Ch. as above.) And in the language of the late Dr. Wayland, we say : " Our whole history is in the highest degree honorable to us as a Chris- tian sect. If any sect ' has occasion to glory, we more.' If any man among us does not feel a manly pride in the sentiments which have distinguished us, and in the manner in which we have main- tained them, there must exist something peculiar, either in his head or his heart." (See JPrinciples and Practices of Baptists, l^ote 21, pp. 121, 122.) (2.) "We are charged with excluding "all others from a public recognition as having any claim to the title of Christians," merely "on the ground of an external rite." (See Barnes on Exclusivism, p. 64.) This charge confounds Christian fellowship and church fellowship, as is usual with the advocates of mixed communion. As we have shown, the two things are entirely distinct, and the one may and often does exist in the absence of the other. This charge, therefore, is simply /afee, and is based upon an error of Dr. Barnes, held in common with all Mixed Communionists. We have Chris- tian fellowship for all Christians so far as we know 154 CHURCH COMMUNION. them, independent of baptism and chureli con- nections, just as we do for our own candidates for baptism ; and we publicly recognize their " claim to the title of Christians," by all those acts and exercises which pertain to the "communion of saints" as such. ITone are more liberal and un- restricted in Christian communion than the Bap- tists. But we can have church fellowship for- those only with whom we sustain visible church relations, and, as no such relations exist between us and other denominations, we can not consist- ently and scripturally extend to them the ap- pointed tokens of church fellowship. In a word, we hold spiritual communion with all those with whom we are spiritually united by faith in Christ, and ceremonial communion with those only with whom we ceremonially agree ; and this is both rea- sonable and scriptural. Hence it is evident that our practice of Church Communion does not deny others " any claim to the title of Christians," but merely denies them the tokens of visible church fellowship, which in fact does not and can not ex- ist between Baptists and others. (3.) The Baptists are charged with classing " aU others but themselves, so far as their act can go, and so far as they can have any influence, vnth aliens and apostates, Saracens and skeptics, Brahminists and Buddhists — shut out from any covenanted mer- cy, and any promise of heaven," simply " by re- baptizing all who enter their communion," and "by excluding from their communion all who have OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 155 not been subjected to the rite of immersion." (See Barnes on Exdusioism, p. 66.) Candor' compels us to say that there is not one word of truth iu this charge. And did we not know something of the strength of early educa- tion, the inveteracy of prejudice, the pride of po- sition, and the almost invincible power of social and ecclesiastical connections, it would seem to us utterly unaccountable "that a minister of the re- puted intelligence and piety of Albert Barnes should have deliberately written such a charge against the Baptists in this age. Did he not know that we acknowledge " all others" who give satisfactory evidence of conversion, as our breth- ren in Christ, entitled to "covenant mercy" and the " promise of heaven" equally with ourselves, independent of external ordinances and visible church relations? Did he uoiknow that the Bap- tists never immerse any person who does not pro- fess a previous change of heart and remission of sins through faith in Christ; and that "by re-bap- tizing all who enter their communion" or fellow- ship they regard them as pious but unbaptizedf Did he not know that Baptists practice Church Communion on the same principles upon which others practice mixed communion ; and that " by excluding from their communion all who have not been subjected to the rite of immersion," they do not unchristianize, but merely unbaptize them by that act ? And did he not know that by making this charge against the Baptists he was misrepre- 156 CHURCH COMMUNION. senting and slandering a denomination of Chris- tians, which he is forced to acknowledge, " has reached a respectable, an honorable, and an in- fluential position in the world, and is to be among the permanent arrangements for securing the spread of the Gospel on earth ? " (See Barnes on Exelusivism, p. 17.) N"ow if Albert Barnes knew not these facts when he wrote this charge, he was without excuse, for he might have known them; but if he did know them, then he is justly chargeable with misrepresenting and slandering " a respectable, an honorable, and an influential" de- nomination of acknowledged Christians. (4.) The Baptists are charged with uniting with the Roman Catholic Church "in one of its most offensive features — in claiming to be the only true church, and in denying to every other church all claim to be regarded as a part of the redeemed body of Christ." (See Barnes on Exelusivism, p. This charge is, in fact, the embodiment of all the other charges alleged against us by Dr. Barnes, and hence has been virtually answered, except as to our " claiming to be the only true church." It has been shown that our practice of believer's bap- tism and of Church Communion does not deny to any church the claim to be regarded as " a part of the redeemed body of Christ." Indeed, the Baptists maintain that all true believers constitute "a part of the redeemed body of Christ," and that none but believers are fit subjects for baptism. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 157 They also maintain tliat only baptized believers are qualified for membership in a visible church of Christ, and that none but regular members of such a church have a scriptural right to tlie Lord's Table. On this point all practically agree with the Baptists. The Lord's Supper being a church ordinance, and valid baptism being essential to visible church membership, as all admit, our practice of Church Communion follows as a neces- sary consequence. It is on this very ground that Mixed Communionists debar their own candidates for baptism from the Lord's Table, though they regard them as "a part of the redeemed body of Christ;" just as the Baptists do their candidates for baptism. Hence it is plain that, by our prac- tice of Church Communion, we simply deny " to every other church all claim to be regarded as" baptized, while we freely admit that the pious of all churches form " a part of the redeemed body of Christ." But we are charged with " claiming to be the only true Church." This charge is based upon the Pedobaptist idea of a "universal visible Church," with the several Protestant churches as its " branches." (See Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 25, sec. 2.) This may be true of those Prot- estant denominations which either directly or in- directly came out of the Church of Kome ; such as the Church of England, and the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, etc., of the United 158 CHUECH COMMUNION. States. But the New Testameut knows nothing of a " universal visible church " with its various " branches." As we have shown, the word church, in its scriptural use, has but two significations, a figurative and a literal. It is used, (1.) Figura- tively to denote the spiritual body or Church of Christ, embracing all the saved in heaven and on earth, and hence is invisible, as in Eph. 5 : 25-27, and Heb. 12 : 23 ; and (2.) It is used literally to denote particular visible congregations of baptized believers, each separate and independent, holding the doctrines and observing the ordinances of the Grospel, and worshiping together statedly in one place, with its pastor and deacons as its only scriptural officers ; as for example, the Church at Fhilippi (chap. 1 : 1), and the churches of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8 : 1.) All true believers of all denomina- tions and of no denomination belong to this spiritual body or Church of Christ, and are fit subjects for baptism and visible church member- ship. But none are, or can be, members of a vis- ible church of Christ without immersion in water, into the name of the Trinity, on a personal pro- fession of faith, with a proper design, by a scrip- tural administrator, and none have such baptism but the Baptists. In this sense, then, and in no other, do we claim to be the only true churches of Jesus Christ on earth, while we cheerfully admit that all the pious of other denominations are members of the spiritual body or church of Christ, and are religious societies, but not Gospel churches, OBJECTIONS AKSWBEBD. 159 Hence, while we can and do, so far as they will permit, hold unrestricted Christian communion with the pious of all denominations, just as we do with our own candidates for baptism, we do not and can not hold Church .Communion at the Lord's Table with any, except those with whom we are united in church relations; it would he false in symbol to do so. l^or must the peculiarity of our views of the nature and constitution of a Gospel church be overlooked in considering the question of Church Communion. We have never acknowledged a visible and organized church unioersal. We have always contended that the people of God are, so far as they sustain outward church relations, com- prised in independent churches, rather than in a confederated church. There are Baptist churches, and there is the Baptist denomination, but there is no such thing as the Baptist Church, embracing all our churches. In the language of a recent writer, we say : " It is not a confederation of Bap- tist churches, nor a continued succession of Baptist churches, that is the Baptist Church, but every local, independent body of baptized believers, holding the doctrines of the Gospel, and having the ordinances of the Gospel, that now exists, or has at any time or in any place existed, is and was the Baptist Church in the only sense in which there can be any such thing as the Baptist Church." (See Inq. into Waldensian Origin of Butch Baptists, in So. Bap. Rev. for April, 1857.) And, in the 160 CHURCH COMMUNION. language of De. Ripley, we add : "A cliurch that came into existence yesterday, in strict conform- ity to the New Testament principles of member- ship, far away from any long-existing church or company of churches, and therefore unable to trace an outward lineal descent, is a true church of Christ — ^for Christianity is not a ' religion of circumstances, but of principles ; while a church so called, not standing on the apostolic principles of faith and practice, and yet able to look back through a long line up to time immemorial, may have never belonged to that body of which Christ is the Head." (See Intro, to CroweWs Gh. Manual, p. 4.) Hence we see that the perfect independency of Baptist churches entirely frees us from the charge of unchurching, much less of unchristian- izing other churches by our practice of Church Communion, whatever may be our views of those churches. Indeed, we deny the right of mem- bers of one Baptist church to communion in an- other Baptist church as a right; they can only partake by invitation. Nor is one Baptist church bound to invite to its communion the members of other Baptist churches; and yet we neither unchristianize nor unchurch each other. It is manifest, therefore, that the Baptists can not, and ought not, to yield to the high claims and demands of modern Mixed Communionists, as set up by Albert Barnes, who says : " We claim and demand of the Baptists that they shall not merely recognize the ministry of other denominations, but OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 161 their membership also; that while, if they prefer it, they may continue the practice of immersion in baptism as a part of their Christian liberty, they shall concede the same liberty to others, {i. e., to substitute adult and infant sprinkling and pouring for believer's immersion ;) and while they expect that their acts of baptism shall be recognized by others as valid, they shall not offer an affront to the Christian world by rebaptizing all who enter their communion, or by excluding from their com- munion all who have not been subjected to the rite of immersion And — we claim and de- mand of the Baptist churches that they shall rec- ognize the members of other churches as members of the Church of Christ. We do not ask this as 'a boon ; we claim it as a right." (See Barnes on Ex- clusivism, pp. 66 and 74.) ISTow, our forefathers of ~Sew England and Old Virginia were accustomed to such high claims and demands as these, but, thanks to a kind Providence, circumstances have changed. Yet this is the same spirit which led the Puritan fathers to banish Poger Williams, and to fine, imprison, and whip other Baptists for conscience' sake; and if Dr. Barnes had the power, the spirit which prompted him to prefer such charges and to make such claims and de- mands of the Baptists, would, doubtless, prompt Lim to treat us now as the Puritans treated our forefathers. But the principles of civil and re- ligious liberty, for which the Baptists contended and suffered then, have gloriously triumphed ; 162 CHUECH COMMUNION. and we now enjoy the inalienable right to wor- ship Grod according to the dictates of our own consciences, and, like our persecuted ancestors, we shall obey God rather than men, though it may subject us to similar persecutions. Then Pedobaptists had the power, and, true to their principles, they not only excluded us from their communion tables as heretics, but also closed our meeting-houses, fined our church members, and imprisoned and whipped our min- isters. But now, since our denomination, in the language of Albekt Barnes, " has reached a re- spectable, an honorable, and an influential posi- tion in the world" (see JExclusivism, p. 17), they boldly "claim and demand, as a right," that the Baptists shall not only recognize their ministry, but also indorse their Pedobaptism, and recognize their human organizations as Gospel churches, by admitting the validity of their baptism and receiv- ing them to the Lord's Table. This, as consci- entious Baptists, we can never do. While we cheerfully- admit the piety and intelligence of their ministry and membership generally, and recognize them as brethren in Christ by all those Christian acts and exercises which belong to " the communion of saints," as such, still we do not, and can not, recognize the baptism and ordina- tion of their ministers or the qualifications of their members for the Lord's Supper by receiving them to our communion. We are not only charged with being "ex- OBJECTIONS ANS-WERED. 163 elusive," but also "illiberal" in our practice of Church Communion. Now we boldly deny this charge, and claim to be even more liberal in our practice than Mixed Communionists themselves. We have seen that the Baptists and others agree in theory as to the qualifications for the Lord's Supper. They all maintain that the new birth, valid baptism, and regular church membership, are indispensable prerequisites to communion at the Lord's Table. This no honest and intelligent Pe- dobaptist or Campbellite will deny. Accordingly, they all withhold the communion from their own candidates for baptism, though they regard them converted ; and Pedobaptists debar their infant w,embers from their communion tables, though they regard them baptized; while the Baptists adrriit all their own members to the Lord's Table. In this we are more liberal than Mixed Com- munionists themselves. The real issue, however, between the Baptists and others respects baptism rather than the Lord's Supper. This, as we have seen, many candid Mixed Communionists admit. In the language of Dk. Hibbakd, "The only question, then, that here divides us, is : ' What is essential to valid bap- tism.'" (See Hibbard on -Bap., part. 2, chap. 11, p. 174.) And even if it could be shown that the Baptists are in error upon the subject of baptism, they would not be chargeable with illiberality in their practice of Church Communion. In com- mon with all others, we believe that none but the 164 CHURCH COMMUNION. baptized are entitled to communioii at the Lord's Table. And we believe that none are baptized, except such as have been immersed in water into the name of the Trinity, upon a personal profession of faith, with a proper design, by a scriptural admin- istrator. Hence we can not, without gross incon- sistency, as well as moral guilt, invite to the Lord's Table any, however exemplary and pious, who have not been thus immersed. Were we to do so, we would be unworthy of communion in any church, and we do not see how Mixed Com- munionists could consistently receive us to their communion tables. But it has been shown that all denominations can and do practically admit the validity of our baptism, and hence could adopt it without any sacrifice of conscience, and with no more incon- venience than the Baptists esteem it a delightful privilege to encounter; while we can not adopt their baptisms without disobeying Christ and vio- lating our consciences. It is manifestly illiberal, therefore, not to say unjust and unkind, in others even to ask or invite, much more to "claim and demand," intercommunion with the Baptists. ITow, if Mixed Communionists verily believe, as they say, that we are actuated by an "exclu- sive," "illiberal," and "selfish" spirit in our prac- tice of Church Communion, it is certainly very inconsistent in them either to ask the privilege of communing with us at the Lord's Table, with such a spirit, or to invite us to partake with them. OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED. 165 But if they regard us honest and sincere in our faith and practice, then it is very illiberal and un- kind in them to ask us to disobey Jesus Christ and to violate our own consciences merely to gratify them. This is admitted by some of their ablest and best men. For example, the late Dr. David Monfoet, while pastor of the First Pres- byterian Church in Franklin, Indiana, in 1839, published a series of able " Letters "* on the sub- ject of "Intercommunion," in the "Presbyterian Protestant and Herald," at Bardstown, Kentucky, edited by Dr. IST. L. Rice. In his fourth letter, Dr. Monfort gives the " reasons " why he was op- posed to giving a free invitation to members of other churches, and especially to the Baptists. The following are his reasons, viz. : " 1st. They do not belong to the fellowship (i. e., of the Presbyterian Church), and therefore they can not consistently receive the tokens of it. 2d. They profess to be conscientious in refusing the fellowship, and it is uncharitable and unkind to ask them to violate their consciences. 3d. Or were I uncharitable enough, as some are, to attrib- ute their refusal to " bigotry," instead of con- science, I should deem them unfit, with such temper, to commune. Baptists say that we are unbaptized, and therefore they can not receive our (church) fellowship nor admit us to theirs. I conceive it *Six of these letters were kindly furnished me by Ret. Wm. M. Pratt, D. D., who was laboring in Indiana when they were published. 166 CHURCH COMMUNION. therefore unkind to invite them, or to ask the privilege of them. 4th. To give an invitation, faulty in all these particulars, seems to me but to take occasion to vaunt our superior catholicity to the prejudice of these honest Christians; and such churches complain of such treatment on our part as unkind. Let an impartial sense oi justice de- cide how correctly." "We most heartily concur with Dr. Monfort in the above statements, and so must every unprej- udiced person who understands the real ground of our practice. It is obviously illiberal, as well as inconsistent and unkind, in others either to in- vite or to ask the privilege of intercommunion with Baptists. So far, then, from such heartless invitations and requests being evidences of " supe- rior catholicity," they are real evidences of the illiberality, inconsistency, and unkindness of those who make them, whether so intended or not; and every Baptist should so regard and treat them. It is any thing else than Christian kind- ness and liberality in Mixed Communionists to claim and demand of the Baptists, that they shall sacrifice their conscientious principles and indorse what they believed to be error, by intercommun- ion with them at the Lord's Table. And instead of yielding to such illiberal and unjust claims and demands, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and keep the ordinances as they were^ first delivered to the churches by Christ and his Apostles. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 167 The Baptists are not only charged with being " exclusive" and " illiberal," but also " selfish" in their practice of Church Communion. Selfishness is "the exclusive regard of a person to his own interest or happiness." {Webster.) Selfishness is wrong, whether found in an individual or in a society of individuals. But we deny that there is any thing selfish in our practice of Church Communion. On the contrary, it is the most self- denying and self-sacrificing part of our practice; and nothing but a consciousness of right and fidelity to Christ and his truth could sustain us under the accumulated misrepresentations and slanders which it brings upon us. It loses us thousands of valuable additions to our churches every year, and occasions multitudes of persons holding Baptist sentiments as far as they under- stand them, to unite with mixed communion churches and to give their influence and support to grave errors which they do not and can not be- lieve and practice. Yet neccessity is laid upon us, and woe is unto us if we sacrifice truth to expe- diency, let it cost us what it may. This fact is verified in the history of those deluded Baptists who have tried the experiment of free com- munion both in England and this country. The number of such has grown " beautifully less," while strict communion Baptists have multiplied rapidly, notwithstanding their self-denying practice of Church Communion. These are facts which speak for themselves. 168 CHUECH COMMUNION. But while we deny that there is any thing selfish in our practice of communion, faithfulness com- pels us to charge our mixed communion brethren with selfishness in their practice. Do they not seek the interest and promotion of their own denominations with an exclusiveness unknown among the Baptists ? Do they not use every pos- sible means and put forth the utmost efforts to make proselytes and swell their numbers? Do they not boast of their " open communion," and cry out against Baptist " close communion" both pri- vately and publicly, for the sole purpose of excit- ing prejudice in the minds of young converts and others against the Baptists and in favor of them- selves ? And having excited such prejudice against us, do they not urge and welcome to their churches many persons whom they know to be Baptists in sentiment, and opposed to their peculiar doctrines — such as baptismal remission, infant baptism, and many others ? Do they, like the Baptists, rely upon fair dealing and God's Spirit and truth alone for success? Most assur- edly they do not. These facts are known to others, whether Mixed Communionists will ac- knowledge them or not. And can we believe that they really wish the Baptists to abandon their Church Communion? Or if they do, is it for the truth's sake, or to secure our indorsement of their errors ? Most unquestionably the latter. Facts force us to the conclusion that the os- tensible opposition to our practice of communion OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 169 is really against our practice of believer's immer- sion. Deprive our opponents of their vaunted open communion and their popular outcry against "Baptist dose communion" and you rob them of their chief weapons of defense, and, like Samson, they would be shorn of their strength. How else, indeed, could they counteract and rebut our unanswered and unanswerable arguments in fa- vor of "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism?" Hence it is that belligerent and opposing sects, the poles asunder in doctrine, suspend their mu- tual hostility for a time and unite together at an occasional communion season, professedly to show their love for each other, but really to oppose the Baptist doctrine of believer's immersion, un- der the guise of close communion. Such conduct is unworthy of political partisans, much more of professed Christians. Hence we see that Mixed Communionists are justly chargeable with the very selfishness which they allege against the Baptists. 8th Objection: "All Christians will commune to- gether in heaven, and, therefore, all should commune together on earth." After what has been said, jt might be sufficient simply to ask the objectors why they do not commune with their own candidates for baptism, and with pious Quakers, since they acknowledge them to be Christians, and expect to commune with them in heaven? But as the above objec- tion is often urged by sincere Christians, we will answer it seriously, though briefly. 