f85G x £5 Q_ •^ .5 /? 1c 3 * C3 15 —*» HJ Q_ # W *S> fc o ^ ^ 5 >■ ^ fc M ii «£ Jgg tf CO "^ P* 2 *>4 o >-* JQ % C s £ CD £> s I <^ £ 1 ^ > ^ ^ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/restrictedcommunOOtayl §lesiritto (&mwm. RESTRICTED COMMUNION: OR, BAPTISM AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. BY JAMES B. TAYLOR, Richmond, Va. CHARLESTON: SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, No. 229 King Street. 1856. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, BY THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of South- Carolina. CHARLESTON : JAMES AND WILLIAMS, PRINTERS, 16 STATE STREET. k \ -.. RESTRICTED COMMUNION. Matt, xxviii: 19-20. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holv Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." 1 Corinthians xi : 1-2- *" Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordi- nances, as I delivered them to you." What is ordinarily termed close communion, has for years excited no little attention in the religious world. By many, it has been regard- ed as having its rise in bigotry, and on this account has been the occasion of much re- proach to our churches. It becomes a ques- tion of interest to all Christians: Is this charge of sectarianism well founded; or, can it be made to appear that the practice of re- 6 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. stricted communion is sustained by sound and incontestable argument? We propose to examine the subject, for the purpose of ascer- taining what light is shed upon it by the Word of God. It is not as the "rule " of " our churches," that we wish to defend it, but as the practice of the primitive disciples. In a question of so much importance, no considerations of policy should influence the mind, without the clearest evidence of scrip- tural precedent. Whatever may become of denominational preferences or interests, let the dictation of the King of Zion, and the ex- ample of the apostolic churches be cheerfully followed. If the system of restricted commu- nion be not warranted by the will of Christ, as taught in the New Testament, then it should be at once, and forever abandoned by us; but if it be found to originate in the Di- vine authority, not only should our brethren of other denominations lay aside their objec- tions, but, at whatever sacrifice, determine to be followers of us, even as we follow Christ. In explaining and enforcing the scriptural propriety of restricted communion, we pro- pose to prove KESTRICTED COMMUNION. 7 I. That baptism, upon a profession of faith in Christ, is an essential prerequisite to the pri- vileges of church fellowship, and of the Lord's table. 1. There is satisfactory evidence that those who participated in the first supper, were baptized. These were the twelve apostles, with Christ as their administrator. " In the evening, he cometh with the twelve, and as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed, and broke," etc. The question is, were these disciples baptized? There is no specific record of the fact, but is it not a legitimate conclu- sion that they were? Previous to this solemn and affecting period, they had baptized multi- tudes, even more than John had baptized. " After these things, came Jesus into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized." John iii: 22. In the., next chapter, we are informed: " When therefore the Lord knew the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John: though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.'" Is it to be presumed, that they were in the habit of baptizing those who professed sub- mission to Christ, while they themselves were 8 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. unbaptized? They were commanded to " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name," etc. Did they urge obedience to this rite, when they had themselves neglected it? No definite information is given us concern- ing the circumcision of Moses and Aaron, yet none pretend to doubt that they were circum- cised. Even the distinguished Robert Hall, could not evade the force of evidence, that the apos- tles were baptized; at least, he thinks it " cer- tain that some, probably most of them, bad been baptized ; " but he endeavors, ingenious- ly, to distinguish between John's and Christian baptism. There was, indeed, a distinction, but no essential difference. Those who were baptiz- ed by John, were required to repent and be- lieve in the Messiah, just about to appear; while those baptized by the apostles, were ex- pected penitently to receive and rejoice in the Saviour, who had already come; so that while there was a difference in the degree of light reflected on the claims of Jesus, as the Messi- ah, the design of baptism in these two cases was essentially the same. In each, it was in- tended to indicate subjection to the reign of RESTRICTED COMMUNION. V) Christ. We therefore conclude, that the twelve who participated in the first supper, were baptized believers. 2. The commission clearly indicates that baptism preceded the Lord's supper, and, is a prerequisite to it. This is contained in the words: " Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them," etc. The evangelist Mark renders it: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature, he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," etc. Let this be carefully noted. The only rule by which we are guided in baptizing those who believe, is found in this specific com- mand. The King of Zion in the most simple language directs the performance of this duty. He who proclaimed the gospel, was required to baptize believers — and, he that believed the gospel, was required to be baptized. How can the force of this obligation be evaded? Will any one who preaches, for a moment hesitate as to what is his duty in this particular? Or, will any one who trusts in Jesus Christ, hesi- tate as to his duty? It must also strike the mind of every unbiassed reader of the com- 2 JO RESTRICTED COMMUNION. mission, that the duty of the preacher, and of the believer in this thing, was immediate. " Go, teach, baptizing. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." As soon as both parties could be satisfied of the existence of faith in Jesus Christ, baptism was to follow. This first duty having been performed, be- lievers were to be taught or instructed in re- gard to all other duties; " Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have com- manded them." Among these " things," was the direction to eat of the bread, and drink of the cup, in remembrance of Him. Thus the order to be observed in keeping the ordi- nances, as delivered by the ascending Re- deemer, cannot be mistaken, if we impartially consider the import of the, great commission under which the church acts, in giving the gospel to the world. This leads us to exam- ine 3. The practice of the apostles and early evangelists, as furnishing proof that baptism necessarily preceded the Lord's supper. The very first instance in which the crucified one was declared to be exalted a Prince and a Sa- viour, to give repentance to Israel and remis- RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 11 sion of sins, presents the clearest evidence of that fact. After Peter had preached his me- morable Pentecostal discourse, as recorded in the second of Acts, he having, in obedience to the commission, commanded them to repent and be baptized, the historian states, that " They that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls; and they (these baptized believers) continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fel- lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in pray- ers." In Jerusalem, then, the apostles forth- with baptized the converts to Christ. Let us ascertain the course they pursued, when they left this city. In the eighth chap- ter of the acts, we learn that Philip having gone to Samaria, " preached Christ unto them." " And when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women." Does it not occur to every reader of this simple history, that Philip regarded baptism as an immediate duty, when faith in Jesus Christ had been exercised ? In the same chapter, 12 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. another remarkable proof of the position now contemplated is to be found. This same Philip by divine direction, preached the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch, whom he found inquiring the way of salvation, and the very first indica- tion of faith in the Redeemer was furnished by his earnest entreaty to be baptized. " Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus. And, as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, ' See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be bap- tized V " Immediately, upon a profession of his faith, Philip baptized him. The conclusion is inevitable, that Philip, in preaching to this Ethiopian, had explained the genius of the kingdom of Christ, and urged, according to the commission, baptism as the immediate duty of believers. Hence the eager solicitude of this man to be baptized, and the readiness of the missionary to gratify his wishes. The next case referred to in the evangelic history, is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. When arrested by the supernatural light, and the voice of Jesus Christ, he cried out in the anguish of his spirit, — " Lord, what wilt thou RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 13 have me to do ?" he was directed to go into the city, and there should be told him what he must do. Ananias was sent to him, and the first command, after receiving intimations con- cerning his future employ, was to be baptized. See Acts, xxii. 16. Ananias regarded it as an immediate obligation of the believer, to be baptized. When Peter preached to Cornelius and his household, as soon as he recognized them to be believers, " he commanded them to 6e baptized in the name of the Lord." With respect to Lydia and her household, we learn that the Lord having opened her heart, li she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul, and when she was bap- tized," etc. Acts, xvi: 15. In the same chap- ter is recorded the remarkable conversion of the jailor and his family. This man having believed on the Lord Jesus, " took them (Paul and Silas) the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway; and when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house." 14 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. When Paul preached the words of rtfe in the city of Corinth, we are distinctly informed, that " Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna- gogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house: and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Acts, xviii: S. Can any candid reader of the brief history of Christ's kingdom, as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, escape the conclusiou, that his ministers, who received their commission di- rectly from his lips, urged the obligation of believers to be baptized as immediate and im- perative ? And, is not the fact as apparent, that they regarded baptism as a necessary prerequisite to the privileges of church fellow- ship and of the Lord's table ? In the natural order of things, baptism always preceded the supper. 