15 170 CHURCH COMMUNION. This objection confounds Christian communion and Church Communion, which are entirely dis- tinct, and differ essentially both as to their na- ture and design. Christian communion is spiritual intercourse between Christians as such. It is based upon similarity of moral character and substantial agreement in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and it necessarily exists wherever mutual confidence in Christian character exists, independ- ent of external ordinances and visible church relations; as, for instance, between a church and its candidates for baptism. As it is written: "ITe that loveth is bom of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him" (1 John 4: 7, 21). This mutual love or fellowship is implanted in the hearts of penitent believers by the Holy Spirit in the work of re- generation, and it finds its appropriate exercise in Christian conversation, social prayer and praise, and mutual desires and eftbrts to do good unto air men, especially unto the household of faith. In such spiritual communion the Baptists most heartily unite with all Christians both before and ft/l!er baptism; and ev«ry true Baptist can say with the pious psalmist, "/ am a companion of all them that fear God, and keep his commandments." And we joyfully hope that erelong we shall unite with "the general assembly and church of the first- born" in heaven, in all those acts of spiritual communion which belong to the heavenly state. But Church Communion consists, in part, in a OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 171 joint participation of the Lord's Supper by the members of the same particular church as such. It is based upon the positive appointment of Jesus Christ, and is expressive, not of the Chris- tian, but of the church fellowship subsisting be- tween communicants at the same Table. The Lord's Supper, therefore, is specific and tempo- rary in its nature and design, and when Christ shall come the second time, without sin unto sal- vation, then this sacred ordinance shall cease for- ever. In heaven there is no communion table, no bread and wine, and hence no sacramental communion there ; symbols, will no longer be nec- essary, for we shall see Jesus as he is and be like him. But Christian communion will be renewed in that blissful world, and shall become increas- ingly delightful through endless ages. In the language of the sacred poet : " There the saints of all ages in harmony meet, Their Savior and brethren transported to greet; While the anthems of pleasure unceasingly roll, And the smUe of the Lord is the feast of the soul." Accordingly, Pkof. Cuktis remarks : " We are willing to commune with all those on earth with whom we expect to commune in heaven, and pre- cisely in the same way, i. e., spiritually. We do not expect there to participate in the outward symbols of bread and wine. These were appointed to show forth the Lord's death only 'till he come.' All that can be said in regard to our practice is, that we decline to celebrate the sym- 172 CHURCH COMMUNION. bols of a particular Church Communion with those between whom and ourselves there is no such relation existing as the symbols indicate." (See Curtis on Communion, pp. 127, etc.) And the late Alexander Campbell, in answer- ing a ^'^ Catalogue of Queries" on "Open Com- munion," says : " Query 11th. * But do you not ex- pect to sit down in heaven with all Christians of all sects, and why not sit down at the same Table with them on earth ? ' Answer. It will be time enough to behave as they do in heaven when we meet there. ... I do expect to meet with some of 'all nations, tribes, and tongues' in the heavenly country; but while on earth, I must live and behave according to the order of things under which I am placed. If we are now to be governed by the manners and cus- toms in heaven, why was any other than the heavenly order of society instituted on earth? There will be neither bread, wine, nor water in heaven." (See Chrisfn Bap., vol. 6, pp. 184, 185.) Hence we see that this objection confounds Christian and Church Communion, and is based upon a false assumption. Many other objections might be noticed, but these are the most plausible and popular, and virtually embrace all others. We will pass on, then, to our next topic. EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 173 CHAPTER IV. EVILS OP MIXED COMMUNION EXPOSED. 1. Mixed communion is imscripiural, and, as such, not binding upon the churches. 2. It perverts the design of the Lord's Sjipper, and hence invalidates the ordinance. 3. It tends to destroy the effect of church discipline, and compels a church to commune with its own excluded members. 4. It is glaringly inconsistent in the present divided state of the Christian world. 5. It compels its advocates to indorse and fellowship what they believe to be error. 6. It yio\Sbtea the declared principles of thosQ who practice it. 7. It is not only bad policy, but suicidal to the Baptists. 1st. Mixed communion is unscriptural, and, as such, not binding upon the churches. The JSTew Testament furnishes no evidence that Christ and his Apostles either sanctioned or taught mixed communion. H'or is there any certain evi- dence that a member of one apostolic church ever communed out of his own particular church, even by invitation. This is admitted by some of the ablest advocates of mixed communion. For ex- ample, Dk. Hibbakd says : " The truth is, that the preponderance of Scripture evidence is against mixed communion." (Hibbard on Bap., part 2, p. 186.) When our Lord instituted the Holy Supper, he did not call together all his disciples in Jerusa- lem, but restricted his invitation to the " twelve," 174 CHUKCH COMMUNION. and administered the ordinance to tliem alone as the founders and instructors of his churches for all time to come. (See Matt. 26 : 20-30, and Luke 22 : 14-20.) This was emphatically " restricted communion," and it was the divine pattern given for our imitation. Yet no person ever supposed that, by thus restricting his invitation to the " twelve," our Savior intended thereby to " un- christianize " the " seventy other disciples " and his own pious mother Mary, or to deny them Christian fellowship. The inspired Apostles delivered the Lord's Supper to the churches as they had received it from Christ. Accordingly, Paul said to the church at Corinth : " / have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you" (1 Cor. 11 : 28-26.) And it is recorded to the lasting praise of that church that it kept the ordinances of baptism and the Supper as the Apostle delivered them to it. Hence, Paul says: "I praise you, brethren, that ye — keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you." (1 Cor. 11 : 2.) The teachings of all the Apostles on this subject was uniform, and the order established in one church was the order of all the churches: "^s I teach every-where in every church," adds Paul. (1 Cor. 4: 17.) Accordingly, all the apostolic churches, like the " model " church in Jerusalem, " continued stead- fastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2 : 42.) This was apostolic order and practice. EVILS OP MIXED COMMUNION. 175 Hence, we see that the Lord's Supper was in- stituted as a church ordinance, and was strictly observed as such by all the apostolic churches. Ifor is there a plain and positive example in the IsTew Testament of any person partaking of the ordinance with any other church, except the one of which he was a member, during the days of the Apostles. It has been supposed by some that Paul partook of the Lord's Supper with "the disciples," or church, at Troas, after preaching to them, when they came together on the first day of the week "to break bread" though this is doubtful. (See Acts 20: 7-11.) But if it were certain that the Apostle did partake of the ordi- nance with that church, this, of itself, would not be sufficient to establish the practice of inter- communion even among Baptists; for Paul was acting as one of the inspired founders and in- structors of the churches, and might then have been a member of that particular church for aught we know. Besides, ministers sustain a diflerent relation to the churches generally from what private members do, by virtue of their ordi- nation. After all, it is possible that Alexander Campbell was correct in his interpretation of this passage when he said : " The breaking of bread spoken of after midnight (ver. 11), after the re- covery of Eutychus, was most unquestionably a -private refreshment This refreshment was a natural and requisite one, preparatory to a journey," etc. (See Christian Bap., vol. 6, p. 210.) 176 CHURCH COMMUNION. Intercommunion, however, between members of churches similarly constituted, and of the same faith and practice, as were all the apostolic churches, and as are all Baptist churches, differs essentially from modem mixed communion, which is based upon the unscriptural assumption, that all pro- fessed Christians of every name and order in good standing in their own churches have an inalien- able right to the Lord's Supper in any and every church with which they may chance to meet; and that a refusal on the part of one church to invite all such persons to its communion table and to extend to them the tokens of church fellowship, is " exclusive," " illiberal," and " selfish," notwith- standing they do not and can not sustain visible church relations with that church. This makes the Lord's Supper, not a church ordinance, as all admit it is, but an individual ordinance. Such in, tercommunion is at war with the nature and de- sign of the ordinance, and is both unreasonable and unscriptural. But even if it were certainly true, as it is not, that the apostolic churches did practice intercom- munion by mutual invitation, it would by no means follow that modern mixed communion is right and proper in the present divided and discordant state of the Christian world. Eor then there was but '^one Lord, one faith, one baptism," and all the churches were similarly constituted and governed; but now there are dive)'s baptisms (falsely so called), and no unity of government, faith, or practice; EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 177 and how can they walk together, except they he agreed ? To give each other the tokens of church fellowship and unity, is to profess what does not and can not exist in the present state of things. Hence it is clear that mixed communion is un- scriptural, and therefore not binding upon the churches. It is a human device of modern origin, based upon the false charity of the age, and its advo- cates are justly chargeable with "teaching for doc- trines the commandments of men " on this subject, l^or are we alone in this opinion. Some of the ablest Pedobaptists sustain this view of the sub- ject. For example, the late Dr. David Monfort, in his 6th Letter against intercommunion (published some years since in the "Presbyterian Protestant and Herald" of Ky.), says: "As to how far catholic or open communion has been practiced, I am not very accurately informed. The language of the divines of Westminster afford no evidence to me that it was sustained by them. It is very certain that four different denominations subscribing this same confession of faith, and adhering most tenaciously to it, discountenance the practice alto- gether. I am exceeding happy to be informed that in the Synod of Pittsburgh, where in our great struggle, Presbyterianism prevailed in its greatest purity, it is not generally practiced. The practice is of recent date. My own recollections and the testimony of older men, assure me that the prac- tice of our forefathers was exceedingly strict. That it was rarely, if at all, the case with them for their 178 CHURCH COMMUNION. own members to commune out of the particular church to which they belonged. That a sojourner was not admitted except on a certificate of his good stand- ing in his own church. So far were our fore- fathers from the present practice of laxness in this day." These are facts, sustained by the best Pres- byterian authority, and our Presbyterian brethren would do well to return to the practice of their forefathers. The Methodist Discipline, after its numerous changes and expurgations, is still "close commun- ion," (see pp. 215-220,) but it was even more strict fifteen years ago than it is now. The Discipline of 1850 (chap. 3, sec. 5, p. 76), in Ans. 2 to Ques- tion " Are there any directions to be given con- cerning the administration of the Lord's Supper?" says: "Let no person that is not a member of our church be admitted to the communion without exami- nation, and some token given' by an elder or deacon." This and many other rules of the Discipline have been abolished by the General Conference with- out any mention of the fact in succeeding editions. Indeed no Methodist can know this year what his superiors will require him to believe and prac- tice next year. 2d. Mixed communion perverts the design of the Lord's Supper, and hence invalidates the ordinance. What is the design of the Lord's Supper? "We have shown (chap. 1, pp. 35^2) that the Baptists and others agree that it is designed, (1), as a sacred memorial or remembrancer of Christ; EVILS QP MIXED COMMUNION. 179 (2), as an emblematic exhibition of his death; and (3), as a symbolic declaration of our spiritual union and communion with Christ by faith. And Al- bert Barnes, in his " l^otes" on the phrase " In remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11: 25), says: "This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial or remembrancer^' etc. So say the Baptists. Yet, strange as it may appear, the advocates of mixed communion, including Mr. Barnes, maintain -that the Lord's Supper is also designed, (1), as an efficacious means of salvation; (2), as an evidence and test of brotherly love; and (3), as aproofofour Christian liberality. This is evi- dent both from their teachings and practice. But we solemnly deny that the Lord's Supper, ever was designed for any such purposes ; it is a gross perversion of its design, and invalidates the ordi- nance. (1.) Then we deny that the Lord's Supper is designed as " an efficacious means of salvation." The doctrine of the "reaZ ^presence" of Christ in the Eucharist was among the first radical errors of the early Christian fathers, and it gave birth to the error that the Lo'rd's Supper is "an effica- cious means of salvation." Hence they adminis- tered not only baptism, but the Lord's Supper to infants, as well as to adults, as an efficacious means of salvation. The Christian fathers were led into this dangerous error partly by a misap- plication of our Lord's words in John 6 : 53 : "Ex- cept ye eat the flesh of the Son . of Man, and drink 180 CHURCH COMMUNION. his blood, ye have no life in you;" and partly by a misinterpretation of the language of the institution in Matt. 26 : 26-28. They understand our Savior literally, when he said of the bread, "TAis is my body;" and of the wine, "This is my blood." Thus they confounded the sign with the thing signified, and hence ascribed to the sign the efficacy which belongs alone to the thing signified. The same dangerous principle of giving a literal interpreta- tion to symbolic language, gave rise also to the errors of baptismal regeneration, baptismal re- mission, infant baptism, transubstantiation, con- substantiation, masses for the dead, etc., as held to this day by the Roman Catholics, and others respectively. (In proof of this, see Hinton's Hist, of Bap., pp. 323, 324 ; and Howell on Com., pp. 208, etc.) All those Protestant denominations who, either directly or indirectly, came out of the " Mother OF HARLOTS," employ language in their creeds and catechisms in regard to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper which the Baptists can by no means in- dorse ; and it is certain, that many of them do attach an unscriptural and dangerous efllcacy to the ordinance, as they also do to baptism. Of all the great reformers of the sixteenth century, ZuiNGLius was the only one who arrived at scrip- tural views of the Lord's Supper. He regarded the bread and wine as mere symbols, designed to represent the broken body and shed blood of Christ. While Luther rejected the Popish dog- EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 181 ma of transubstantiation, he zealously contended for the " real -presence " of Christ in the Eucharist, which hedenominated oonsubstantiation ; and hence he believed that communicants actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ with the bread and wine, and thus obtain spiritual life. (See Orm on the Lord's Supper, p. 286.) And while Calvin re- jected both transubstantiation and oonsubstantia- tion, he maintained that, in partaking of the bread and wine, Christ, by the secret influence of the Holy Spirit, really imparts his body and blood to communicants. He says: "In his sacred supper, Christ commands me, under the symbols of bread and wine, to take, and eat, and drink, his body and blood. I doubt not that he truly presents, and that I receive them." (See Institutes of Relig., vol. 2, bk. 4, chap. 17, par. 10 and 32.) Accordingly, the Episcopalians teach that the Lord's Supper is " generally necessary to salvation." "When their candidates for confirmation are asked, "How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in his church?" they are required to answer, " Two only, as generally necessary to salvation; that is to say, baptism, and the supper of the Lord." (See Book of Common Prayer, Catechism, p. 137.) The Peesbtterians teach that " the sacraments " of baptism and the Lord's Supper " become effect- ual means of salvation, only by the working of the Holy Spirit, and the blessing of Christ ; " and that they were " instituted by Christ in his Church, to 182 CHURCH COMMUNION. signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are with- in the covenant of grace, the benefits of Christ's mediation." (See Conf. of Faith, Larger Cat, Am, to Ques. 161, 162.) The Methodists agree substantially with the Episcopalians in regard to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper. It is well known, that their elders and ministers generally invite and urge "seekers " of religion to partake of the bread and wine as a means of obtaining salvation; and some of them relate instances of persons being con- verted in the very act of partaking, to encourage anxious sinners to come to the Lord's Table. Accordingly, Dk. Adam Clakk,- at the end of his IJfotes on 1 Cor., 11 chap, remark 3, says: " Every minister of Christ is bound to administer it (the Lord's Supper) to every man who is seeking the salvation of his soul, as well as to believers." 'Sow, what is this but to encourage sinners to eat and drink their own condemnation f Of course un- believers can not discern the Lord's body, and yet, Paul declares that all those who partake of the ordinance, " not discerning " his body, " eat and drink damnation to their own souls." (See 1 Cor. 11 : 27 and 29.) The CoNSKEGATioNALiSTS agree with the Pres- byterians on this subject. (See Platforms, Con- fession of Faith, chap. 30.) The Lutherans are divided, a majority holding with Luther, to the " real presence " of Christ in the Eucharist, and a minority holding with other Pedobaptists that it EVILS OF MIXED. COMMUNION. 183 is an " efficacious means of salvation." (See Augs- burgh Conf. of Faith.) This error, in slightly modified forms, is held by all Mixed Communionists, except the Free Com- munion Baptists and the Campbellites ; and the Oampbellites, to be consistent, ought to hold it. And if they believe their own confessions of faith and denominational catechisms, they are bound to attach an unscriptural and dangerous efficacy to the Lord's Supper, as also to baptism, Nor is it any abatement for individuals to plead that they do not believe this eri'or. This may be true; yet they are responsible for it, so long as they continue to give their influence and support to denominations which hold and teach it. Now we deny that our Lord had any reference to his Supper in John 6: 53, and we maintain that the bread and wine are only symbols of the broken body and shed blood of Christ. When Jesus said of the bread, " This is my body ; " and of the wine, " This is my blood," he simply meant that the bread and wine represent his body and blood, using the sign for the thing signified— just as Moses said of the paschal lamb, "It is the Lord's passover" (Exod. 12: 11); that is, it repre- sented the passover. The saving efficacy of Christ's broken body and shed blood can be received only by faith, and the bread and wine are the appoint- ed symbols of his sacrificial death and of our par- ticipation in its saving benefits by faith. The Lord's Supper, then, was never designed as an 1 84 CHURCH . COMMUNION. "efficacious means of salvation," and if there were no other reasons, the Baptists could not inter- commune with those who administer and receive the ordinance for this purpose. It is a danger- ous perversion of the Lord's Supper, and neces- sarily invalidates it as a positive ordinance. (2.) Again, we deny that the Lord's Supper is designed as " an evidence and test of brotherly love among Christians." The advocates of mixed communion, without an exception, boldly maintain that the Lord's Supper is designed "as an evidence and test of brotherly love among Christians as such," and hence they charge the Baptists with "bigotry," "exclus- iveness," "Uliberality," "selfishness," and "want of charity," on account of their practice of Church Communion. We can only give a specimen of their faith and practice here. For instance, the Episcopalians teach that " The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another," etc. (See Book of Common Prayer, Art. of Eelig., 28.) The Methodists teach the same thing, in the same language. (See Discipline, chap. 1, sec. 3, Art. of Relig., 18.) The Presbttekians teach that the Lord's Sup- per is designed "To be a bond and pledge of their communion with Christ, and with each other as members of his mystical body; and they that communicate worthily — testify and renew their thankfulness and engagedness with God, and EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 185 thdr mutual love and fellowship each with the other as members of the same mystical body." (See Confession of Faith, chap. 29, sec. 1, and Larger Catechism, Ans. to Q. 168. The CoNGRESATioNALiSTS toach the same thing as the Presbyterians. (See Platforms, Conf. of Faith, chap. 30.) So all other Pedobaptists hold and teach on this point. And so of the Campbellites, who advocate mixed communion on the same ground. And the late Robert Hall, of England, the boasted leader of "Free Communion Baptists," declares, that the " Eucharist, in its secondary im- port, is intended as a solemn recognition of each other as members of Christ's body; and that as far as its social import is concerned, it has no other object than to express that fraternal attachment which we actually feel." (See Hall's Works, vol. 1, p. 324.) Accordingly, mixed communion ministers in- vite and urge " all Christians in good standing in their own churches " to celebrate the Lord's Sup- per together, and thus, by this solemn " bond and pledge, testify and renew their mutual love and fellow- ship for each other, as members of the same mysti- cal body." And hence they charge the Baptists with " denying to every other church all claim to be regarded as a part of the redeemed body of Christ" by their practice of Church Communion, and denounce us as "exclusive," "illiberal," and "selfish" for refusing to intercommune with them. (See Barnes on Exclusivism, pp. 21, etc.) Indeed, 186 CHURCH COMMUNION. Mixed Communionists harp so much upon the Lord's Supper as an " evidence and test of mutual Christian love," that not only the world, but even some uninstructed Baptists suppose that this is really a part of the scriptural design of the ordi- nance ; and hence the " uneasiness and anguish " which they feel on our sacramental occasions, in seeing their friends and relatives of other denom- inations debarred from the Lord's Table. Il^ow, we freely admit that mutual Christian love is very becoming and desirable among com- municants at the same table, as it is in all other branches of religious worship. But we most sol- emnly deny that the Lord's Supper ever was de- signed as an evidence or test of brotherly love among Christians, even of the same faith and order, much less of different denominations. Christ and his Apostles enjoin the duty of brotherly love and prescribe the various ways in which it should be manifested, but they nowhere intimate that this is any part of the design of the Lord's Supper. The true evidence of mutual Christian love is not to be found in a joint participation of the Lord's Supper, but in visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the dis- tressed, etc. In proof of this fact, we have the authoritative and decisive testimony of our final JUDGE, who, at the last day, will say to all his saints, — " Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world," etc. (Matt. 25: 34-40.) But what are EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 187 the grounds upon which they shall receive this dis- tinguished blessing ? Is it because some of them occasionally communed together at the Lord's Ta- ble? Emphatically, NO! The reasons assigned by our Lord are of a very diflerent character: "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; Iioas sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came umto me." And in I'eply to the astonished inquiries of the righteous, the King shall answer : " Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (See verses 35-40.) These are real evidences of brotherly love among Christians. They involve the exercise of tempers and the performance of duties, which require self- denying effort, without which, no matter how free may be our communion, or how loudly we may boast of our " superior catholicity," we are " as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." In giving such scriptural evidences of brotherly love, the Baptists are as free and unrestricted as any denomi- nation in Christendom, if not more so. In the truthful language of Peof. Curtis, " We say there- fore that the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper were never designed to mark the limits of our spiritual fellowship, so that those not par- taking at the same communion table should therefore be supposed not to have true Christian communion or fellowship with each other." (See 188 CHURCH COMMUNION. Curtis on Com., p. 87.) Hence it is manifest that the Lord's Supper never was designed as an evi- dence or test of brotherly love among communicanta even of the same church, much less of dift'erent churches. And it is a gross perversion of the ordinance to administer or receive it for such a purpose. (3.) And again, we deny that the Lord's Sup- per was ever designed as " a proof of our Chris- tian liberality." The celebrated Robert Hall, of England, urged the " impolicy ■ of strict communion " as an argument in favor of "free communion;" and adds, that " The first effect necessarily resulting from strict communion, is a popular prejudice against the party which adopts it." (See Hall's Works, vol. 2, p. 226.) Indeed, policy was at the bottom of all Mr. Hall's advocacy of free com- munion, as it is with the advocates of mixed communion generally. lifow, it is painfully true, that a "popular prejudice" was excited by Mr. Hall and others against the Strict Communion Baptists of England, as well as against the Church Communion Baptists of America. But the experience of half a century has de- monstrated the " impolicy " of that great but mis- guided man, whose love of applause and natural timidity betrayed him into the unscriptural prac- tice of mixed communion. Facts show, that, while his once flourishing churches at Bristol and Leicester, and many others in England, have EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 189 waned under the pernicious influence ot Ws boasted "/ree communion," and some of them have long since become amalgamated with Pedobap- tists and lost their denominational identity, those . Baptist churches which faithfully adhered to the scriptural practice of Church Communion, have not only maintained their denominational existence, but have enjoyed internal peace and prosperity notwithstanding the ^^ popular prejudice" with which they have had to contend ; while sad ex- perience has compelled many free communion churches and pastors in England to admit and deplore the uncontrollable evils of their practice. And though all may not have the candor, like Robert Hall, to openly avow the fact, still it is unquestionably true that Mixed Communionists generally advocate the practice as a matter of policy, and celebrate the Lord's Supper to show the " superior liberality " of their churches over those of the Baptists, in thus gratifying the pre- judices and wishes of friends and relatives be- longing to different denominations. Hence they boast of their " superior catholicity," and abuse and denounce the Baptists as " bigoted," " exclusive," '^illiberal," and ^'■selfish" on account of their practice of Church Communion. And as before stated, the hideous cry of " close communion," alias immersion, every-where raised against us by time-serving ministers and their deluded people, is the most eflective means now being employed by Mixed Communionists to prevent young con- 190 CHURCH COMMUNION. verts and others from joining our churches, and to induce them to unite with their own. Of course those who will thus pervert and subsidize an ordinance of Jesus Christ to sectarian pur- poses, will deny the charge, and cry out misrep- resentation and slander. Well, if their cause needs such helps, it would indeed be " illiberal " and '^uncharitable" in Baptists to deny them. But if our cause can not succeed by fair dealing, with God's Spirit and truth, it must fail, for we had rather die in credit than live in shame. By such unholy means many pious persons, en- tertaining Baptist sentiments, are filled with preju- dice against us, and deluded into mixed com- munion churches, under the erroneous impression that they are " more liberal " than the Baptists, and with the vain hope of communing with their friends and relatives of other denominations. For example, Mr. B , a worthy member of the First Presbyterian Church in ^aysville, Ky., appeared unexpectedly in my congregation one Sabbath morning, and requested me to immerse him that day, saying : "I believed in immersion as the only scrip- tural baptism when I first professed religion, and would have joined the Baptists then had it not been for their ' close communion,' but my uncle. Dr. Green, prevailed on me to be sprinkled and to unite with the Presbyterians, where I could enjoy the privilege of communing with all my friends and relatives. As baptism was not essen- EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 191 tial to salvation, I consented to follow his advice, but have never felt satisfied with my baptism, and have refused to have my children sprinkled ; although my brethren proposed to make me an elder of the church. H"ow, I wish you to im- merse me, and let me join your church, with the understanding that I be allowed the privilege of communing with my Presbyterian brethren and friends." I declined baptizing him then, stating that our Church Communion was the necessary result of our views of baptism, and that we .were as cer- tainly right in the one as in the other. I ex- plained the nature and design of the Lord's Sup- per to him, and requested him to examine the !N"ew Testament on communion, as he had done on baptism, with the promise that he should be baptized as soon as he became satisfied with our practice of Church Communion. On his return home he named the subject to his wife, and, to his surprise, he found that she had come to the same conclusion from reading God's "Word. They examined the subject of the Lord's Supper to- gether, and after a few months, were both im- mersed by the Ebv. G-eorge Hunt, and received into the Maysville Baptist Church, where they became useful members. Other examples might be given, but I mention this case as a fair specimen of thousands who, through false teaching and prejudice, have been induced to give their influence and support to 192 CHURCH COMMUNION. mixed communion churches, holding doctrines which they do not and can not believe, such as baptismal remission, infant sprinkling, sacramental salvation, etc. Now, while Mixed Communionists are guilty of thus prostituting the Lord's Supper to sectarian purposes, their deluded victims are no less guilty of idolizing friends and relatives, and of giving countenance and support to radical errors, merely to enjoy the unscriptural privilege of mixed communion, instead of following Jesus Christ in all his commands and ordinances blame- less. Such erring and inconsistent brethren and sisters should consider the solemn declarations of our Lord and Master, who says : " He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me. And he that iaketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not loorthy of Me." (Matt. 10: 37, 38.) ''And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ? " (Luke 6: 46.) "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." (John 15: 14.) Nor will they lose in the end by obeying Christ. " And Jesus answered and said. Verily, I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the Gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and chil- dren, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." (Mark 10: 29, 30.) Both EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 193 duty and interest, then, require such deluded and inconsistent brethren and sisters to abandon their deceivers and to follow Christ in " all things ivhatsoever he has commanded." Hence, we see that Mixed Communion ists do administer and receive the Lord's Supper, not only as " an efficacious means of salvation," and as " an evidence and test of brotherly love," but also as " a proof of their Christian liberality," and to gratify the loishes of misguided friends and rela- tives belonging to difrei'ont denominations. Yet the advocates of the practice admit that we have 710 right to administer or receive the ordinance for any other design than that which Christ has spec- ified. As a positive ordinance, based upon positive law, it must be administered and received accord- ing to the very letter of the law, in the exact manner, and for the specific design prescribed by the Savior, or it is not the Lord's Supper. To alter or change a positive rite in any respect whatever, is to de- stroy its validity and insult the King in Zion. ]Srow, we have sliown that the Lord's Supper never was designed as an efficacious means of sal- vation, nor as an evidence or test of mutual Chris- tian love, nor as a proof of Christian liberality, or to gratify the -wishes of friends and relatives belong- ing to- different denominations ; and to administer or receive the ordinance for any such design is not only a gross perversion of it, but a daring insult to the Author of the institution. A mixed com- munion table, therefore, is not the Lord's Table. 17 194 - CHURCH COMMUNION. 3d. Mixed communion tends to destroy the effect of church discipline, and compels a church to com- mune with its own excluded members. As we have shown, all denominations admit that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, and that each and every church is solemnly bound to protect the Lord's Table from the approach of unworthy persons by the exercise of a restraining and watchful discipline. And all agree that such discipline is essential to the safety of every church and to the purity of its communion. Ifow as each church is required to exercise such disci- pline over all its communicants, and to debar all unworthy persons from its communion table, and as one church possesses no disciplinary power or control over the members of other churches, it necessarily follows that communicants at the same table must be members of the same church; or, at least, members of the same denomination whose churches mutually respect and sustain each other's discipline. Accordingly, Prof. Curtis, speaking of the Lord's Supper, says: "It presupposes that watchfulness and discipline of holy love, by which improper persons are kept back from the number of the communicants. This all will admit, nor can any deny, that to the churches of Christ as such, and to them alone, has the power of disci- pline been confided. Admission to the Lord's Table, therefore, implies admission to it by a particular church, and this, in fact, settles the ques- tion that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 195 For certainly no chui'ch in primitive times would have admitted any to its communion table whom it would have been unioilling to receive as a mem- ber of its own body. Each church was originally independent, with full power within itself to re- ceive and to exclude from its communion table." (See Curtis on Communion, p. 136.) l!^ow it is unquestionably true that mixed com- munion necessarily tends to 'paralyze church disci- pline, and often compels a church to commune with its own excluded members. For illustration, sup- pose a Presbyterian church should exclude a member from its fellowship for reasons satisfac- tory to itself. That excluded brother can go and unite with an Episcopalian, Methodist, Campbell- ite, or any other mixed communion church, with- out repentance or restoration to the fellowship of the church which excluded him, and thus be again " in good standing in his own church," and, as such,, included in the usual free communion invitation. At the very next communion season of that Presbyterian church, this restored brother can return to the sacramental table of his Pres- byterian brethren who thus excluded tim, under covert of their own invitation; and there and then both he and they are compelled to ^^ renew and testify," by this solemn " bond and pledge, their mutual Christian love and fellowship with each other," (see Confession of Faith, Larger Cat., Ans. to Ques. 168,) when, in fact, the church has neither Chris- tian nor church fellowship for him. Yet there is 196 CHTJECH COMMUNION. no remedy for the evil ; it is the legitimate and necessary consequence of mixed communion, and its advocates must bear it. Thus, the effect of church discipline is para- lyzed, and consequently the Lord's Supper exposed to the profanations of unvsrorthy persons by the unscriptural practice of mixed communion. Ifor is this a mere supposition. Hundreds of instances might be given, illustrative of this fact. For ex- ample, "In a mixed communion church, not long since," says Eev. David E. Thomas, "there was a member who slandered the character of the pas- tor's wife. He was tried and expelled. In a few days he applied for membership in a church of another denomination, and, on account of his wealth and influence, he was received. He at- tended the communion season of the church from which he had been justly expelled, and the usual invitation was extended. When he saw his slan- dered victim advance to the table, he arose and accompanied her. She was paralyzed, and de- clined partaking of the sacred emblems. He par- took with all boldness. The pastor was greatly embarrassed, and the whole church was thrown into a state of ebullition while one man exhibited the legitimate fruits of open communion." (See Christian Manual, pp. 349, 350.) " In "Wyoming, New York," says the late Judge Edmunds, " the Eree-Will Baptist Church, after much discipline, excluded a prominent mem- EVILS OP MIXED COMMUNION. 197 ber for disorderly and immoral conduct. The Methodist Church was then holding a series of ^meetings, and he applied immediately for mem- bership and was cordially received; and on the following Sabbath he attended the communion of the Free-Will Baptist Church, when the usual invitation was given to ' all Christians in good standing in their own churches.' Of course he had a right to consider himself invited, for he was in good standing in the Methodist Church. Accordingly, he partook of the elements in token of the mutual Christian love existing between them ! " Another " well authenticated fact " is given by Prof. Harvey, in his recent essay on Communion : "A devoted and conscientious deacon of a Congre- gational church commenced to labor with a mem- ber of the same church for unchristian-like con- duct, but could obtain no satisfaction. He then took one or two brethren with him, and spread out all the circumstances before them ; but the man still justified himself. The church was at last compelled to exclude the offender. He then went to a neigh- boring Methodist Church, represented himself as persecuted because he had honestly changed his sentiments, and was cordially received. The next communion season which this Congregational church enjoyed, (or would have enjoyed but for mixed communion,) he came forward, and with great care takes his seat by the side of the deacon who took up the labor with him, for the express 198 CHURCH COMMUNION. purpose of aggravating his feelings. The good deacon says to a member of the Baptist church present, (with whom he was very intimate,) ' Broth- er, what shall I do? I do not feel as though I could commune with that man.' The Baptist re- plied : ' I pity you, deacon, from the bottom of my heart, but I can not relieve you ; this is the effect of your wrong views of communion.' The church was thrown into such a state of perturbation as to disqualify them to receive so holy an ordinance with pleasure or profit." (See The Baptist, as quoted by Dr. T. G. Jones, pp. 161, 162.) Many similar cases might be given did our limits allow. They are unavoidable consequences of the unscriptural practice, and there is no rem- edy but to return to the original practice of Church Communion. Mixed communion throws down the reins of church discipline, and opens the way 'for all excluded members to come to the communion of the churches from which they were expelled ; and the only reason why such in- stances are not more common, is, because open communion exists rather in name than in reality. " Practically, open communion is a nullity. It is a mere theory. Pedobaptists, while extolling it, rare- ly practice it." A church of one denomination has no jurisdiction over the members of other de- nominations, and, therefore, mixed communion necessarily destroys the effect of church discipline, and compels a church to commune with its own excluded members. And this must continue to be EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 199 the ease until the pernicious practice is aban- doned. Hence we see that it is both unseriptural and dangerous for any church to extend its invi- tation to partake of the Lord's Supper beyond the limits of its discipline ; because it not only pai'a- lyzes church discipline, but compels a church to admit unworthy persons to its communion, over whom it has no disciplinary power whatever. The case, howevei", is quite different in regard to churches of the same denomination. Between such churches there is a fraternal correspondence in ecclesiastical matters, and each respects and sustains the discipline of the others. Hence they may practice intercommunion among themselves without paralyzing their church discipline or ex- posing the Lord's Table to the unworthy. This is true of the churches of all denominations. For instance, a Presbyterian church may consistently and safely invite to its communion table the mem- bers of other Presbyterian churches, because they are of the same faith and order, and mutually respect and sustain each other's discipline. The same is true of the Methodists, Lutherans, Epis- copalians, Congregationalists, Campbellites, and all other denominations. Such intercommunion may be consistently and safely practiced by tlie churches of each denomination; still, as we have shown, there is neither precept nor example for it in the Ifew Testament, and it can do no real good, even among churches of the same faith and order. 200 CHTJECH COMMUNION. But there is even more consistency and propri- ety in such intercommunion among the Baptists. Every Baptist church, like the apostolic churches, is an independent body, subject only to Christ as its Head and Lawgiver. Our associations, con- ventions, and councils are mere advisory and cooperative bodies, and possess no ecclesiastical or legislative authority whatever over the churches. With us, as with the first Christians, a church is the highest ecclesiastical authority upon earth; our ministers are the servants of the churches for Jesus' sake. Hence our advisory and cooperative bodies, as such, never celebrate the Lord's Supper, because they are not churches in any proper sense; and the Supper is confessedly a church ordinance belonging to each particular church as such. "Were the million and a half of living Baptists now as- sembled together in convention, they would not dare to administer or receive the Lord's Supper, except specially invited by some particular church to partake with it, and even then they would not partake of it by right, but merely by courtesy. Still there is no difficulty in the way of inter- communion between Baptists on all proper occa- sions. Each church can maintain its discipline and protect its communion table from unworthy persons while extending the tokens of its church fellowship to visiting members of other Baptist churches known to be in good standing. Among Baptists, occasional communion is temporary mem- bership in the church thus celebrating the Lord's EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 201 Supper. The relation existing between regular Baptist churches is such as to give each a kind of indirect control over the members of the other churches; at least, so far as communion at the Lord's, Table is concerned. For instance, if a member be excluded from one Baptist church, he can not unite with any other Baptist church until he is either restored on repentance to the fellowship of the church from which he was ex- pelled, or is acquitted of blame and received into the fellowship of a sister church after a full and thorough examination of all the facts in the case for herself. Then, and not till then, has he a right to partake of the Lord's Supper in the church thus restoring him, or the "privilege of partaking with any other Baptist church that may see fit to invite him. Much less can such excluded mem- bers unite with churches of other denominations with which we have no ecclesiastical connection, and then return and force themselves upon us at the Lord's Table, as in the case of mixed com- munion churches. The mere fact, however, of being a member in good standing in one Baptist church, does not en- title an individual of right to partake of the Lord's Supper with any other Baptist church, no more than the mere fact of being a Jew entitled a per- son of right to enter the family of another Jew and partake of the Passover. The Lord's Sup- per is, as all admit, a church ordinance, as the Passover was a family ordinance. 'Eo Baptist, 202 CHUKCH COMMUNION. therefore, has any scriptural right to claim com- munion at the Lord's Table out of his own partic- ular church. If another Baptist church think proper to invite him to its communion, then he may partake as an invited guest, and as a tem- porary member. But one Baptist church is not bound to invite the members of other Baptist churches to its communion table, any more than one Jewish family was bound to invite the mem- bers of other Jewish families to partake with it of the Paschal supper. Still it is the custom of modern Baptist churches to extend the privilege of intercommunion to visiting brethren and sis- ters known to be in good standing in their respect- ive churches; and we can do so consistently and safely on the ground that such persons are of the same faith and practice and belong to churches similarly constituted and governed, which mutu- ally respect and sustain each other's church dis- cipline, and hence might be members with us permanently but for their inconvenience of loca- tion. For the time being, therefore, such persons may properly be regarded and treated in this act as if they were members of the church thus in- viting them. On this ground, and no other, and with this distinct understanding between the par- ties, can one Baptist church consistently and safely invite to its communion the members of other Baptist churches, known to be in good and regular standing in their own churches. But EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 203 even then the church invites such members as in- dividuals, and not as churches, and thus regards and treats them in this church act as virtually members of its body for the time being. And no Baptist, who understands the nature and design of the Lord's Supper, feels at liberty to partake of the ordinance with any other Baptist church, except his own, without a special invitation ; nor has any Baptist a right to feel slighted if not so in- vited. Thus we see that, while Baptists churches may consistently and safely hold intercommunion with each other's members by mutual invitation, still it is a mere matter of courtesy, for which they can claim neither precept nor example in the New Testament ; and, as such, ought to be abandoned in all our churches, except possibly in the case of ordained ministers, known to be in good standing, who sustain a peculiar relation to all the churches as the accredited officers of Christ's kingdom. Such intercommunion among Baptists is not only without Scripture warrant, but does much harm and no real good. It often exposes the Lord's Table to unworthy persons professing to be Baptists, over whom we have no direct dis- ciplinary control, and it necessitates an odious and useless discrimination on communion occa- sions, to the prejudice of our churches. The Lord's Supper being a church ordinance, as all admit, communion at the Lord's Table is a church act; and we have no scriptural right to extend 204 CHURCH COMMUNION. our communion beyond the limits of our churcli discipline. And as one Baptist cliurcli has no absolute disciplinary power over the members of another Baptist church ; and as every church is required to exercise a watchful and controlling discipline over all its communicants, it follows of necessity that no Baptist church has a scrip- tural right to invite to its communion the mem- bers of another Baptist church, though it may be done consistently and safely on the ground above explained. Nor has a member of one Baptist church any more right, as a right, to claim the privilege of communing in another church than he has to claim the privilege of voting; for both are equally church acts and church privileges. The practice, therefore, is unscriptural, and of evil tendency, and doubtless will be abandoned by all our churches as soon as they reflect properly upon the subject and can overcome the force of habit and prejudice. Baptists are a peculiar peo- ple, with no authoritative creed but the Bible; and they will not long maintain a practice for which they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament. Hence we see that while churches of the same denomination may consistently and safely extend their communion to each other's members on the principles above explained, still there is no scrip- tural authority for such intercommunion — much less for mixed communion between churches of difterent denominations, which necessarily and EVILS OF MIXBi) COMMUNION. 205 unavoldabl}'^ tends to destroy the effect of churcli discipline, and compels a church to commune with its own excluded members. 4th. Mixed communion is glaringly ihconsistent in the present divided state of the Christian world. How inconsistent is it for a church to invite to its communion and extend the tokens of church fellowship to persons whom it would be unwilling to receive into its permanent membership just as they are, without any change of faith or practice ! This, indeed, is the ground upon which the As- sociate Reformed Presbyterians and others prac- tice restricted communion. This is also one great reason why the Baptists restrict their communion to the members of their own churches. No true Baptist church will invite any person to its com- munion table whom it would be unwilling to re- ceive into its membership just as he is, without the slightest change of faith or practice. And it is certain that no apostolic church would have admitted those to its communion whom it would not have been willing to receive as permanent members of its body just as they were. But is this true of mixed communion churches ? "Would they be willing to receive into their church fellowship all those whom they invite and receive to their communion just as they are, without any change of faith or practice? "Would the Camp- bellites, for instance, be willing to receive, as church members, the Pedobaptists whom they admit to their communion, with their adult and infant 206 CHTJKCH COMMUNION. sprinkling for baptism ? Or would the Pedobap- tists be willing to admit the Campbellites to per- manent church membership, with their baptismal remission and bold opposition to Pedobaptism? Would the Methodists, for instance, be willing to receive the Presbyterians as permanent members of their body, with their hyper-Calvinism, which John Wesley denounced as the doctrine of hell? Or would the Presbyterians be willing to admit the Methodists into church membership, with their rank Arminianism, which John Calvin denounced with equal severity? Most unquestionably they would not. Yet they are guilty of the glaring in- consistency of inviting and receiving each other to their respective communion tables and of thus mutually interchanging tokens of church fellow- ship, when they would not and could not, according to their standards, receive each other into perma- manent church membership without a radical change of both faith and practice. If it be said that the above remarks apply to "permanent" church fellowship, but not to "occa- sional" intercommunion, we answer, that the same principles must govern us in regard to " occa- sional" communion that govern us in regard to " permanent " communion. There can not be one class of principles to regulate occasional and an- other class to regulate habitual communion ; for occasional communion is occasional or temporary church membership in the particular church cele- brating the Lord's Supper. In the language of EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 207 Proe. Curtis, we say: "There is to us a most ob- vions inconsistency in admitting to our occasional communion those whom we would be unwilling to admit to our church fellowship ; making an ex- ception in favor of irregularity. It is as much as to say that those admitted are good enough for the Lord's Table, but not for our church." (See Curtis on Com., p. 108.) Accordingly, the late Alexander Campbell, in answering a '^Catalogue of Queries'' on "Open Communion," says: "I object to making it a rule in any case, to receive unimmersed persons to church ordinances : 1st. Because it is nowhere commanded. 2d. Because it is nowhere precedented in the ISTew Testament. 3d. Because it necessarily corrupts the simplicity and uniformity of the whole genius of the new institution. 4th. Because it not only deranges the order of the kingdom, but makes void one of the most important institutions ever given to man. It necessarily makes immersion of non-effect. For, with what consistency or propri- ety can a congregation hold up to the world either the authority or utility of an institution which they are in the habit of making as little of as any human opinions? 5th. Because, in making a canon to dis- pense with a divine institution of momentous im- port, they who do so assume the very same dispens- ing power which issued in the tremendous apostasy which we and all Christians are praying and labor- ing to destroy." {Christian Baptist, vol. 6, Ans. to Query 9, pp. 183, 184.) 208 CHURCH COMMUNION. Hence we see that mixed communion is glar- ingly inconsistent in the present divided state of the Christian worid. hth. Mixed communion compels its advocates to indorse and fellowship what they believe to he error. Now, if the Lord's Supper be a church ordinance, and the appointed token of visible church relations, as all admit, then communion at the Lord's Table necessarily implies and involves church fellowship as existing between communicants at the same table. Hence, by the very act of intercommun- ion Mixed Communionists publicly indorse and recognize each other's churches and ordinances as scriptural and valid. This is the meaning of the act, and even the world so understand it. But are the advocates of the practice willing to admit what the act imports? If so, why the ex- istence of separate denominations, and why the criminations and recriminations among them. For instance, the Old School Presbyterians regard the Campbellites, Congregationalists, Episcopa- lians, Lutherans, Methodists, and all others, as holding errors more or less fundamental. In- deed, it was on the charge of such errors that they excluded the New School Presbyterians from their fellowship, and still refuse to give them the tokens of church fellowship. So every other denomination regards all the others as hold- ing errors so radical that it can not unite with them in permanent church relations. Hence, very few, if any of them, are willing to receive each EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 209 other's members into their church fellowship with- out some change of faith and practice. These are facts which can not be denied. The creeds and standard writers of all denominations declare the same. For example, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, in his sermon on "Free Grace" l&Q. 55, pp. 293-295, speaking of 'predestination, as held by Presbyterians and others, says : " This doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian ho- liness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation It represents our blessed Lord — as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity It represents the most holy Grod as worse than the devil; as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust This is the blasphemy for which I abhor the doctrine of predestination." On the other hand, John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, on " Secret Providence," speaking of the doctrine of Arminianism, as held by the Methodists and others, is scarcely less denuncia- tory and severe. And Alexander Campbell, the founder of Campbellism, speaking of all the sects, says : " They are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that Mother of Harlots, the Church of Rome." (See Millennial Harb., vol. 3, p. 362.) Ifor are the followers of those great men more charitable toward each other's doctrines than were their founders. For instance, Dr. Engles, editor 210 CHURCH COMMUNION. of the '^Philadelphia Presbyterian," September 12, 1840, in showing why the Old School Presbyte- rians can not consistently intercommune with the Ifew School and the Methodists, remarks: "As Presbyterians, we profess to receive our denom- inational distinction from the symbols of faith which we adopt; and we regard other denomina- tions as having their distinctive belief and char- acter, of which we judge by their public symbols. It is presumed that a Presbyterian believes Presbyterian doctrine, or why is he a Presbyterian? And that a Methodist believes in the doctrines of his own church, or why is he not something else? The Methodists ajid Pres- byterians alike believe that they have very good reasons for being as they are; nay, so potent are these reasons regarded to be, that neither im- agines he could ever be induced to change his opinion. Now, all we have contended for is con- sistency in carrying this principle into practice." " As our Methodist brethren," he adds, " have taken umbrage at our language, let us ask them if they are prepared to advise their people, on all favorable occasions, to go and commune with the Presbyterians? Do they wish them to think there is no difference between the denominations ? Do they regard the differences as so trivial as to invite entire oblivion of them by their flocks when they stray into Presbyterian folds? "We judge not. Why, then, should they be angry with us for following their example? Holding EVILS OF MIXED COMJiUNIpN. 211 the faith we do, can we, or ought we to say to the sheep of our folds — yonder are pastures in which we believe there are poisonous weeds growing, but still there can be little danger in feeding occasion- ally there? In this matter we have never found our Methodist brethren a "particle more liberal than ourselves. We have never found them backward in decrying Presbyterian doctrine ; and we, on the other hand, candidly tell them, as we have often told them before, that we consider their system as VERT ERKONEOUS. For cach of us thus to think is our right, in the exercise of Christian liberty, but is it quite possible that we should forget this, and lay aside our strong feelings on the subject ivhile we com- mune together ? " And in defending the Old School General Assembly against the charge of " illiber- ality," in refusing the fraternal invitation of the New School General Assembly to celebrate the Lord's Supper together, in 1845, in Philadelphia, Dr. Engles says: "Ti is utterly inexpedient to hold communion with those churches." So all denomina- tions regard and speak of each other's faith and practice. Such is but a specimen of the oft-repeated and stereotyped views of the founders and leaders of mixed communion sects in regard to each other's doctrines and practices. Now if they believe their own statements, how can they consistently or innocently bid each other God-speed by giving and receiving the acknowledged tokens of church fel- lowship, and, as they all contend, the evidences 212 CHURCH COMMUNION. and tests of Christian fellowship also ? As it is Avritten : " If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine (i. e., of Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed ; for he that biddeth him Grod-speed, is partaker of his evil deeds," (2 John 9-11) ; and how could we more fully do this than by inviting them to our communion, and giving them the tokens of church fellowship ? It is unquestion- ably true, then, that mixed communion compels its advocates to indorse and fellowship what they acknowledge and believe to be error. But if this be true in regard to Mixed Com- munionists themselves, it is even more so in re- gard to them and the Baptists. Ifo mixed com- munion church can consistently invite or receive a true Baptist to its communion table, knowing, as they must, that we regard them as destitute of some of the essential qualifications for the Lord's Supper. Yet, they not only invite and urge all Baptists to come to their communion, but abuse and denounce us in unmeasured terms for refus- ing the invitation. How inconsistent, not to say sinful, is this ! Accordingly, Dr. David Monfort, a leading Presbyterian, in his fifth letter against "Mixed Communion," remarks: "Members of other de- nominations, providentially placed within the bounds of a church of a denomination differ- ent from that of their preferment, may become members of that church if qualified. In this way two different denominations might extend EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 213 the hand of protection to each other's members without disorder, confusion, or injury. And it does seem to me that this would be a much purer and vastly more consistent charity in all denomi- nations, than that of throwing open the doors (to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper) to some half dozen of different sects, hostile to each other's pe- culiarities and irresponsible to each other. Some making a profession of piety and baptism a con- dition, and others not. Some enforcing infant baptism by discipline as other Christian duties, others not, or really denying the duty. Against this, I do protest with heart and voice and lifted hands. I deny it to he Christian fellowship at all. It is hand- ling, in the sight of God, angels, and men, the sacra- ment as emblems of what does not exist. It was never contemplated by the Westminster divines, and it has nothing, in my opinion, to support it but the false char- ity of the age." " I take the liberty again to say," he adds, " that in view of the actual state of the case, and on a question so plain, I can not suppress my astonish- ment that there should be difference of opinion and practice in any denomination." So say the Bap- tists. It can only be accounted for by the neces- sities of Pedobaptism. Thus we see that mixed communion compels its advocates to indorse and fellowship what they believe to be radical error. 6th. Mixed communion violates the declared prin- ciples of those loho practice it. This is evident from their respective creeds and 214 CHURCH COMMUNION. disciplines. Eor example, the Episcopalians main- tain that their bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and that no minister of any denomina- tion has a divine right to administer the "sacra- ments" of baptism and the Lord's Supper who has not received Episcopal ordination. They deny that any others have been scripturally in- ducted into the ministerial office, or are alithorized to administer the ordinances. Hence the ministers of that denomination rarely, if ever, receive the elements of the Lord's Supper at the hands of other ministers, and if any of their people par- take with others, they are bound to regard it as mere Zay-communion. In fact, the rules of that church expressly deny the communion to all ex- cept their own members; and when, for prudential reasons, they condescend to admit others, they do it in known violation of their declared principles. As it is written : " There shall none be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as he be con- firmed, or ready and desirous to be confirmed." (See Book of Common Prayet, Art. Confirmation.) By this rule the members of all other churches, ex- cept the Eoman Catholic, are excluded from the Episcopal communion, for not one of them has been confirmed, nor is any ready or desirous to be confirmed by an Episcopal bishop. The Presbyterians, as we have shown, claim the right to declare the "terms" of admission into their communion, and to judge of the fitness of communicants at their Table (see Confession of EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 215 Faith, Form of Government, bk. 1, chap. 1) ; and accordingly their synods and standard writers have declared it "inexpedient" for Presbyterians to " intercommune" with those denominations hold- ing "Arminian sentiments;" such as the Episco- palians, Mefhodists, and others. (See Union and Eoangelist, and Presbyterian Advocate for 1820, vol. 2, pp. 96-99.) And the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in 1839, fully sustained this position. Thus, all denominations, except the Bap- tists, and a few others, are debarred from the Pres- byterian communion. This, indeed, is carrying "dose communion" in theory quite beyond what the Baptists do. Yet notwithstanding these de- clared principles and express prohibitions, the Presbyterians are in the habit of inviting and urging all Arminian denominations to partake at their communion. The Methodists can not practice mixed com- munion without violating their Discipline, which is the LAW of the church. For instance, the Discipline of 1868, chap. 5, sec. 1, p. 137, authori- tatively declares, that " No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of any •practice for which we would exclude a member of our church." Now, as this rule excludes all persons from the Methodist communion who are guilty of " any practice " for which a member or minis- ter of the Methodist church would be excluded, let us briefly notice some of the practices punish- able with exclusion. 216 CHURCH COMMUNION. 1st. Practices for whieli a member would be ex- pelled from the Methodist church: Endeavoring to sow dissension in any of its societies by inveighing against either its doctrines or discipline. It is re- quired, that, " such person so oflGending shall be first reproved by the senior minister or preacher of his circuit; and if he persist in such per- nicious practices, he shall be expelled from the church." (See Discipline, chap. 4, sec. 4, p. 127.) 2d. Practices for which a minister' would be ex- pelled from the Methodist church : Molding and disseminating, publicly or privately, doctrines which are contrary to its Articles of Religion. "Against such offenders," says the Discipline, " let the same process be observed as in the case of gross im- morality," i. e., exclusion from the church. (See Discipline, chap. 4, sec. 2, p. 115.) Other prac- tices might be mentioned. Such are a few of the many "pernicious prac- tices" for which the Methodists are required to exclude their own members and ministers, viz. : (1.) Inveighing against either their doctrines or dis- cipline; and (2), Holding and disseminating, either privately or publicly, doctrines contrary to their Ar- ticles of Religion. And, as before shown, they ex- pressly declare that " No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper am,ong us who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a member of our church." The whole of this paragraph is printed in italics in the last edition of the Discipline, to show its importance in the estimation of the EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 217 "General Conference" — the law-making power of the Methodist Church, both N^orth and South. This rule, then, is authoritative, and hence binding upon the whole church, and upon every member of it. This none can deny, for the Discipline is the SUPREME LAW of the church, by which it re- ceives and excludes its members, and to which every member and every minister is required to pledge implicit obedience. For instance, when persons apply for membership in a Methodist church, they are required to give ^^satisfactory assurances" to "the preacher in charge," not only " of their desire to flee from the wrath to come and to be saved from their sins," and "of the genuineness of their faith," but also " of their will- ingness to keep the rules of the church." (See Dis- cipline, chap. 3, sec. 1, p. 90.) And every preacher on being received " into full connection at the Conference," is required to " give satisfactory an- swers to these questions," among others, viz. : " Do you know the rules of the Church? Do you keep them? Have you read the form of Dis- cipline? Are you willing to conform to it? etc., with the solemn injunction by his "chief minis- ters:" "And do not mend our rules, but keep them ; not for wrath, but conscience' sake." . . "And remember! a Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and small, in the Methodist Dis- cipline!" (See Discipline, chap. 2, sec. 8, pp. 75-78.) And, in answer to "Quest. 1. What are the duties of a presiding elder?" the Dis- 17 218 CHURCH COMMUNION. cipline says : "Ans. 1. To travel throtigli Ms ap- pointed district 6. To take care that every part of the Discipline is enforced in his district; and to report to the Annual Conference the names of all traveling preachers within his district who shall neglect to observe these rules," (see Dis- cipline, chap. 2, sec. 6, pp. 65 and 66); one of which is, that '^ No person shall he admitted to the Lord's Supper" among Methodists who is guilty of " any practice" for which they would exclude a member from their church. (See Discipline, chap. 5, sec. 1.) And every presiding elder and every preacher at his ordination, solemnly promised, be- fore God and his " chief ministers," that he would " mind every point, great arid small, in the Methodist Discipline!" (See Discipline, chap. 6, sects. 1 and 2, pp. 178 and 194.) !N"ow, in view of all these facts, we boldly af- firm that the Methodist Discipline is " CLOSE COMMUETOIT," even beyond any thing known among the Baptists ; and that every presiding elder, and every preacher, is solemnly bound, " not only for wrath, but conscience' sake," to obey and enforce the rule requiring such communion. This rule necessarily debars the Baptists, Camp- bellites. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and all oth- ers from the Lord's Supper in the Methodist Church; for they all "persist" in the "pernicious" practice of " inveighing " against both " the doc- trines and discipline" of that church, and are confessedly guilty of"Iiolding and disseminating," EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 219 both privately and publicly, "doctrines contrary to its Ai'ticles of Religion." For example, the Baptists and Campbellites "persist" in "inveigh- ing" against infant baptism and infant church membership, sprinkling and pouring for immer- sion, clerical domination, etc., and they "hold and disseminate," both privately and publicly, many doctrines " contrary" to the Methodist Articles of Religion; while the Congregationalists, Pres- byterians, and others persistently inveigh against the Methodist doctrines of Arminianism, "falling from grace," etc., and "hold and disseminate" the contrary doctrines, both privately and publicly. But notwithstanding all this, Methodist pre- siding elders and preachers are in the habit not only of "admitting," but also of inviting and urging these opposing sects to come to their communion table, knowing at the same time that they are all guilty of the very same practices for which the discipline requires them to exclude their own members. And it is well known, that of all Mixed Communionists, none cry out more against Baptist "cfose" communion, or boast more of their "open" communion, than do the Meth- odists. Both ministers and people stigmatize the Baptists as "bigoted," "exclusive," "illiberal," and "selfish," both privately and publicly, on ac- count of their Church Communion, and vaunt their "superior catholicity and charity" as an in- ducement to others to unite with their church. And by this means thousands of persons holding 220 CHURCH eOMMUNION. Baptist sentiments are decoyed into the Metho- dist Church, and thus made to give their influ- ence to infant baptism and other cardinal errors which they do not and never can believe. Thus, the lohole Methodist Church, ]!?[orth and South, are guilty of violating their ov?n Disciplinb by mixed communion for sectarian purposes. Both consist- ency and duty require that they should either abandon the unscriptural practice, or abolish their Discipline. The Campbellites also violate their declared principles by mixed communion. As a body, they hold and teach that "faith, repentance, and immersion are the three conditions of pardon, aud all equally necessary to salvation;" and that all these conditions must be complied with, in order to entitle any person to church membership and to communion at the Lord's Table. This, no Campbellite who understands his own distinctive doctrines will deny. Indeed, if Carapbellism be true, there are no Christians on earth, except those pure Campbellites who have been immersed by Campbellite preachers for the actual remission of sins — all those deluded Baptists and others among them who professed conversion through faith in Christ previous to baptism, being yet in their sins. Still the Campbellites generally boast of their ''open communion," and permit all Pedobaptists who will to "break the loaf with them;" notwith- standing they know that some of these Pedobap- EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION, 221 tists were sprinkled in infancy, and others after they professed conversion. According to our views, we can regard all who believe in Christ as Christians, while we regard them as unbaptized, and, as such, unfit for communion at the Lord's Table. But according to Campbellism, no unbap- tized person can be a Christian. It is fatal to Campbellism to admit that Pedobaptists, or even Baptists, are Christians ; for none of them have been baptized in order to obtain the remission of their sins; and if " faith, repentance, and immer- sion" be the three conditions of pardon, and all " equally necessary to salvation," as all true Campbell- ites hold and teach, then it is impossible that any except those who have complied with all these conditions can be Christians. It is vain to say that God will take the will for the deed in baptism, any more than he will in faith and repentance, if all are " equally necessary;" for our final Judge has declared, that "He that believeth not, shall be damned;" and " except ye repent ye shall all like- wise perish." And if baptism be a condition of pardon, like faith and repentance and "equally necessary," then we must be baptized or perish. According to Campbellism, there is no alternative but immersion or perdition. If I believed this doc- trine, I would be immersed for the actual remis- sion of sins before I slept. Now, if the Campbellites really believe their own doctrines, they are bound to regard all Pedo- baptists, if not all Baptists, as unconverted, much 222 CHURCH COMMUNION. less baptized, and, as such, unfit for the Lord's Supper. Yet it is a notorious fact, that they not only intercommune with such persons, but boast of their "free" communion and denounce our Church Commujiion, both privately and publicly, as a means of prejudicing others against us, and of inducing them to join their churches ! Thus, many uninstructed Baptists and Pedobaptists, and others who were converted under our preaching, have been drawn into Campbellite churches. Such persons are deluded, and both consistency and duty require them to come out of Campbellite churches, and unite with churches holding doc- trines which they believe. Hence we see that mixed communion violates the declared principles of the Campbellites. The same is true of the Congregationalists, Lutherans, New School Presbyterians, Cumberland Presby- terians, and all others who practice such com- munion. It necessarily violates the declared prin- ciples of its advocates. 7th. Mixed communion is not only bad policy, but it is suicidal to the Baptists. "We have shown (see Evil 1st) that mixed com- munion, even where valid baptism is held as pre- requisite, is unscriptual and of evil tendency. But "free communion" as held and practiced by Eng- lish Baptists generally and by a few American Baptists, is not only unscriptural, but subversive of Gospel baptism and destructive of Gospel churches. The very origin of "free communion" EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 223 is enough to condema it with Baptists. It origi- nated in Poland after the middle of the sixteenth century with Faustus Socinus — an arch-heretic — from whom the Socinians derive their name. He denied the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, total depravity, vicarious atonement, spiritual influence, etc.; and in 1580, he wrote a work on " Water Baptism" in which he denies its binding force. Accordingly, he refused to submit to the ordi- nance himself, and admitted all unbaptized believ- ers to the communion in his churches. He was the first man known to histoiy, who ever denied that baptism was prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. This he acknowledges in the Preface to his " Dis- cussion on Water Baptism." In the language of the late Abraham Booth, of London, " It never was disputed prior to the sixteenth century, that unbaptized believers should be debarred from the Lord's Table." (See Apology, p. 34.) Says Dr. Wall : " Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any person should be admitted to the Lord's Table before he was bap- tized." And Robinson, in his Hist, of Bap., pp. 461, 462, says: "All the early churches of the Baptists were strict in their terms of fellowship," or communion. In his Hist, of Inf. Bap., vol. 2, p. 298, speaking of the Baptists of the 16th cen- ■ tury. Dr. Wall adds, that " the Baptists do hold it necessary to renounce communion with all Chris- tians that are not immersed, and this prejudice is deeply rooted in them." For additional facts 224 CHURCH COMMTTNION. on this point, see "Orchard's History of Open Communion ; " " IIistort of Free Communion," given in the English edition of "Howell on Com- munion," published " under the superintendence of the Committee of the Baptist Tract Society, London, in 1847 ; " and " Wall's History of Infant Baptism." " About the middle of the sixteenth century," says Mosheim, "the zeal, vigilance, and severity of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were united against the Arians, Moravians, and Baptists ; and these three communions, forgetting their dissen- sions, joined their most vigorous counsels and en- deavors. To avoid the unhappy consequences of such a formidable opposition, great numbers of them retired into Poland," etc. (See Ch. Hist., 16th cen., part 2, chap. 4, p. 8.) "In this oppressed situation," says Orchard, "the inflexible and stringent features of these primitive creeds and their indomitable tempers became pliant toward others of opposite views, from suffering, mutual intercourse, and sj'mpathy in affliction." (Hist, of Open Com., p. 32.) And Wm. I^orton, of Dalston, Middlesex, England, in his '^History of Free Communion," states, that "Baptist churches were formed at Cracow, Lublin, Pinczow, Luck, Smila, and in several other parts of Poland. That the church at Cracow, where Faustus Soci- nus settled on his arrival in Poland, in 1579, was formed in 1569, and received only immersed be- lievers to its communion. He endeavored to join it, but not being himself baptized, was for some EVILS OP MIXED COMMUNION. 225 time refused admission. He succeeded, however, after a time in inducing them to receive the tin- baptized, to tolerate infant baptism, and to adopt a more liberal discipline Their previous discipline was not suited, it appears, to the char- acter of the Palatine nobles, of whom there were many among the Lutherans, but whose fierce and barbarous bravery and similar characteristics were scarcely compatible even with the strict morality previously req[uired by those churches." {Robin- son's Res., pp. 602-605; and Mosheim, as above.) Socinus plead, just as did Robert Hall, that "it did not seem possible" that his denial of bap- tism, as prerequisite to communion, " could do any harm, whether received or not ; but that if re- ceived, it would certainly lead to much good, by producing concord, peace, and union among those who otherwise already acknowledged one another as true brethren and disciples of Christ." "The result proves," says Mr. Norton, " how fallacious were his expectations ; they are, however, in per- fect agreement with the oft-repeated assurances of the advocates of mixed communion in the present day." (See English edition of Howell on Com., chap. 11 ; " Hist, of Free Com.," pp. 223- 233.) Me. liToiiTON adds : " Socinus advocated com- munion with unbaptized believers on the ground that baptism has ceased to be binding. As to the nature of baptism his views were correct ; he held that it neither confers nor confirms grace, but is 226 CHURCH COMMUNION. the giving up of ourselves publicly to Christ by being immersed in his name, and that 'he who wishes to be rightly baptized, must believe with his whole heart on him.' " (See Life and Works of Socinus, chap. 5.) He denied, however, that baptism was intended to be either permanent or uni- versal," etc. (See p. 229, as above.) " It appears singular," says Mk. Norton, "that although the Lord's Supper rests on the very same authority as baptism, the former should be said by him to "agree with the law of Christ" (chap. 5); and that he should admit that there is ' no cause which will allow any Christian to abstain from it.' " (See Life and Works, chap. 14, p. 732.) Such was the origin of mixed commmunion, especially among the Baptists. It commenced with the abandonment of our distinctive princi- ples, and the indorsement of fundamental errors, and the result was that Baptists and Pedobap- tists, Arians and Socinians, all united together in one discordant mass, and Baptist identity was destroyed by the introduction oifree communion. " The principle of free communion," says Mr. ITorton, " is found in association with Arianism and Socinianism in the old connection of the General or Arminian Baptists, of England. The name of Anabaptists was familiar in England long before the churches were formed from which the pres- ent English Baptist churches trace their spiritual descent. "Waltbr Lollard brought the sentiments of the "Waldenses to England, between 1315 and EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 227 1320, and they are said to have prevailed all over the kingdom." (SeeAllex, Gilly, Collier, etc., ^'Hist. of Free Com." p. 240.) And says Abkaham Booth : " The ingenious author of the Pilgrim's Progress was among the first, if not the very first man in England, to assert that no baptism was necessary to communion at the Lord's Table, and who acted accordingly." John Bunyan commenced preach- ing in 1656, and died in 1688. Free communion, then, commenced in Great Britain in the latter part of the seventeenth century; but it made but little progress until Robert Hall published his treatise on the " Teems of Communion," in 1815 — just _^i;i/-/ot4r years since. iN'ow the inquiry naturally arises, "What have been the effects of free communion upon the Baptists of England?" Our limits will not al- low us to answer this question in detail. Suffice it to give the "general results" of free commun- ion among the Baptists in England, as summed up by Mr. Norton, an eye-witness of its evil ef- fects. Says Mr. IsTorton: "Among the general results of free communion among the particular Baptists of England, may be mentioned — 1st. The habit it has introduced among them, of uniting with JPedobaptist churches, on slight and often most unjustifiable grounds — such as that of trifling inconvenience, the respectability of the congregation, or the talent of the minister; thus giving their full sanction and nearly all their support to Pedobaptist objects; while the 228 CHURCH COMMUNION. Baptists in general experience at best only their occasional aid, and the strict Baptists their most rooted opposition. So much has this practice prevailed of late, that Me. Knibb, of Jamaica, himself a Free Communion Baptist, when in London, in 1842, in a speech which will ever be remembered by those who heard it, spoke of this as one grand cause of the comparative weakness of the Baptist body," etc. " 2d. Another of the results of mixed commun- ion is the general omission of baptism from the ordi- nary ministrations of the pulpit. Mr. I. T. Hinton, of America (late of England), in his History of Baptism, p. 84, says : ' Clearly, the whole counsel of God has not been preached, however fervently repentance and faith may have been urged, if the sinner is left uninformed of his immediate duty so soon as he does truly believe ; and it is time that the primitive practice of preaching baptism as con- stantly and as simply as repentance and faith was revived among all who know the truth.' . . . The practice of mixed communion has tended to make it a part of good taste and right feeling not to mention the subject too often," etc. "3d. Another result of mixed communion is, that by representing some errors and acts of dis- obedience as fundamentals, and others as non-es- sentials, it has established a distinction between them similar to that made between mortal and venial sins by the Church of Rome; and tended to establish it as a received opinion that there are EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 229 some errors and inconsistencies which, whatever the state of the heart respecting them, can not affect its eternal state." " 4th. Another of the evils of free communion is, that it deprives the churches of their executive functions, by assigning them to their pastors, or, as it is in some cases, by leading the pastors to assume a right to act in violation of their acknowl- edged rules. It is the pastor, or pastor and dea- cons, of a mixed church, who have generally to decide, in the room of the church itself, who are, or are not to be admitted to church fellowship in the Lord's Supper. Some of the pastors also of strict churches have assumed such authority over them as to claim the right to administer the Lord's Supper contrary to their established rule ; as at Bristol, and also at Leicester, after Mr. Hall had failed to introduce the practice of mixed com- munion there." (See Hall's Works, vol. 1, p. 121.) For other instances, see Prim. Oh. Mag., etc. " 5th. The introduction of mixed communion has been injurious to the cultivation of kind feelings between Baptists and Pedobaptists. Some regarding the practice as a stroke of policy to draw away their members from them, have, notwithstanding their general praises, stood aloof whenever they have thought their churches in danger ; and some have expressed cordial dislike of the system. Others, expecting from the practice the cessation of controversy on the subject of baptism, seem to have regarded its revival as a kind of breach of 230 CHURCH COMMUNION. the tacit pledge which they understood to be given for its discontinuance. It seems, in short, to be admitted on all hands that the Independents have displayed coiisiderahly more hostility to the Baptists since the prevalence of mixed communion than they did previously Besides this, the practice of mixed communion has enabled Pedo- baptists to remove attention from baptism, by fixing it on what they are sanctioned even by Baptists themselves, in calling the bigotry and illiberality of 'close communion!' By this means prejudice has been excited, both against baptism and the apos- tolic constitution of the church," etc. " 6th. A much more painful result, however, of the introduction of mixed communion into our churches, is the division of sentiment, feeling, and action it has produced among . Baptists themselves. Many Free Communionists are so alienated from their brethren that they will give little or nothing to either churches or societies maintaining the practice of strict communion, notwithstanding their admission of its apostolic origin Mixed communion is at present subverting every one of our institutions from its original end; it is aiming to destroy the apostolic constitution of every one of our churches, and to subvert the recognized sentiments of the whole denomination.^ It already possesses the means by which these ends may be eflected, and is applying them with the utmost diligence to the attainment of its object. As strict commun- ionists, we are being rapidly excluded from our EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 231 own churches It is, in fact, a strug- gle for life or death as to all our denominational institutions, and it is impossible, therefore, that any thing but tumult and intestine strife should be promoted by the course which our Free Com- munion brethren have adopted The time, however, has evidently arrived when the forbearance which has led some of our churches hitherto to occupy in hope a position inconsistent with their principles can with safety be exercised no longer. The strict Baptist churches must, as churches, act upon their principles or surrender them. They must wait on the Lord and keep his way, or see the spiritual temples he has reared become moldering ruins before the desert blast. How sad to think that all this is the result of a system which speaks of union and of love!" "What, then," asks Mr. !N"oeton, "is the con- clusion to which this ample induction of evidence, comprising the individual history of most of the leading Free Communion churches in the king- dom, and the general statistics of no small por- tion of the whole of them, conducts us? What but that THE PRACTICE IS RUINOUS TO THE DENOMIN- ATION, AND FATAL TO THE INTERESTS OF TRUTH?" (See English edition of Howell on Communion. " Hist, of Free Communion," chap. 11, pp. 310-316.) Such are a few of the many evils of mixed communion, as developed in the last half cen- tury among our churches in England, all going to prove that the practice is suicidal to the Baptists. 232 CHURCH COMMUNION. Hence we see that the whole history of free com- munion among Baptists shows that it not only does no good, but is disastrous to our churches and tends to destroy our denominational existence, while it builds up and promotes Pedobaptism. For instance, John Bunyan, the father of Free Communion Baptists, first admitted Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper in his church at Bedford, and having granted them this church privilege, consistency compelled him to admit them to per- manent church membership. Soon the Pedobap- tists gained the ascendency, and after his death they overruled the Baptists and elected a Pedobap- tist pastor; and from that time until the present they have controlled the church. The same is true of many other Baptist churches in Great Britain. Accordingly, the Rev. Gr. H. Orchard, of Not- tingham, England, in his " History of Open Com- munion," says: "Many an old Baptist meeting- house in London, and in the provinces, are now occupied by Socinians,'Arians, and Pedobaptists. Look to the neighborhood of Bedford where Bunyan set the example and defended disobedi- ence to Jesus. Bedford, Cotton End, Maiden, etc., Baiptist meeting-houses, are now in the posses- sion of Pedobaptists, with independent ministers. Property to a considerable extent is connected with the old Baptist meeting-house at Bedford. Any one or more candidates offering themselves for baptism is accepted quietly, and at an early hour — say six o'clock on a summer morning — the EVILS OP MIXBD COMMUNION. 233 ordinance is appointed. Some upland Baptist, a time-serving man, is requested to immerse the candidates at this early period. The dry-shod brother may read a portion of the Scriptures, but he is to make no comment or speak on the ordi- nance of believer's immersion. There are Bap- tist ministers, ;proto pudor ! who are guilty of this dereliction of duty. The subject is not heard from the pulpit, and, if any are immersed, the obedience springs from force of an honest, un- aided conviction. Several of these bastard churches act over this pantomime, and brethren called Bap- tist ministers fully sanction these murky immer- sions. These eclipsed baptisms the writer is personally acquainted with. . . . The conse- quence of this line of proceedings is now obvious to the churches, though the open advocates are reluctant to yield. In the first instance, a seri- ous state of things is before the eyes of all. Cold- ness or the chilly hand of spiritual death is allowed to depress our churches, and a general indifference to the Bible and the truth is osten- sible. One truth, baptism, was not worth con- tending for, and now the Bible itself is in danger of neglect Virtually, the Bible, as an inspired perfect law, is abandoned, and, to be consistent, should be repudiated altogether." (See History of Open Com., pp. 76-79.) And Ebv. Mr. Wheelock, in a letter from England, published in the Christian Watchman, dated December, 1847, states: "While in London, 234 CHURCH COMMUNION. I casually learned that the ordinance of baptism was to be administered in one of the largest and most popular Baptist churches of the city. At the hour appointed, about twilight, on Thursday evening, I went to the chapel to witness the bap- tism. The church contained, rising eight hundred members. On entering, I perceived the lamps were lit, but few in attendance, and the pastor addressing the people. Eleven were baptized, and after changing their raiment, they retired into the chapel, and received the right hand of fellow- ship. I asked the administrator why the bap- tism was on a week-day evening, and at an hour when so few could attend. He answered, that about one-half of the church were Pedobaptists ; and for the peace of the church, they were care- ful to select an evening and hour when there was no other appointment, not even for a committee meeting, or meeting of Sabbath school teachers, or Bible class, or any thing else, lest the peace of the church might be disturbed by the Pedobap- tists members, thinking they had been entrapped to secure their presence at the baptism. For the same reason, he told me, the right hand of fellow- ship was given at the baptism, instead of the communion on the following Sabbath, that noth- ing might be said then that might endanger the harmony of the church. In some mixed churches, the Baptist members have been disciplined and ex- cluded, because they propagated among the people Baptist sentiments." EVILS OF MIXED COMMUHION. 235 Many similar facts might be given, but these are sufficient to show that "free communion" among Baptists is not only inconsistent, but nec- essarily tends to destroy our denominational exist- ence and to build up Pedobaptists wherever it has been fairly tested. This is conceded by some of its ablest advocates. For example, a Baptist minister, formerly of London, but now of Vir- ginia, himself an advocate of the practice, can- didly admitted, says Dr. Howell : " That so well convinced are many of the churches in the me- tropolis and other parts of Britain, that free com- munion is had policy, that on this ground alone they have abandoned it." And Dr. Howell adds : " The church in Leicester, of which Robert Hall was pastor, and afterward that in Bristol to which he removed, notwithstanding their '/ree communion^ and the unrivaled eloquence, amaz- ing learning, unaffected piety, and unprecedented popularity of their minister, who wrote on the subject the most elaborate works which have ever been published, were no more numerous or flour- ishing than many other churches of fewer advan- tages, and who practiced ' close communion.' I have the best authority for the remark — that of a clerical eye-witness, the Eev. Jonathan Davis, author of the History of the "Welsh Baptists — that in Mr. Hall's church not a single Pedobaptist habitually communed, nor was it to have been ex- pected, unless, as in the case of Bunyan, they were assured they could take possession of the 236 CHURCH COMMUNION. church and succeed its Baptist pastor with a minister of their own." (See Howell on Commun- ion, pp. 222 and 224.) Hence it is manifest that mixed communion is suicidal to the Baptists. Accordingly, the Chris- tian Eva says: "We question whether the lead- ing Baptist churches of England have a right to be called Baptist. They are a conglomeration of Baptists, Pedobaptists, and all sorts. Mr. Brock's church is so made up. So is the church of Mr. Lewis." And the editors of the Beligious Herald add : " So open communion tends to make an end of the Baptist denomination." This, indeed, Rob- ert Hall expressly concedes. ""Were that prac- tice universally to prevail," says he, " the mix- ture of Baptists and Pedobaptists in Christian societies would probably ere long be such, that the appellation Baptist might be found not so properly applicable to churches as to individuals." (See Hall's Works, vol. 2, p. 228.) If we may judge the practice by the compara- tive increase of our denomination for the last fifty years in Great Britain, where mixed communion generally prevails — and in this country where Church Communion is almost universal — we shall find that the Baptists in the United States have increased in a ratio of more than seven to one in Great Britain. Says Pkof. Cuktis: "The rise of the Baptist denomination in England and in this country, was at about the same time, under circumstances even more favorable EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 237 to their progress in tlie old than in the new- country." And he adds : " That where the results of mixed communion and our practice are capable of being fairly compared, the result shows, as clearly as statistics on a large scale can show any thing, that the plan of mixed communion palsies the strength and prevents the growth of our de- nomination, and even retards, as in Great Britain, the spread of our principles." (See Curtis on Com., pp. 214 and 222.) And, says Dr. Howell : " Of the great Baptist family in the United States, some small fractions, the Free-'Will churches for example, practice unrestricted communion. They are pious, intelli- gent, and zealous, but are they more popular, prosperous, or bappj' than we are ? It will not be considered invidious, every one knows it to be true, if I reply they are not. The opposite, in- deed, is the fact. Little churches have sprung up in several States, at different times, upon the 'free communion' principle. They have had talented and laborious ministers, and pious and efficient members. But they have invariably dwindled, and in a few years ceased to exist. Such has been, and such I apprehend ever will be, the his- tory of churches conducted upon this principle. (See Howell on Communion, pp. 225, 226.) Accordingly, the "Southern Presbyterian," speaking of the proposition entertained by cer- tain English Baptists for ecclesiastical union with Pedobaptists, says : " It is a result, doubtless, of 238 CHURCH COMMUNION. the principle of ' open communion' which the hest Baptists of England have long held and reduced to practice ; a principle wholly inconsistent, as they now perceive, with that dogma of ' one baptism,' which logically operates to the unchurching of all who believe in pouring or sprinkling as a scrip- tural mode. There are many American Baptists* who also believe that they ought to admit Chris- * It is not true, as Pedobaptists vauntingly assert, that "many'' American Baptists belieye in open communion. " The wish is father to the thought." Tet one would suppose from their papers that the entire Baptist family were upon the eve of going into open communion. But not so; there is really no more truth, and no more prospect of this, than that Baptist churches are ready to abandon immersion and adopt sprinkling as baptism. The adoption of the one would be followed by the other, and no Baptist church is prepared for this yet — never will be. "There are yet 14,000 churches, and 9,000 ministers, and more than one million members, who have not bowed the knee to BaaJ — never mil." (See Baptist Visitor for November, 1868. The imprudence of a few erratic ministers who aspire to become the Halls and Spurgeons of America, has given oc- casion for all this Pedobaptist gossip; such, for example, as Rev. Chas. H. Mai.com, of Newport, R. I., and Rev. Cbammond Kennedy, of Brooklyn, N. T., who figured recently in the "Heavenly Communion," in the latter city. By such pseudo- charity, a few brethren may and do place the whole denom- ination in a false attitude before the religious public, and wound the Savior in the house of his friends. Mr. Kennedy, late of Scotland, known as " the preacher boy," never was re- garded as a sound Baptist, and now stands excluded from his church on the ground of heterodoxy. His little book, styled " Close oe Open Communion," is a weak dilution of Robert Hall, equally at war with Baptists and Pedobaptists, and re- EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 239 tians of other denominations to their communion boards, and who thus choose to be nobly incon- sistent with their doctrine, that no one is in the church who has not been in the water. But by thus departing from this doctrine for the sake of showing themselves a part of the common fold of believers, they certainly are preparing themselves more or less unconsciously for joining hands with us futes itself. Any one who would be influenced by such a book, had better be something else than a Baptist. In speaking of Dr. Lincoln's Kesolutions, offered in the "TFarj-en Association" last fall (1868), and referred to a Com- mittee to report the next year, the "Baptist Visitor,'' of DoTer, Del., remarks: "These resolutions were offered by Eev. Heman Lincoln, D. D., with a view of re-affirming the principles of our Baptist faith, because of the open communion position of the Second Baptist Church of Newport, Mev. Charles H. Malcom, pastor. The history of Brother Malcom is known to most of our readers. It is not known by aU, however, that the church of which he is pastor is not a regular Baptist church, but a body of " Six pkinoiple Baptists," holding im- mersion in common with the regular Baptists, but differing from them in other respects." "These resolutions were adopted by the ^Boston Association! North, a few days after, without a dissenting vote." And the " Old Philadelphia As- sociation, comprising sixty-seven churches and over seventeen thousand members," recently adopted still stronger resolutions " with hearty unanimity." Such erratic and inconsistent breth- ren are "no< of us" and ought to be required to go " out from us.'' Even the Pedobaptists, while enjoying " heavenly commun- ion " with Mr. C. H. Malcom, think him too liberal, inasmuch as he exchanges pulpits with UNiTAKiAfrs. The Missouri Pres- byterian says : " Such excessive courtesy is a high-handed insult to a Divine Savior." (See Religious Herald, of Feb. 11, 1869. 240 CHURCH COMMUNION. heretics altogether." In the language of the editors of the Religious Herald, " We call the special at- tention of Baptists to this double concession: That open communion is ' wholly inconsistent ' with the belief that the immersion of believers is the only scriptural baptism ; and that open commun- ion * certainly prepares the way ' for the abolition of Baptist churches altogether ! " Hence it is evident that " Free. Communion Baptists," are not only very inconsistent, but prac- tically surrender their denominational principles, and virtually indorse the eri'ors of Campbellites and Pedobaptists, by the very act of intercom- munion with them. In view of all these facts, the great Baptist brotherhood can but deplore the sad and ruinous consequences that must and will follow the unsoriptural practice in England, backed as it is by the growing influence of Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. In the midst of the almost super-hu- man labors of that remarkable man, it is to be supposed that he has never found time to investi- gate the communion question thoroughly in the light of Scripture and history. "With his candor and independence of mind, we are forced to be- lieve that such an investigation would lead Mr. Spurgeon to adopt Church Communion. Nothiug could aft'ord his American brethren more pleasure than to know that the weight of his influence was in favor of this scriptural practice. A most fear- ful responsibility, in the providence of God, rests upon that brother on this subject, and the adop- EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION. 241 tion of Churcli Communion by him would con- stitute & glorious era in the history and progress of English Baptists. In the meantime, we tender to our strict communion brethren of England, our heartfelt sympathy, and bid them God-speed in " keeping the ordinances " as they were delivered to the primitive churches. " Truth is mighty and will prevail." And each may confidently say, " The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." (Heb. 13 : 6.) Hence it is manifest that Mixed Communion is not only bad policy, but absolutely suicidal to the Baptists. In the language of Eev. Or. H. Orchakd, we add: "The practi-ce has divided brethren and professing communities, who otherwise hold the same doctrines and practice. Our pecuniary resources are, we think, weakened, when open churches can divert a portion of its collections to Pedobaptist funds. A feeling of chilly indiffer- ence exists among a portion of the ministers who differ on the terms of communion, and some strict brethren have felt the sneer of contempt. The advocates of an ^unbounded love,' are found ex- ceedingly deficient in charity toward those who differ from them on this question, and those who cheerfully contributed to our funds in years past feel themselves justified in denying aid, if the table is not open to them. It is not in my power," says he, " to record the full extent of evils result- ing from this licentious course." (See Hist, of Open Com., p. 76.) The whole tendency of the 21 242 CHURCH COMMUNION. practice, therefore, is evil and only evil continually. What conscientious Baptist, in view of these facts, can give his influence to the pernicious practice? , In view of these undeniable facts, let American Baptists take warning, and check the very begin- nings of mixed communion in our churches, and especially among our ministers. Not only the New Testament, but the law of self-proteetion re- quires that we should shun the very appearance of the evil. The few uninformed but well-mean- ing members in our churches, whose feelings in- cline them to the practice, only need instruction and kindness to establish them in the truth. But those ambitious and time-serving ministers among us, who know better, and yet are vaunting them- selves at the expense of the whole denomination and God's truth, justly merit exclusion from the body. If they really love other denominations so much better than they do the Baptists, they ought to be with them ; and the sooner we get rid of all such erratic and inconsistent brethren the better for the cause of Christ. "We can well afibrd to spare such brethren. They are doing what they can to destroy the denomination, whether they intend it or not. Such are a few of the many evils of mixed com- munion : 1st, It is unscriptural, and, as such, not binding upon the churches; 2d, It perverts the design of the Lord's Supper, and hence invalidates the ordinance ; 3d, It tends to destroy the effect EVILS OF MIXED COMMUNION, 243 of church discipline, and compels a church to commune with its own excluded members ; 4th, It is glaringly inconsistent in the present divided state of the Christian world; 5th, It compels its advocates to indorse and fellowship what they be- lieve to be radical error ; 6th, It violates the de- clared principles of those who practice it ; and 7th, Mixed communion is not only bad policy, but it is suicidal to the Baptists. 244 CHURCH COMMUNION. CHAPTER V. PACTS DEDUCED PKOM THE SUBJECT. 1. Church Communion, as practiced by the Baptists, is both con- sistent and scriptural. 2. Mixed communion is not only unscrip- tural and inconsistent, but a great evil. 3. It is not " close com- munion'' in fact, but close baptism that separates the Baptists and others at the Lord's Table. 4. Mixed Communionists, by their unholy opposition to Church Communion, do great injus- tice to the Baptists, and great injury to the cause of Christ and the souls of men. 5. Free Communion Baptists are very inconsistent, and practically surrender their denominational principles. 6. The Campbellites are the most inconsistent of all others in their professions of mixed communion. 7. There is not, in fact, any such thing as "open communion" in exist- ence. 8. The duty of all Christians, and especially of the Baptists, in regard to the Lord's Supper. From the whole subject we learn the following important facts : 1st. That Church Communion, as practiced by the Baptists, is both consistent and scriptural. 'Sow we have already shown the points of agree- ment between the Baptists and others in regard to the nature, design, and qualifications for the Lord's Supper, and that the Baptists practice Church Communion on principles held in common with Mixed Communionists. The distinctive difference, therefore, between them and ourselves on this FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 245 subject IS, that we carry out our principles in prac- tice, while they, professing the same principles, vio- late them in their practice of mixed communion. We have also proved that Church Communion, as held and practiced by the Baptists, is scriptural; that mixed commtfnion was unknown in the apos- tolic churches! and is a recent invention of men, based upon the false charity of the age. Accordingly, Prof. Curtis says : " The ground which we take in regard to the Lord's Supper practically harmonizes with that of Christians of all ages and climes. It is simple, charitable, and consistent with itself. We have a full and perfect fellowship or communion as Christians, with all the followers of Christ so far as we know them. With those who agree with us ceremonially, we ceremonially commune. Where we agree as to or- dinances, we celebrate ordinances together; where otherwise, we do not. We differ from many as to what baptism is, and we feel sure that we are right. All denominations most fully coincide with us, that those only who agree as to ordinances — i. e., who regard as valid each other's baptism — should partake together of the Lord's Supper. But with all Christians as such we commune most heartily and truly. We commune in prayer, which was the great ancient test; in preaching,* in sing- * As to what is termed "Pulpit communion" it is a mere mat- ter of expediency with us, and hence to be governed wholly by circumstances. As has been shown, there is nothing in our 246 CHURCH COMMUNION. ing, in experience, in many Christian efforts — ^in every thing, except that in which they do not agree with us, viz., Church ordinances. Can any thing be more just, truthful, and proper?" (See Curtis on Communion, p. 126.) And Dk. Hibbard, with a candor and magna- nimity which very few Methodist writers evince, truthfully remarks: "The Baptists, according to their views of baptism, certainly are consistent in views, rightly understood, to prevent such communion, on all proper occasions, vrith those ministers of other denominations vrho give satisfactory evidence of piety and a divine call, and who hold and preach the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, notwithstanding we regard them destitute of valid baptism and ordination, and hence can not consistently and scriptur- ally recognize their official acts as valid, or admit them to our communion table. We can and do rejoice in the success of aU ministers who hold truth enough to save souls, though they be unbaptized, and in error on many points. The great obstacle, however, to "pulpit communion" between the Baptists and others is mixed communion ; and until mixed communion preach- ers learn to do us justice in regard to our Church Communion, they can not reasonably expect Baptist ministers to hold pulpit communion with them. So long as they continue to subsidize the Lord's Supper to sectarian purposes, and to say, as they do, that " the Baptists will let us work for them, but refuse to let us eat with them,'' when they know that we practice Church Communion on principles held in common with themselves, and refuse the communion to them simply because we regard them unbaptized, it is certainly inexpedient for us to furnish them with clubs with which to beat our own heads. Let them stop their misrepresentations of our Church Communion ; then, and not till then, can we consistently and safely hold pulpit communion with them. Will they do it? FACTS DEDUCED FKOM THE SUBJECT. 247 restricting thus their communion;" t. e., to the members of their own churches. (See Mibbard on Baptism, part 2, p. 174.) As we have seen, Drs. GriiEn, Monfort, and other Presbyterians admit the consistency of our practice. So do the most intelligent and pious of all denominations. Indeed, no one who understands the grounds of our practice can view it otherwise. Hence we see that Church Communion, as prac- ticed by the Baptists, is both consistent and scrip- tural. We learn from this subject — 2d. That mixed communion is not only unseriptural and inconsistent, but a great evil. That it is unscriptural, we have before shown. There is neither precept nor precedent for it in the New Testament, and we challenge its advo- cates to produce one. " The truth is," says Dr. Hibbard, " the preponderance of Scripture evidence is against mixed communion." And Dr. Monfort boldly affirms that it is of " recent date," and is based upon the "false charity of the age." In the language of Abraham Booth, " The ingenious author of the Pilgrim's Progress was the first to advocate it in England;" and he denied that any baptism was necessary to communion — a position opposed by all Mixed Communionists, except the Free Com- munion Baptists. Mixed communion is not only unscriptural, but also inconsistent in the present divided state of Christendom. This has been clearly shown, and 248 CHURCH COMMUNION. those who practice it are inconsistent with them- selves. For illustration, suppose tw6 pious Pedobap- tists attend a Campbellite church on Lord's day, and one should embrace the "ancient order of things," make the "good confession," and, be re- ceived for baptism, and the other should not. That church would debar the former from her communion table until he had been immersed for the remission of his sins, but permit the latter to unite with her in ^^ breaking the loaf" notwith- standing she regards him as unbaptized, if not unconverted, and, as. such, disqualified for the Lord's Supper. How inconsistent is this! Tet it is even so. Moreover, a large proportion of Pedobaptist churches consists of infants, whom they regard as church members. On this point the Presbyterian Confession of Faith (chap. 25, Form of Gov., bk. 2 of Discipline, chap. 1) expresses the sentiments of all Pedobaptists viz., " The visible church con- sists of all those throughout the world that pro- fess the true religion, together with their children;" and "all baptized persons are members of the church, are under its care, and are subject to its govern- ment and discipline." Tet no mixed communion Pedobaptist church in this country or in England will now permit its infant members to partake of the Lord's Supper. Thus quite one-half of the acknowledged members of Pedobaptist churches are at once excluded from this privilege of church membership. Anciently this was not so. In the FACTS DEDUCED PBOM THE SUBJECT. 249 language of Dk. Howell : " Their fathers did not act thus inconsistently. Infant baptism was origi- nated in the third century. From that time on- ward, during more than eight hundred years, thej' scrupulously took all their baptized children with them to the Lord's Table, rightly judging that they had the same title to the one that they had to the other of these ordinances. They de- clared that they administered them both to their infants upon the authority of tradition from the Apostles ' "When Pedobaptists,' says Dr. Hinton, 'give their children both ordinances, they will be consistent; but while they withhold the Lord's Supper from their children, let them not complain of others withholding baptism.'" (See Howell on Com., p. 243.) And Dr. Priestly, a distinguished Pedobaptist, says: "!N"b objection can be made to the custom of giving the Lord's Supper to infants, but what may, with equal force, be made to the custom of baptizing infants." And he adds: "Infant com- munion is, to this day, the practice of the Greek Church, of the Russians, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Copts, the Assyrians, and, proba- bly, all other oriental churches." (See Address to Protestant Dissenters, pp. 28, 31.) " It is at this point," says Prof. Curtis, " that all denominations of Christians, except the Bap- tists, exhibit such a singular and inconsistent re- striction of their communion. Regarding, as they all do, baptism as the door of their several 250 CHURCH COMMTTNION. churches, they, on the one hand, baptize children into church membership, and, on the other, refuse them the Lord's Supper, thereby excluding half or three-quarters of their own members from the symbols of church fellowship. "What makes this inconsistency more remarkable, is its contrariety to all those ancient church customs to which our Pedobaptist brethren appeal as their chief evi- dence in favor of infant baptism. It is notorious that the proofs from church history of infant par- ticipation in the Lord's Supper are as clear, as early, and as universal as those of infant baptism, so. that they must stand or fall together. That our Pedobaptist brethren are substantially right in not considering infants proper persons to par- ticipate in the Eucharist, we do not deny. It is one of those happy inconsistencies that results from their being so far ' Baptists in theory,' as Dr. Bushnell declares that they are. But a most strange and serious inconsistenqj there certainly is, in first declaring them members by baptism, and then refusing them the tokens of membership." (See Curtis on Com., pp. 93, 94.) Hence we see that the Baptists are far more consistent and liberal in their practice of Church Communion than are the advocates of mixed com- munion. "We admit all our own members to the Lord's Table, and give them the tokens of church membership ; while Pedobaptists debar more than one-half of theirs from their communion, and deny them the rights of church members. In the Ian- FACTS DEDUCED PROM THE SUBJECT. 251 guage of Dr. Howell : " We receive all. H'one are debarred. Ours, therefore, is by far the most free and liberal communion of any denomination ex- isting." (See Howell on Com., p. 244.) "We learn from this subject — 3d. That it is not " close communion " in fact, but close baptism that separates the Baptists and others at the Lord's Table. We have seen that all denominations, except the Quakers and Free Communion Baptists, hold and teach that valid baptism is essential to visible church membership, and that both valid baptism and visible church membership are indispensable prerequisites to communion at the Lord's Table. On this point there is perfect agreement between the Baptists and others, how much soever they may differ as to the action, subjects, design, and ad- ministrator of baptism. The great question, then, that here divides us, is : What is scriptural and VALID BAPTISM ? Here is the real issue between us, and here the battle must and should be fought. And with " the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God" in our hands, and the records of church, history in our favor, we have no fears of the final result. Believer's immersion, as instituted by Christ, and as held and practiced by the Baptists, has survived the fires of persecution, and triumphed over the combined powers of earth and hell, and come down pure to the present generation. iJTow we have shown that the Baptists can not remove this great barrier to intercommunion with- 252 CHURCH COMMTTNION. out the sacrifice of conscience and truth, and the indorsement of error and irregularity, ' while Mixed Communionists can remove it without any such sacrifice or indorsement. They all admit the validity of our baptism, and the regularity of our churches, and hence can adopt our baptism and church polity without any real sacrifice, but we do not and can not admit either the validity of their baptisms or the regularity of their churches, and hence can never adopt or indorse them. The obligation, therefore, to remove these and all other barriers to intercommunion rests solely upon the advocates of mixed communion, and they are solemnly bound to either remove them or hold their peace in regard to our church communion. If intercommunion between them and ourselves be as important as they seem to suppose, surely they will remove the barriers without delay. Until they commune with us in believer's immersion and church government, we can not consistently and scripturally commune with them at the Lord's Table ; and, as has been shown, it is both unkind and uncharitable in them to ask it. Hence we see that the charge of " close communion " is no more applicable to the Baptists than to others. It is not close communion in fact, but close bap- tism that separates us and others at the Lord's Table. This is admitted by the ablest advocates of mixed communion. For example, Dr. Griffin, as before quoted, says : " We ought not to com- mune with those who are not baptized, and of FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 253 course, are not church members, even if we regard them as Cheistians." And, Dr. Hibbard, with singular candor and truthfulness on this subject, says : " It is but just to remark, that, in one principle, the Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the Table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church-fellow- ship to all who have not been baptized. Valid bap- tism they (the Baptists) consider as essential to constitute visible church membership. This also we (Pedobaptists) hold. The only question, then, that here divides us, is : " What is essential to valid baptism ? " The Baptists, in passing the sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all other Chris- tian churches, have only acted upon a principle held in common with all other Christian churches, viz., that baptism is essential to church membership. They have denied our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have been excluded from their Table. That they err greatly in their views of Christian baptism, we, of course, believe. But, according to their views of baptism, they certainly are con- sistent in restricting thus their communion. We would not be understood as passing a judgment of approval upon their course; but we say their views of baptism force them upon the ground of strict communion, and herein they act upon the same principles as other churches, i. e., they admit only those whom they deem baptized persons to the communion table. Of course, they must be their 254 CHURCH COMMUNION. own judges as to what baptism is. It is evident, that, according to our views of baptism, we cau admit them, to our communion; but with their views of baptism, it is equally evident they can never reciprocate the courtesy. And the charge of close communion (italics his) is no more appli- cable to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the question of church fellowship with them is de- termined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches, so far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned; i. e., it is determined by valid baptism." (See Hibbard on Baptism, part 2, chap. 11, pp. 174, 175.) The real issue between the Baptists and others on this subject is here presented fairly and truly by Dr. Hibbard. It is close baptism, and not close communion. "It is admitted," says the Episcopal Methodist, of Raleigh, " that baptism must precede the Sup- per." Thafs the doctrine of " close communion " in a single sentence. Accordingly, the "Independent," an able Con- gregational organ, remarks: "For our own part, we have never been disposed to charge the Bap- tist churches with any special narrowness or bigotry in their rule of admission to the Lord's Table. Indeed, we have never been able to see satisfactorily how their principle differs from ours. We can see how it differs from Eobert Hall's principles, and how it differs from that imputed to Mr. Beecher, of Brooklyn, and the Plymouth Church, but we do not see how it differs from FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 255 that commonly admitted and established in the Presbyterian and Congregational churches. The principle is, that only members of churches are ad- mitted or invited to the Lord's Table, that only bap- tized persons can be members of churches, and that in all disputed cUses the church that gives the invitation is to judge what is baptism. When Congregational- ists give up this principle, perhaps the Baptists will be constrained to do likewise. Meanwhile, it can hardly be expected that the Baptists will be argued out of it — much less that they will be driven out of it by taunts and reproaches on their ' close communion.' The closeness of their com- munion, as compared with ours, lies simply in their definition of what is essential to baptism — a definition too narrow, indeed, but held by them in all good conscience, and in exemplary defer- ence to what they regard as the testimony of Scripture." (As quoted by the "New York Ex- aminer," for April 28, 1859.) This is candid and just, as all must admit. Hence, we see that it is not " close commun- ion," in fact, but close baptism that separates the Baptists and others at the Lord's Table. As all admit the validity of our baptism, and as we can not admit theirs, it is unreasonable in them to demand it of us. Mixed Communionists, by adopting adult and infant sprinkling for believer's immersion, and other errors, have erected the bar- riers to intercommunion between us, and they alone can remove them. As the Baptists stand 256 CHURCH COMMUNION. upon scriptural ground in their baptism, others must come to them. "We learn from this subject — 4th. That Mixed Communionists, by their unholy opposition to Church Communion, do great injustice to the Baptists, and great injury to the cause of Christ and the souls of men. That the Baptists are unjustly blamed for their practice of Church Communion, has been fully shown. How unjust is it to charge " a respect- able, an honorable, and an influential" denomin- ation of acknowledged Christians with "bigotry," " exclusiveness," " ilUberality," and "selfishness," and thus create " a popular prejudice " against them, simply and solely because they conscientiously carry out in practice principles held in common with all other denominations. Yet this is con- stantly done, both privately and publicly, by Mixed Communionists. They employ every means and improve every opportunity to embarrass and place the Baptists in a false attitude before the world. For instance, Albbet Barnes, of Philadelphia, a few years since in a union prayer-meeting, pro- posed and urged the celebration of the Lord's Supper, when he knew that the Baptists could not participate without the sacrifice of their principles and the violation of their consciences; and when his own confession of faith expressly de- clares that the Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ, " to be observed in His Church unto the end of the world." Dr. David Monfort, an FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 257 able and influential Presbyterian, in condemning such treatment of the Baptists by his brethren, justly remarks : " It seems to me but to take oc- casion to vaunt our superior catholicity to the prejudice of these honest Christians; and such churches complain of such treatment on our part as unkind. Let an impartial sense oi justice de- cide how correctly." (See fourth letter against "Mixed Communion.") Mixed Communionists thus not only do great injustice to the Baptists, but also great injury to the cause of Christ and the souls of men. By their denunciations and misrepresentations of our Church Communion, "a popular prejudice" is ex- cited against us, and the ears of many are closed against the truth as it is in Jesus. Thus, not only Christians, but many sinners are so blinded by prejudice, that it is out of our power to benefit and save them. Eternity alone can fully develop the injury thus done to the cause of Christ and the souls of men by Mixed Communionists. If it be true, that "one sinner destroys much good," as Solomon declares, then a fearful account awaits the opposers of Church Communion, as held and practiced by the Baptists. "We learn from this subject^ — 5th. That Free Communion Baptists are very in- consistent, and practically surrender their denomina- tional principles. The great Baptist family have abundant reason to be thankful that so few of their brethren, espe- 258 CHURCH COMMUNION. cially in America, are guilty of sucli glaring incon- sistency and faithless surrender of their distinct- ive principles. As honest Christians, Free Com- munion Baptists are bound to admit that the im- mersion in water into the name of the Trinity of a penitent believer, with a proper design, by a scriptural administrator, is the'only valid baptism ; and hence, in order to practice intercommunion with Camp- bellites and Pedobaptists, they are driven to the singular necessity of denying that any baptism is necessary to communion at the Lord's Table. In this view of the subject, however, they stand alone; for all other Mixed Communionists maintain as strongly as we do that scriptural and valid bap- tism is an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. Accordingly, John Buntan, the origina- tor, and Egbert Hall, the defender, of free com- munion among English Baptists, were forced to deny that baptism is a necessary prerequisite to communion at the Lord's Table; and hence they invited all Christians, as such, to their communion tables, regardless of baptism. For, says Mr. Hall, " Let it be admitted that baptism is, under all cir- cumstances, a necessary condition of church fellow- ship, and it is impossible for the Baptists to act otherwise (than to restrict their communion to members of their own churches). They both (Baptists and Pedobaptists) concur in a common principle,'^ namely, that valid baptism is essential to church membership, and that church member- ship is essential to communion at the Lord's Ta- FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 259 ble — "from which the practice (of strict com- munion) deemed so offensive is the necessary result." (See Hall's Works, vol. 2, pp. 212, 213.) Hence we see that the advocates of mixed com- munion can never call in Robert Hall as a witness against Church Communion .Baptists, for he differs more widely from them on this subject than he does from us, and denies the validity of their bap- tism as boldly as we do. He says : " We are com- pelled to look upon the mass of our fellow Chris- tians as unbaptized." And he adds: "The Apos- tles admitted the weak and erroneous, providing their errors were not subversive of Christianity. We do precisely the same." (See Hall's Works, vol. 1, pp. 212, 216). Are the advocates of mixed communion willing to acknowledge themselves " unbaptized, weak, and erroneous ? " "Will they prac- tice intercommunion with Baptists on such terms? We presume not. Yet these were the only terms upon which even Eobert Hall could admit them; and these are the only terms upon which any Free Communion Baptist church can admit them. These terms are even more offensive than those of strict communion Baptists ; and this may ac- count for the fact which Mr. Hall complained of so bitterly, that " very few persons of other denom- inations ever partook of the Lord's Supper in his church." Thus we see that Free Communion Bap- tists, in order to carry out their unscriptural prac- tice, are compelled to deny that any baptism is pre- requisite to communion, and to admit Pedobap- 260 CHURCH COMMUNION. tists and others as " unbaptized, weak, and erring brethren." This is indeed a remarkable stretch of Chris- tian' charity ! "With what mingled emotions of pity and contempt must all intelligent Pedobap- tists look upon such inconsistent Baptists ! Such pseudo-Baptists can neither expect the blessing of God nor the respect of other Mixed Communionists. Moreover, Free Communion Baptists, by the very act of intercommunion with Pedobaptists, not only give up their baptism, but also surrender their denominational principles. For instance, they practically relinquish the constitution and govern- ment of their churches, and indorse that of Pedo- baptists. All true Baptists maintain that the apostolic churches were constituted of immersed believers, and of such only, and that every such church was an independent executive democracy in the visible kingdom of Christ, i. e., the supreme power was vested in the membership of each church, just as it is in all Baptist churches. Nor can this power be delegated to a minister, session, presbytery, conference, or council. Every true Gospel church is an independent judicial and execu- tive body for itself in the visible kingdom of Christ, to which the laws and ordinances of that king- dom are committed, subject only to Christ as its Head and Lawgiver. Such a church has full power to administer the ordinances and execute the laws of Christ, but no power to alter, amend, or repeal those laws and ordinances. FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 261 Now we believe that Pedobaptists have radi- cally changed both the constitution and government of Christ's churches. "We maintain that all Pe- dobaptists have changed the divine constitution of the churches by admitting infants to church mem- bership, and by substituting effusion for believer's immersion ; and that all except the Congregation- alists, have changed the government of Christ's churches by depriving the people of supreme ju- dicial and executive power, and subordinating them to diocesan bishops, presiding elders, church sessions, presbyteries, and higher judicatories, claiming and exercising both legislative and execu- tive power over the churches. !N"ow, while \^e gladly recognize the intelligence and piety of our Pedobaptist brethren generally, still we do not, nor can we, recognize their churches thus consti- tuted and governed, as Gospel churches, any more than we can recognize their infant sprinkling as G-ospel baptism. Yet by intercommunion with such churches. Baptists necessarily indorse and fellowship them as true and regular Gospel churches ; for the Lord's Supper is, as all admit, a church ordinance, and as such, involves and ex- presses church fellowship as subsisting between communicants at the same table. And as the ad- vocates of mixed communion hold that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, Free Communion Baptists are justly regarded by them as indorsing their baptism as valid by the very act of intercom- 262 CHTJUCH COMMUNION. munion. How inconsistent, not to say sinful, is this in Baptists ! And this indeed underlies the whole policy of Mixed Coramunionists, as some of their ablest men admit. For example, Me. Thoen, of Win- chester, England, author of "Modem Immersion not Christian Baptism," says of the Baptists: "By adopting the plan of open communion, they prac- tically concede the validity of our baptism, as it respects both the mode and subjects ; as they profess to act only from plain- examples or apostolic pre- cepts." And a celebrated Pedobaptist author and preacher said to Mr. Newman, of England: " Open the door of your churches, and we do not fear the result." (See Orchard's History of Open Communion, p. 73.) As we have stated before, the advocates of mixed communion cry out against our church communion, and boast of their open communion as a means of sioelling their num- bers ; " and," says an able English writer, " as an ex- pedient to accommodate worldly men and the un- decided with the privileges of the Gospel." Hence they urge Baptists to intercommune with them, not because they really desire such communion, but for sectarian purposes; knowing that the very act is a practical abandonment of our de- nominational principles, and a virtual indorse- ment of their peculiarities. Thus, in effect. Free Communion Baptists cease to be Baptists and be- come Pedobaptists and Campbellites. "We learn from this subject — FACTS DEDUCED FKOM THE SUBJECT. 263 6tli. That the CampbelUtes are the most inconsistent of all others in their practice of mixed communion. The Baptists could practice mixed. communion with far more consistency than the Campbellites. We believe and maintain that a person must ex- perience a change of heart and the pardon of sins before he is seripturally qualified for baptism. Hence we can and do regard our Pedobaptist brethren generally as " the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus " (Gal. 3 : 26), and, as such, need- ing only immersion in water on a profession of their faith, with a proper design, by a scriptural administrator, and union with Gospel churches, to fit them for communion at the Lord's Table. "With many of them, particularly the Congregation- alists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, we substan- tially agree on experimental religion, including a change of heart, justification, pardon, and adop- tion through faith in Christ and by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and which fit an individual for baptism; and hence we can consistently hold Christian Communion with all such — -just as we do with our candidates for baptism — notwithstanding we do not and can not hold sacramental commun- ion with them, because not seripturally baptized, and consequently not regular church members. But the Campbellites not only believe — as do Mixed Communionists general-ly — that valid bap- tism is an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, and that believer's immersion is the only valid baptism — as do all Baptists — but they also 264 CHURCH COMJIUNION. hold and teach that baptism, iu connection with faith and repentance, is in order to obtain the remission of sins, and that there is no promise of salvation without compliance with all three of these supposed conditions of salvation. In other words, they boldly maintain that it is in the very act and at the very instant of immersion, and not before, that a believer has the promise, and actually receives the remission of his sins, and is adopted into the divine family. That this is a fair and true statement of their views on this subject, is evident from the voluminous writings of Alexander Campbell, the founder of the sect, and from the preaching and teaching of his lead- ing ministers and writers. Our limits will allow but a few plain and pointed extracts. For instance, Mr. Campbell remarks : " I proceed to show that we'have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name's sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us. in immersion ; that in and by the act of immer- sion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant our former, or old sins, are all washed away : provided only that we are true believers Peter, to whom was com- mitted the keys, opened the kingdom of heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reforma- tion, and immersion equally necessary to forgiveness. When a person is immersed for the re- mission of sins, it is just the same as if expressed, in order to obtain the remission of sins FACTS DEDUCED FEOM THE SUBJECT. 2^5 I am bold, therefore, to affirm that every one of them who, in the belief of what the Apostle spoke, was immersed, did, in the very instant in which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness of his sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If so, then, who will not concur with me in saying that Chris- tian immersion is the Gospel in vmter?" (See Chris- tian Baptist, revised, pp. 416 and 417.) And on page 520, he adds: "I assert" — and truly it is but an assertion — "that there is but one action or- dained or commanded in the ISTew Testament to which God has promised or testified that he will forgive our sins. This action is Christian immer- sion." Again, Mr. Campbell, in his last book on bap- tism, says : " In our baptism, we are horn into the divine family, enrolled in heaven. We receive jus- tification or pardon; we are separated or sanctified to God, and glorified by the inspiration of his own Spirit." (See Campbell on Baptism, p. 276.) All this, mark you, " In our baptism ! " Hence we see that with Mr. Campbell, baptism was a sine qua non, not only to communion at the Lord's Table, but also to salvation itself. And if there is any one thing in which the whole "current reformation" agree, it is in the doctrine of baptism for the actual remission of sins. It is found in every book, in every tract, and in every periodical, and it con- stitutes the burden of almost every sermon. With Campbellites, " Christian immersion is the Gospel in water ! " A popular proclaimer and graduate of 23 266 CHURCH COMMUNION. Bethany College, in addressing a large assembly in my hearing a few years since, said : " We not only believe, hut we know that immersion is the only baptism; and no man can be saved without baptism." This is pure Campbellism. Accordingly, Elder Moses E. Lard, Mr. Camp- bell's chosen and indorsed champion to review Dr. Jeter's ^^Campbellism Examined," speaking of Acts 2 : 38, says : " ISTow, we afl&rm that this pas- sage teaches that baptism, with repentance, is for — ^that is, necessary to — remission of sins ; that it makes remission depend on baptism in precisely the same sense in which it makes it depend on repentance; and that a connection is thus estab- lished between them of a nature so permanent that remission is in all cases (previous exceptions of infants and idiots aside) consequent on baptism and never precedes it. (See Review of Campbell- ism Examined, p. 193.) !N"ow, if these views of Mr. Campbell and his representatives be correct (which every Baptist most emphatically denies), then it necessarily fol- lows that our Pedobaptist brethren are not only unbaptized, but they are yet in their sins ; for many of them have never been immersed, and none of them were even sprinkled in order to obtain the remission of their sins. Hence, Mr. Campbell says : " Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent Pagans, wherever they can be found, with all the pious Pedobaptists, we commend to the mercy of God." (See Christian System, p. 233.) This, in- FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 267 deed, is all he could do with them, for there is no other hope for such "pious Pedobaptists" accord- ing to Campbellism. How inconsistent is it, there- fore, in Campbellites to intercommune with such pious sinners! and how inconsistent in Pedobap- tists to reciprocate the courtesy ! Yet it is a no- torious fact, that American Campbellite churches and evangelists generally are guilty of this glar- ing inconsistency almost every Lord's day, under the plea of not inviting these "pious Pedobap- tists;" while they boast of their "superior catho- licity " for sectarian purposes, and abuse and stig- matize the Baptists both privately and publicly as "bigoted," "exclusive" "illiberal," and "selfish," on account of their Church Communion. By this unholy use of the Holy Supper, great injustice is done to us and to the cause of Christ, and many honest inquirers after truth, holding Baptist sen- timents, are inveigled into the ranks of the " cur- rent reformation," who do not and can not believe Campbellism. It is not strange, therefore, that the represent- atives of the Campbellite churches in Great Brit- ain, at their last annual meeting, adopted the fol- lowing RESOLUTION : " That we learn with deep regret that some evangelists in America commune at the Lord's Table with unbaptized persons, who, without formal invitation, and, it is alleged, on their own responsibility, partake ; and we hereby decline to sanction evangelic cooperation with any brother, whether from America, or elsewhere, 268 CHURCH COMMUNION. who knowingly communes with, unbaptized per- sons, or who, in any way, advocates such com- munion." {Religious Herald) Hence the Journal and Messenger asks : " How is it possible for the Disciples to be so widely different in views and practice in England and America ? How are they so unanimous for close communion there and for o])en communion here? The answer is obvious enough. The animus of the whole matter is an- tagonism to the Baptists. The Baptists of Great Britain are chiejly open communion in their views ; hence the Disciples there are intensely close. In this country, the predominant sentiment among the Baptists is for close communion ; hence the Dis- ciples of this country are earnestly for open!" Well, if Campbellites will act thus inconsist- ently to make proselytes to their party, we can only commend them to the mercy of Grod. " Sink or swim, survive or perish," we will not " handle the Word of Grod deceitfully," nor make mer- chandise of the ordinances of Christ. ^^Whatso- ever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report " (Phil. 4 : 8), we will approve and practice, and nothing else. We believe in fair and honest dealing, and we had rather be right than popular, if we can not be both. We feel sure that in our practice of Church Communion we are consistent with truth and duty, and hence we "have a conscience void of offense both to- FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 269 •ward God and men." "We feel it to be our sol- emu duty to " keep the ordinances " as they were delivered by Christ and his Apostles to the first churches ; and not only to preach and practice the lohole truth, but also to bear our united testi- mony against all error; and hence we aft'ection- ately, but faithfully, testify against the errors in faith and practice of our brethren of other de- nominations, though it costs us bitter persecution. The records of history show that such unflinching fidelity to truth and duty has cost many Baptists ' their heads, and it has subjected the whole de- nomination to ceaseless misrepresentation and slander. But none of these things move us, neither count we our lives dear unto ourselves, that we may finish our course with joy. God helping us, we will continue to do our whole duty whether men praise or blame. But, after all, is it true that the more intelli- gent Campbellites really believe in mixed commun- ion? Do they believe that Pedobaptists possess the scriptural qualifications for communion at the Lord's Table? We answer, they do not. Why, then, do they not, as honest men, frankly tell them so, both by word and action ? How can they in- nocently neglect it? And how is it possible to reconcile their principles and practice on this sub- ject? When Dk. 1^. L. Rice pressed this point in the Lexington debate, Alexander Campbell replied : " We, indeed, receive to our communion per- sons of other denominations" — of course unbaptized, 270 CHCTECH COMMUNION. if not unconverted, persons — " who will take upon them the responsibility of partaking with us." Yet, to Eev. "Wm. Jones, of London, who inquired, " Do any of your churches admit unbaptized persons to the communion?" Mr. Campbell replied: "Not one, so far as known to me; there is neither laio, precedent, nor license for it." (See Camp. Exam., p. 290.) And just before his death, in a contro- versy with Dr. D. R. Campbell, late president of Georgetown College, which was published both in the Millennial Harbinger and the Western Re- corder, Alexander Campbell emphatically denied that either he or his people ever had held mixed com- munion as practiced by others. Indeed, no intel- ligent Campbellite can believe in mixed commun- ion. I have conversed freely on this subject with many leading Campbellite preachers, who have frankly acknowledged that they did not regard the Pedobaptists as qualified for communion at the Lord's Table; among whom was Elder Jacob Creath and others. But whether the Campbellites really believe in mixed communion or not, one thing is certain, they generally practice it in this country, and boast of the fact, notwithstanding it is in direct violation of their declared principles. And thou- sands of persons, entertaining Baptist sentiments, have thus been deluded into Campbellite churches. Ifow, if the Campbellites do not believe that the Pedobaptists are scripturally qualified for the Lord's Supper, they are solemnly bound to declare FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 271 the fact both by word and action. If they be- lieve them to be in error, on this subject, then consistency and fidelity require that they should warn them of their error, and endeavor both by precept and example to reform them. They are under obligations not only to declare the scrip- tural terms of communion, but also to debar from the Lord's Table in their churches all those who have not complied with these terms. On this subject there is room for a reformation among Campbellites worthy of the name. If it be said, " It is the Lord's Table, and there- fore we have no right to invite or refuse any one," we answer, Then we have no right to debar any person; and hence the fornicator, the covet- ous, the idolater, the railer, the drunkard, and the extortioner may all partake of the sacred ordinance, though the Scriptures forbid it. (See I Cor. 5 : 11.) As we have shown, the Lord Jesus Christ has established his Table rn each particular church, and requires every church to exercise a watchful discipline over all its communicants and to debar unworthy persons from its communion. This all admit. Yet it is a melancholy fact, that Campbellite churches generally are in the habit of admitting Pedobaptists to their communion tables, and their bishops and deacons freely offer the bread and wine to all professed Christians present, when they know that many of them have never been immersed, and therefore have no divine right to partake of the elements. Thus they neu- 272 CHUECH COMMUNION. tralize their own testimony in- favor of believer's immersion, and confirm the Pedobaptists in their neglect of the ordinance. Accordingly, Alexander Campbell, in answer- ing a '^catalogue of queries" on open communion, says : " I am opposed, in any case, to admitting unimmersed persons to church ordinances ; because it is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures ; be- cause it is nowhere precedented ; and because it not only deranges the order of the kingdom, but makes void one of the most important institutions ever given to man. It necessarily makes immersion of non-effect. For with what consistency or propriety can a congregation hold up to the world either the authority or utility of an institution which they are in the habit of making as little of as any human opinion?" (See Chr. Bap., vol. 6, p. 184) " And Pkof. Curtis remarks: "It is action that produces' action. To tell a person that he is in error, but that it is of no importance, will rarely incite investigation, but never rouse the sluggish conscience to action, which is what is here chiefly requisite. JPure self-denying example is all impor- tant." (See Curtis on Com., p. 261.) Hence we see that the Campbellites are the most inconsistent, not to say sinful, of all others in their professions of mixed communion. They not only violate their own principles, but stultify their testimony for believer's immersion, and in- dorse adult and infant sprinkling as baptism by the very act of such intercommunion. FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 273 "We learn from this subject — 7th. That there is not, in fact, any such thing as "open communion in existence." Communion, to be open, must embrace all pro- fessed Christians in good standing in their own churches. The advocates of mixed communion admit this in theory, but contradict it in practice. They boldly maintain that we have no right to judge of the fitness of others for communion at the Lord's Table, but that every communicant must judge of his own fitness, and so partake. Accordingly, they charitably invite to their re- spective tables "all Christians {i. e., all who claim to be Christians) in good standing in their own churches." This is an open invitation, we must admit. But it necessarily embraces not only the Baptists, Campbellites, Congregationalists, Epis- copalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyteri- ans, but also Arians, E-oman Catholics, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Swedenborgians, TJniversalists, Unitarians, and all others who profess to be Christians, and who are in good standing in their respective churches; for they are clearly included in the invitation, and all have a right to come. Such would, indeed, be an open table, and nothing short of this is such. It is evident, therefore, that if the advocates of open commun- ion practiced according to their professions (and consistency requires it), such would be tiie heter- ogeneous mass of good and bad that would sur- round the Lord's Table in their -churches. If 274 CHURCH COMMUNION. they debar one sect, then it is no longer open, but restricted communion — the very thing which they condemn in the Baptists as " bigoted," " exclusive," "illiberal," and "selfish;" yet they not only assume the right to judge and debar one, but many sects of professing Christians ; for of the fifty diflerent denominations in the United States, only some eight will intercommune with each other. Thus we see that these open advocates are guilty of the great sin for which they abuse and denounce the Baptists in such measured terms ! But the truth is, there is no such thing in ex- istence as open communion. It is the religious HUMBua of the age, and ought to be exposed. We boldly affirm, without the fear of successful contradiction, that there is not a church or denom- ination in Chi'istendom that practices unrestricted communion — not one. As we have already proved from their own creeds and disciplines, the advo- cates of mixed communion can not practice it with- out violating their own declared principles. And their discriminating and restricted practice justi- fies us in believing that they do not invite each other in good faith to their respective communion tables. The deluded masses no doubt are sincere in be- lieving in mixed communion, but how is it possi- ble for their preachers to believe and practice it, when they are solemnly jyledged to obey and en- force their respective creeds and disciplines, which forbid the practice? "We can not believe that FACTS DEBUCBB FROM THE SUBJECT. 275 they meau what they say whea they invite " all Christians in good standing in their own churches " to their communion, nor can they reasonably expect us to believe it while their 'practice contradicts their profession. For instance, the Presbyterians generally do not regard the Campbellites as fit participants of the Lord's Supper; and hence they do not intentionally invite them to their com- munion, nor will they " break the loaf" with them, unless forced by circumstances to do so. For example, not long since a Presbyterian doctor of divinity in Southern Kentucky, visited a neigh- boi'ing town, and, after preaching, administered the Lord's Supper. The reverend gentleman charitably extended the usual " open communion " invitation to all, and piously berated the Baptists on account of their "close communion." A few Methodists came to the first table with the Pres- byterians. 'Next came other Methodists and a few Campbellites, among whom was Colonel E , a prominent lawyer, whose own brother witnessed the scene and gave me the facts. The liberal doctor covered his face in holy horror with his hymn book until the solemn farce was ended, and then dismissed the assembly. Soon after this, the Campbellite lawyer received a long letter, in which the Presbyterian doctor assured him of his high personal regards, and his readiness to unite with him in the advocacy of temperance, but stated that he wished it distinctly understood, that when he invited evangelical Christians to the 276 CHURCH COMMUNION. Lord's Table he did not include the Cam^bell- ITES. Accordingly, Dr. IST. L. E,ice, a true expo- nent of Presbyterian views, (in his recent tract on "Campbellism," p. 39, published by the Presbyte- rian Board of Publication,) says : " Certainly evan- gelical Christians and churches can not acknowledge such a body" (as the Campbellites) "as a Church of Jesus Christ;" which they would necessarily do by holding intercommunion with them; for the Lord's Supper is confessedly a church ordinance, and, as such, involves and expresses church fellow- ship as subsisting between communicants at the same table. The same is equally true of Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, and all other Pedobap- tists. They do not and can not intercommune at the Lord's Table, without the grossest inconsist- ency and the most palpable violation of their own creeds and disciplines. In the language of Dr. Jones: "Not only do Pedobaptists exclude Quakers from their communion, they often ex- clude each other. A few years since, the mem- bers of the Old School Presbyterian General Assembly refused a request for intercommunion, formally preferred by the members of the New School General Assembly, then in session in the same place. The Episcopalian, in his own church, will commune with the Presbyterian, but he will not reciprocate the compliment, by receiving the sacred elements in the Presbyterian church from what he regards as ' unconsecrated hands.'" The FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 277 several Seoteli Presbyterian churches, the Associ- ate, the Associate Reformed, the Reformed Pres- byterian or Covenanters, and the United Presby- terian, refuse to commune with any sect." (See Dr. Jones on the Baptists, pp. 152, 153.) And it is well known that the sage advocates of apos- tolic succession and divine rights do not recog- nize these Calvinistic and "Wesleyan. usurpers as authorized ministers of Jesus Christ, but merely endure them because public sentiment compels them to do so. Hence it is that they seldom, if ever, intercommune with others. Thus Episco- palians are consistent in their practice, but most inconsistent in their professions of open commun- ion; while the Methodists, Presbyterians, and others are consistent in their principles on this subject, but strangely inconsistent in their prac- tice. Accordingly, the Church Intelligencer, an Episcopal organ, argues that, under the law of the church, " no habitual coming to the commun- ion should be allowed where the purpose to be confirmed is denied ; " and professes that it can not understand how any clergyman can "justify so plain a violation of so plain a law " as an invi- tation to those who are not of their communion. The Campbellites, also, generally claim to be open in their communion, and occasionally par- take with the Pedobaptists, but the favor is very rarely reciprocated by any ; because the advocates of open communion, particularly the Methodists 278 CHURCH COMMUNION. and Presbyterians, do not generally regard them as true and orthodox churches of Christ, and hence they can not consistently extend to them the ap- pointed tokens of church fellowship. True, the Methodists will occasionally intercommune with Campbellites, as a matter of policy, in order to make them a cafs-paw with which to claw the Baptists, and vice versa, but these are exceptional cases. Thus we see that, while all these denominations profess open communion, not one of them practice it. They not only refuse the communion to many persons — as, for example, to the Quakers, whom they acknowledge to be Christians — but many of them deny the sacred elements to more than one- half of their own members. They sprinkle in- fants and declare them church members, subject to church discipline, and then deny them the tokens of church membership. In the language of their own creeds and disciplines, they " bring them with- in the covenant" by baptism; make them "mem- bers of the church — engraft them into Christ ; " and then deny them the rights and privileges of church members. This is not only inconsistent, but un- just to these unoffending " little ones." Thus largely upwards of one-half of the acknowledged members of all Pedobaptist churches are debarred from their own communion. In the language of Prof. Curtis, we say : " The Baptists have no such close communion as this." We freely admit all our own rqembers to the Lord's Table; and in this we FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE SUBJECT. 279 are far more open than the advocates of open com- munion themselves. What, then, is the real difference betveeen the Baptists and others in regard to the Lord's Sup- per? It is simply this : We hold Church Commun- ion, and practice accordingly; i. e., we admit to our communion all and only the members of our own churches with whom we sustain church rela- tions, and over whom we can and do exercise church discipline; while they profess open com- munion, and accordingly invite '^all Christians" in good standing in their respective churches to par- take with them, but, in fact, restrict their com- munion to some half dozen different sects whom they are pleased to regard as evangelical, with whom they do not and can not sustain church re- lations, and over whom they can exercise no church discipline whatever, and, at the same time, they debar full one-half of their own members from the Lord's Table. Hence it is evident that the advocates of open communion really practice re- stricted communion, and herein they act on the very same principle that we do ; i. e., they admit to their communion only those whom they deem qual- ified for the Lord's Supper. Now this principle is right and proper, but what we complain of is this : they openly profess one thing and habitually practice another, and then abuse and denounce us in unmeasured terms because we practice what we profess. Hence it is manifest that there is not, in fact. 280 CHTJKCH COMMUNION. any sucli thing in existence as open commnnion ; it is a deception palmed upon the unsuspecting masses for sectarian purposes, and deserves to be exposed and reprobated by all good and honest men. Accordingly, Dr. T. G. Jones remarks: " Thus we see that there is no such thing as the much vaunted open communion among Pedobap- tist denominations. They are as close as Baptists — though with not half their consistency. Nay, they are closer than Baptists. To crown their closeness and inconsistency, all these denomina- tions refuse the communion to a large portion of their own membership. They will administer the rite of baptism — taking, as they suppose, the place of circumcision to infants — but they will not ad- minister the Lord's Supper — taking the place, as they equally believe, of the passover — to these same infants. In the preceding section, we saw that it was considered exceeding narrow in the Baptists to refuse baptism to children. Is it less so in Pedo- baptists, after baptizing them, to deny them the Lord's Supper? " (See The Baptists, p. 153.) Practically, then, open communion is a nonentity. It exists only in theory. Its advocates, while ex- tolling it, never practice it. Indeed, very few ever practice even their " much-vaunted open com- munion" in its restricted form; and many of its most noisy advocates never practice it at all. Por example, a grave Presbyterian elder in a city where the writer was laboring some years since, was berating the Baptists on account of " close FACTS DBDUCBB FROM THE SUBJECT. 281 communion," when a Baptist deacon asked him how often he had communed out of his church. The elder, with some hesitation, answered, "I have never availed myself of the privilege of commun- ing with others." "What a privilege must that be which they seldom or never wish to enjoy ! 282 CHURCH COMMUNION. COE"CLUDING REMAEKS. 1. Recapitulation. 2. The duty of Mixed Communionists. 3. The duty and interest of Baptists. 4. The special duty of Baptist ministers. 5. All boasting and severity disclaimed. 6. Desire and prayer of the Author. 1st. Recapitulation of the main arguments. We have shown the distinction between Christian, Church, and Denominational fellowship, with their respective tokens ; and that the Lord's Supper is ever the token, not of Christian nor of denomina- tional, hut of the church fellowship subsisting be- tween communicants at the same Table. We have also given the Points op Asreement between the Baptists and others, as to the nature, design, and qualifications for the Lord's Supper; showing that all agree in principle on these points, however much they may differ in practice. We have briefly explained and defended church communion as held by the Baptists; proving that it is scriptural, and that we practice church com- munion on principles held in common with the ad- vocates of mixed communion ; and that we can not remove the harriers to intercommunion with- out the sacrifice of these admitted principles, CONCLUDING REMARKS. 283 while others can remove them without any such sacrifice ; and hence they ought to do it. We have also answered the most plausible ob- jections to Church Communion as held by the Baptists, showing that no valid objection can be urged against the practice ; that the opposition to Church Communion arises from mistaken views of the nature and design of the Lord's Supper, and from a misunderstanding of the grounds of our practice ; and that correct views of the subject would entirely relieve the minds of Baptists and others. We have exposed the evils of mixed com- munion, especially as held by English Baptists, proving that it is unscriptural and inconsistent ; that it not only does no good, but much evil ; and that it necessarily tends to a compromise of prin- ciple, to laxity of discipline, latitudinarianism of doctrine, and to a consequent lowering of the standard of individual piety, and of the character and eflaciency of the churches, while it is absolutely suicidal to the Baptists as such. Fi'om the whole subject we deduced some im- portant FACTS, evincing that Church Communion is both consistent and scriptural, while mixed com- munion is not only unscriptural and inconsistent, but a great evil; that it is not "close communion" in fact, but close baptism that separates the Baptists and others at the Lord's Table; and that there is not, in fact, any such thing as open communion in existence, but that it is a mere theory, based upon 284 CHURCH COMMUNION. the false charity of the age, and advocated for sec- tarian purposes, and not for its own sake. 2d. The duty of Mixed Communionists. As we have seen, the advocates of mixed com- munion agree with the Baptists in principle as to the Lord's Supper, though they difter widely in practice. And as has been shown, they can re- move the barriers to intercommunion without any sacrifice of conscience or principle, while the Bap- tists can not do it without the sacrifice of both. It is clearly the duty, therefore, of Mixed Com- munionists either to remove these barriers, or to cease their abuse and misrepresentations of the Baptists on account of their practice of Church Communion. This every reasonable person will admit. Especially is it the duty of mixed com- munion PEEACHERS to take the lead in this work of reform among their people, as they have hith- erto done in waging the unjust warfare against ns. To his ancient people God said, " my people, they who lead thee cause thee to err " (Isa. 3 : 12) ; and shall this continue to be true of the leaders of mixed communion? Will they not rather instruct their congregations on the subject of our Church Communion, and, instead of excit- ing their prejudices and inflaming their passions against us, labor in good faith to remove the bar- riers to intercommunion ? Both consistency and duty require that they should either do this or hold their peace in regard to " close communion." The Baptists are not responsible for "close CONCLUDING REMARKS. 285 communion," as it is falsely termed. The advo- cates of mixed communion have "fenced" the Lord's Table against us, by substituting adult and infant effusion for believer's immersion, and by subordinating the churches to " higher judicato- ries," and they alone can remove these barriers to intercommunion between us. And we take it for granted, that if they really desire such inter- communion for its own sake, they will do it. In the truthful language of the " Baptist Visitor" of Dover, Del., we say : "All who practice sprink- ling shut us away from their communion table by such practice. Then they try to throw all the hlame on the Baptists, and say we erected the ' barriers' These ' harriers,' erected by those who ' teach for doctrines the commandments of men,' are surely to be swept away by the mighty tide of believer's imynersion." Ifever in the history of the world was such gross injustice done to any denomination of ac- knowledged Christians as has been done to the Baptists in regard to their practice of Church Communion; and this fact will be conceded by all candid and unprejudiced persons when our principles are correctly understood. And God helping us, we intend that our views on this sub- ject shall be understood by all who are willing to know the truth. But notwithstanding the combined opposition of Mixed Communionists, the progress of Baptists and Baptist principles for the last hundred years 286 CHURCH COMMUNION. has been unprecedented in the history of any de- nomination of Christians ; and doubtless it would have been much greater if all Baptists had been true to their principles. Strong in our apparent weakness, but " mighty through God," our final success is certain, provided we advocate and prac- tice the truth and oppose error in faithfulness and love. The Baptists are a power in the land. The Church Union, which has no love for us, says: " The Baptist denomination are the most aggress- ive and positive power in Christendom." (See Baptist Visitor for Nov., 1868.) And in the lan- guage of the great Nbandeb, we say : " There is a future for the Baptists." Only let our rising ministry be properly educated and trained, and, by the Divine blessing, Baptist principles and practices will universally prevail at no distant day. All we ask of our mixed communion brethren is, to lay aside their prejudice against our prac- tice, and examine our views of Church Commun- ion in the light of Scripture and facts. Let them candidly hear and read our views, and then op- pose whatever they find to be unscriptural. "We court investigation, and invite a candid hearing. If our opponents find us wrong, theii let them oppose our views and practice in a Christian spirit; but if they find us right and scriptural, let them beware how they fight against God and his ti'uth. Common as it is, it is sinful to mis- represent and slander even the Baptists. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 287 3d. The duty and interest of the Baptists. As has been shown, we can consistently hold Christian communion with all saints, irrespect- ive of external ordinances and visible church relations, and it is both our duty and privilege to do so in all proper ways, such as prayer, praise, religious conversation, etc. In such com- munion we are perfectly /ree and open, except so far as others restrict us by confounding Christian and Church Communion. A closer union and fellowship among Christians, as Christians, is the great want of the age, and it is both our duty and interest to cultivate and seek it with all saints. "We are bound to feel and act toward others as they ought to feel and act toward us, whether they reciprocate it or not. If they will not commune with us as Christians, because we can not commune with them as churches, then our obli- gation ceases, and the sin rests upon their heads. But while it is our duty. and privilege to hold unrestricted communion with all Christians, as such, still we are solemnly bound to keep the ordi- nances as they were delivered to the first churches, and to restrict our communion at the Lord's Table to the members of our own particular churches. We can not intercommune with others at the Lord's Table without indorsing their errors and sacrificing our conscientious principles by the very act. Both Mixed Communionists and the world so understand the act. Every Baptist, therefore, who partakes at a mixed communion 288 CHTJRCH COMMUNION. table, and every Baptist church which admits to the Lord's Table the members of other denom- inations is practically guilty of such indorsement of error and such abandonment of principle. With what surprise, not to say contempt, must intelligent Mixed Communionists look upon such pseudo-Baptists ! It is a notorious fact that our views and prac- tice of Church Communion are generally misun- derstood, and hence every-where misrepresented. In consequence of this, multitudes of persons holding Baptist sentiments have been driven into Campbellite and Pedobaptist churches. And Baptists have been criminally delinquent on this subject. We have been satisfied to act merely on the defensive, and have not used the necessary effort and means to impart information and to correct misrepresentation and slander. Hence many of our own members, particularly the young, are troubled on the subject of Church Communion, and do not understand the reasons for it. It is not enough to be satisfied ourselves, we should instruct others and endeavor to satisfy them; and this is especially important, since ovir views and practice are constantly being misrep- resented. We are as certainly right in our practice of Church Communion as we are in our practice of believer's immersion, and they must stand or fall together, for the one is the necessary result of the other. The New Testament knows nothing CONOLUDnSTG EEMAEKS. 289 of any other baptism or communion, And1f we explain and defend our views of communion in a Christian spirit, all honest inquirers after truth will see the correctmss of our practice; and even the most prejudiced advocates of mixed com- munion will hold their peace in regard to our- communion, as they are more than willing to do in regard to our baptism. We have every thing to gain and nothing to lose by this course. To say nothing of duty, it is bad policy to be silent on the subject. The better others understand our views of communion, the better they will feel toward us, and the more cordial and unrestricted will be our Christian communion with them. This, at least, is the result of my own experi- ence and observation for a quarter of a century in the ministry. I have always preached be- liever's immersion and Church Communion, as a matter of course, and as necessary parts of the Gospel, and my hearers expect it and receive it kindly. It is important to accustom our congre- gations to hearing the whole counsel of God; and if we preach the truth and oppose error faithfully and kindly, no right-minded person will take offense. At the close of a sermon on commun- ion, not long since, an intelligent stranger came forward and handed me five dollars, saying, " I am not a professor of religion, but I have believed for years that the Baptists were right in every thing except close communion, and you will please accept this small sum for relieving my mind on 25 290 CHURCH COMMUNION. the subject. I now believe that you are right in your views and practice of communion, as well as of baptism." Hence we see that it is both the duty and inter- est of Baptists to inform themselves on the sub- ject of communion, and to explain and defend our practice on all proper occasions. They should supply themselves with suitable hooks and tracts on this subject, and urge their children and neighbors to read them. Mixed Communionists do this con- tinually, and it behooves us to exert a counter- acting influence. Indeed, we can not innocently neglect this duty. As it is written : " To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." As honest men and women, we believe that we are right, and we ought to desire and seek to bring all others right. If we do not respect and sustain our own views and practice, we can not ex- pect the confidence and respect of others. Yet many timid and some time-serving Baptists have acted the part of Saul of Tarsus at the mar- tyrdom of Stephen. They have stood by and held the clothes of our opponents, while they were stoning the truth on this subject. And some, through false charity, complain of their pastors for preaching on the subject, and thus give their influ- ence against the truth and in favor of error. Such conduct is unworthy of our noble origin and sacred principles. Let every Baptist awake to righteous- ness, and sin no more. 4. A peculiar obligation rests upon Baptist minis- CONCLUDING REMARKS. 291 ters to explain, defend, and enforce the truth. It is not only their duty to preach the whole truth, but also to expose all error, in the spirit of the Gospel. To evangelists and pastors chiefly must the people look for instruction in righteousness. And while we should not give undue prominence to any one doctrine or ordinance, but present all in their relative proportions, still we should give special attention to those subjects which are mis- understood and perverted, as is the case with Church Communion. Baptist ministers, therefore, should preach fre- quently on this subject, explaining and defending 292 CHURCH COMMUNION. Thus other denominations disseminate their views among the people. For instance, every Methodist preacher is a book agent in his own field, to circulate Methodist books and tracts, and the^q^fc often exceed his salary for preach- ing. Reports are made to the Annual Confer- ences, and ^premiums awarded publicly to those who have sold the largest number of books and tracts. The press thus employed is the strong arm of Methodism. The same is true of the Presbyterians, Campbellites, and others. And shall not Baptists imitate their example? Will not our ministers take the lead in this great work ? Others beside Baptists will purchase our books and tracts, and will profit by reading them. Thus good books, containing the truth as it is in Jesus, would take the place of erroneous works and corrupting novels, and our own people, at least, would become established in the truth. Espe- cially should our theological students engage in this work; each one may clear one hundred dol- lars per month. 5th. All boasting and severity disclaimed. To those ignorant of our principles, our claims may seem arrogant. But we disclaim all inten- tional boasting. As Baptists, we do claim to hold the truth, unmixed with error, and to. keep the ordinances in their original purity. !N"or is this claim arrogant. All denominations practi- cally admit it, and their standard historians de- clare that " The Baptists may be considered as tlie CONCLUDING REMARKS. 293 Qnly religious community lohieh has continued from the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has kept pure, through all ages, the evangelical doctrines of religion." (See Hist, of Neth. Refd. Church, as before quoted.) Accordingly, all ac- knowledge the orthodoxy of our churches and the validity of our ordinances. They admit that we are right and scriptural as far as we go, and only object to what we do not believe and practice. But we claim to go as far as the Wew Testament goes, and we have no right to exercise our charity at the expense of G-od's truth. In answering the ill-founded objections to our practice, and in repelling the base slanders heaped upon us, we have used great plainness of speech, but even in this we have spoken the truth in love. We speak the truth and lie not when we say that we love all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and we can and do hold spir- itual communion with all such of our acquaint- ance, though we can not hold ceremonial com- munion with any except those with whom we ceremonially agree. And we joyfully hope to spend a blissful eternity with all the saved in heaven, where Christian communion is perfect and perpetual, and where sacramental commun- ion is no longer necessary. In the language of Dr. T. Gr. Jones, "We have endeavored to speak the truth ; and much more in defense of our brethren than in aggression upon others. And we should deeply regret if, while zealously striv- 294 CHtmCH COMMUNION. ing to vindicate the Baptists from unjust charges, we should seem to be unjust even to their most prejudiced and inveterate opponents." (See The Baptists, p. 227.) 6th. Finally, we commend these pages to the divine blessing with the earnest desire that they may be a means of promoting truth and right- eousness, and of suppressing error and prejudice among God's people; and that they may tend to unite Christians in faith and practice, and to bring all back to the primitive custom of Church Communion. "ISTow, the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, thrsugh the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you per- fect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever, Amen ! " THE end. GEO. S. BLANCHARD & CO.. PUBLISHEES, BOOKSELLEES & STATIONERS, 39 WEST FOURTH ST., CINCINNATI., OHIO. will send by mall, postage paid, to any address, any of the follow- ing Valtjable Books, at the price affixed. CnZTDEN'S CONDENSED CONCORDANCE. A Complete Con- cordance to the Holy Scriptures. By Alexander Ceuden. Re- vised and re-edited by the Rev. David King, LL.D. Octavo, sheep f2 00 The condensation of the quotations of Scripture, arranged under the most obvious heads, while it diminishes the hv.lh of the work, greatly facilitcUes the find- ing of any required passage. BACKETX'S Il^IUSTMATIONS OF SCBIPTUHE. Suggested by a Tour through the Holy Land. With numerous Illustrations. A new, improved, and enlarged edition. By H. B. Hackett, D. D., Prof, of Biblical Literature in the Newton Theological Institution. 12mo., cloth U 50 Prof. Hackett's accuracy is proverbial. We can rely on bis statements with confidence, wliich is in itself a pleasure. He knows and appreciates the wants of readers; explains the texts which need explanation; gives life-like pictures, and charms while he instructs. — N. Y. Ohserver. MAICOM'S NEW BIBZE DICTIONABT of the most impor- tant Names, Objects, and Terms found in the Holy Scriptures ; in- tended principally for Sabbath-school Teachers and Bible Classes. By Howard Maloom, D. D., late President of Lewisburg Uni- versity, Pa. 16mo., cloth $1 25 fl®" The former Dictionary; of which more than one Imndj-ed thousand copies were sold, is made the basis of the present work. SjCTTCS jaiSXOMT of PAZESTINE, from the Patriarchal Age to the Present Time ; with Chapters on the Geography and Natural History of the Country, the Customs and Institutions of the He- brews. By John Kitto, D. D. With upwards of two hundred il- lustrations. 12mo., cloth 81 75 B®- A work admirably adapted to the Family, the Sabbath, and the week-day School Library. XME EJOBZE; ITS DIVINE OMIGIN AND INSPIMATION; Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History, and Science. By L. Qaitssen, D.D. New and Revised Edition, with Analysis and Topical Index. 12mo., cloth $1 75 Every lover of the Divine Word should possess this book. SPVItOEON'S SEMMONS. Eight volumes now published. Per volume ^1 * GMACE XHUMAN, OB. ZOVE AND PMINCIFZE «1 50 "A book for every Baptist." E.USSELLVILLE, KY. I. School of Mathematics-James H. Gray, A. M., Professor. II. School of Latin Edward N. Oicken, A. M., Professor. III. School of Greek Prof. Dicken. IV. School of German Prof. Gray. V. School of French Prof. Gray. VI. School of Natural Science...T. E. Hart, Ph. D., Professor. VII. School of History and Belles-Lettres Pres. Davis. VIII. School of Moral Science Pres. Davis. IX. School of Biblical Instruction. X. School of Theology Rev. W. W. Gardner, A.M., Prof. PREPARATORY DEPARTMENT, IJBSiJJS WA-GGENlm, Fnnelpal. This College originated under the patronage of the Bethel Baptist Association of Western Kentucky. It was endowed, and has been sustained mainly by members of that denomination ; tlie prime motive being to establish an Insti- tution wherein young men might suitably prepare themselves for the Gospel Ministry. This object has been, and will be ever kept steadily in view. As an essential feature, a complete literary, scientific and classical course is in opera- tion, which will compare favorably with that of the best Colleges in our country. It is adapted to preparation for any sphere of life ; and students from all sec- tions, proposing any pursuit, are invited to enjoy the advantages of its Schools, under healthful, religinus influences. The disciplinary regulations of the College are few and simple, bnt compre- hensive. A strict observance of them is required. Every possible effort is made to inculcate sound and thorough scholarship, proper habits, refined manners, pure morals, and elevated and unrestricted piety. This, in the history of the College, has thus far resulted in excellent deportment among the students. SESSION— of two equal terms, begins 1st Thursday in Septem- ber, and ends 2cl Thursday in June. E:x::PEasrsES r TUITION TEE DT EACH SCHOOL, PEE TEEM, (IN ADVANCE), $10,00. No Incidental Charges. The stndent is reatiired to pay the fees of at least three Schools, JEstimate of the necessary expenses of a Student for the entire Session of two Terms, of forty weehs: Tuition in three Schools, - S 60 00 Board, forty weeks, @ S.1.00 160 00 Washing and Lights 15— $235 00 The cost of Text Books will vary from S5 00 to S15 00. There are few Colleges in the country where the total expenses are so small. Catalogues and circulars sent on application to the President. All Licentiates of Baptist Churches receive Tuition free of charge, and those who are needy, receive a part of their board. For particulars, address the President, Russejlvillo, Ky. G, S. BLANOHARD. GEO. E, STEVENS, Greo. S. Blanchard & Co., WHOLESALE AND BETAIL Uo. 39 West Pourtli Street, Omoinnati, 0. O. S. B. «fc CO. call attention to their well-assorted stock of Books and Stationery. Their established reputation and long experience guarantee faithful and intelligent dealing with their customers. Bookhuyers will find upon their shelves a select stock of Standard Works in every department of Literature. History, Poetry, Sci- ence, Belles-Lettres, &c., are well represented. All New Publica- tions are promptly received. Parties residing at a distance from the city will find it very much to their advantage to correspond with Q. S. B. & Co., in reference to whatever they may wish in their line. Particular attention is given to supplying College, Society, and Private Libraries. To Purchasers for Libraries, Professional men, Teachers, and Students, liberal terms are offered. Ever.v va- riety of Stationery, Blank Books, Writing Papers and Envelopes will be furnished at the lowest rates. THEOIiOGICAIi BOOKS. Q. S. B. & Co. pay special attention to the Department of Theological and Religious Books. A liberal dis- count is always made to Ministers and Library Committees. All Books of established value are kept on hand, and new issues are constantly arriving. Letters of inquiry in regard to prices will receive cheerful and prompt attention. Catalogues sent to any address when desired. Ministers visiting the city are invited to examine our stock. SUBTBAX-SCHOOI, BOOKS. G. S. B. & Co. have constantly on hand a large supply of all the popular Sabbath-school Music Books, Question Books, Testaments, Reward Cards, Cliurch Music Books, and an endless variety of books suitable for Sabbath-school Libraries is constantly on their shelves, including issues of all the dilTerent Societies and private publishers. Supeiuntendents or com- mittees not able to visit the city, can have their Libraries replen- ished by forwarding catalogues of books already in their possession, and designating the amount to be expended. Bibles and Hymn-Books arc kept in great rariety. Teachers and Students will find it advantageous to order Educa- tional Books, Works of Reference, and whatever they need for thorough work in their studies. A complete stock of Text-books is kept, and they are furnished on most favorable terms. The Public are requested to call and examine our Stock ; or, if unable to visit Cincinnati, to communicate with us by letter. AH orders will receive prompt attention, and infonnation of the prices at which articles can be furnished will be cheerfully given. Pack- ages can be sent O. O. D. to any Express Oflfice. Geo. S. Blanchard & Co., No, 39 West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, O.