4. From various allusions in the apostolic letters, it is evident that the churches in pri- mitive times, were composed of baptized be- lievers. The first which occurs is in the epistle to the Romans, The incidental allusion to baptism in the sixth chapter, furnishes satisfactory evidence that these Christians were baptized. RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 15 Urging the claims of practical holiness, as re- sulting from salvation by grace, the apostle inquires: " How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? There- fore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ, was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Mr. Stuart, in his critical remarks on the subject, interprets it, "As many as have become devot- ed to Christ by baptism; as many as have been consecrated to Christ by baptism, or been laid under peculiar obligations, or taken upon them a peculiar relation to him, by being bap- tized." The argument is plain and forcible, and is in substance this, " We have been baptized, and, therefore, it would be inconsistent to live in sin." The Eoman Christians were baptized. In the letter to the Corinthian church, the author, alluding to the faction which had been raised in favor of himself and others, inquires " Were ye baptized in the name of Paul V- And, lest any should conclude that he sought to become the head of a party, he thanks God, 16 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. that, excepting a few among them, they had not been baptized by him. The implication is clear, that all the members of this church had been baptized, though not by the apostle Paul. That the Galatian church consisted of baptized believers, is unquestionable from the allusion in the epistle addressed to them: "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ; for as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." In the letter to the Ephesians, the apostle, in urging the importance of unity in the church, introduces as an argument the fact, that they had all yielded to one baptism. " There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." They were all baptized believers. The church at Colosse, being addressed by the apostle Paul, on the necessity of adhering to Christ, both in sentiment and in practice, were reminded of their obligations publicly RESTRICTED COMMUNION 7 . It assumed in baptism. " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who had raised him from the dead." He after- wards adds, M If ye then be risen with Christ (as indicated when you were buried with him in baptism and raised from the liquid grave), seek those things which are above." Was not the Colossian church composed of baptized believers ? It may be important to refer to another ex- ample, found in one of the letters of the apostle Peter. Having introduced an illustration from the history of Noah and his family, who were saved in the ark, he adds, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Can we escape the conclusion that the scattered disciples "throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia," were all baptized believers ? 5. The nature and design of baptism proves its indispensable precedence in the order of duties to be performed by believers. 18 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. Baptism as a ceremonial of divine origin, must necessarily be intended to occupy some important place, and to subserve some important design in the Christian economy. When we learn the object of this institution, we shall have more definite ideas respecting the time when it is to be performed. From the light furnished by the inspired word, we are authorized to represent the design of baptism, as consisting in a solemn acknowledgement of the Son of God, as Redeemer and King. By the exercise of penitent reliance on Jesus Christ, the sinner is released from condemnation, and brought into a state of favor. " He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." u This is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." In reply to the inquiry " what shall I do to be saved," the answer is prompt and definite; ''believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." "All that believe are justified," etc. "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." See the latter part of the third, and the whole of the fourth chapters of Rom- ans. RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 19 When this great change in the character and condition of the sinner takes place, it becomes appropriate, and is made necessary by the head of the church, that a public profession of the existence of this change, shall be made. The believer now forgiven and turned in heart to the Lord, is required to declare the new position he occupies. He is not only to receive Christ in his heart by faith and to en- joy by faith, a sense of security through him, but to be openly designated as a follower of Christ henceforth to yield obedience to all his laws. Such a public declaration of faith in Christ, and devotion to him, is made in baptism. It is this which stamps bap- tism with such a commandiug importance in the economy of grace. A significant pledge is thus given of the design of the saved believer, to consecrate all to God. That this is the design of the institution, must be yielded by all who consider the argument of the apostle in the sixth chapter of Romans. — He inquires, - How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein V } and then refers to their baptism as an urgent reason for holi- ness of life. He thus reminds them of the de- 20 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. sign of this ordinance as expressive of love to Christ, and their purpose to live to him. The passage already referred to in the third chap- ter of Galatians, has also regard to the design of their baptism. "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." It was in faith, or by faith, that they became God's people. He then adds, " As many of you, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christy By baptism, they assumed publicly the responsibilities of God's children. Thus this institution became the badge of disciple- ship. It was a solemn and impressive recog- nition of the change which had taken place in the character and state of the believer. The phrase, "put on Christ," has allusion to the dress assumed by one who enters into the service of some distinguished personage. By this dress he is to be thus designated. Bap- tism is the livery of God's servants, and in it they avow their determination to honor and obey him. If this view of the subject be correct, is not baptism, naturally the first duty to be per- formed by the believer? Having yielded his heart to God, and realized God's mercy by RESTRICTED COMMUNION. , 21 faith in Christ, should he not immediately de- clare to the world, the new relations he sus- tains? Most unquestionably. Before he ca'n be duly recognized as a member of the church, and be entitled to its privileges, he must take the oath of allegiance to Christ by being bap- tized. It is this which accounts for the fact, that in primitive times, baptism was immedi- ately subsequent to a joyful trust in the Re- deemer. 6. Nearly all denominations of Christians regard baptism as an indispensable prerequis- ite to the privileges of the Lord's table. Al- though evidence of piety may be furnished, but few churches would consider an individ- ual entitled to a place in the church, or at the communion table, if he had neglected the first ordinance. This has been the almost uniform sentiment and practice of the various orders of professing Christians in every age since the days of the apostles. As illustrative of the views entertained by nearly all Pedo-bap- tists, the language of Mr. Wall, in his work entitled History of Infant Baptism, may be appropriately introduced. " No church ever gave the communion to any persons before 3 22 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. they were baptized. Among' all the absurdi- ties that ever were held, none ever maintained that, that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized." Mr. Doddridge, in referring to this subject, remarks: "It is certain that as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's supper. How excellent soever any man's character is, he must be baptized before he can be looked upon as completely a member of the church of Christ." Not less pertinent is the language of Dr. D wight. M It is (says that distinguished author) an indispensable qualification for this ordinance (the Lord's Supper) that the candi- date 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 bap- tized." It will be perceived by these extracts, and by the sentiments and practice of most Pedo-baptist denominations, that they differ altogether from Mr. Hall, in the main argu- ment with which we are assailed. Although he was willing to admit that baptism was to RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 23 be performed immediately subsequent to faith, yet, he insisted that baptism being neglected, the privilege of the supper might be enjoyed. " It cannot be pretended (he remarks) that an unbaptized believer is intrinsically disquali- fied for a suitable attendance at the Lord's table, or, that it is so essentially connected with baptism, as to render the act of commu- nion itself absurd and improper." With res- pect to most Pedo-baptist churches, an indi- vidual is regarded as disqualified according to the order of the Lord's house, if he has not, in their estimation, been baptized. He would neither be received into their fellowship, nor admitted to the table of our Lord, if he had not obeyed the prerequisite institution. They regard the will of Christ, to confess him in baptism, as peremptory. It will not be out of place here, to refer to a practical illustration of the views of all con- sistent Pedo-baptists. The fact was narrated to the writer, by the late venerable Bishop Moore of the Episcopal Church in Virginia. In the earlier part of his ministry, while offi- ciating in the State of New York, on a cer- tain sacramental occasion, he presented to the 24 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. members of other denominations an urgent appeal, inviting* them to participate in the pri- vilege of commemorating the dying love of Christ, at his table. In this address he ad- verted to the right of Christians to commune together, representing it as the Lord's table, and denying the propriety of repulsing any of the Lord's people. The appeal had its desired effect. Several, of different denominations, came forward. Among others, to the surprise of Mr. Moore, was a prominent member of the Quaker persuasion, a man of highly respecta- ble character and of undoubted piety. The minister supposed that he might have changed his sentiments, and have been baptized. He approached the applicant as he knelt at the chancel, and affectionately inquired if he had obeyed Christ in baptism. He was informed, that a change of sentiment had taken place with respect to the perpetual obligation of the Lord's supper, but not in relation to the other ordinance. In this painful dilemma, Mr. Moore stated, that for a moment he scarcely knew what was best to be done. He, howev- er, soon determined that he could not consci- entiously administer the communion to his Qua- RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 25 ker brother, although he believed him to be a man of God, because he had not been baptized. He stated his difficulties to his friend, and re- quested him to retain his place and he would simply pass by him in the administration of the elements. In pursuing this course, the Bishop was consistent. Although he presided at the " table of the Lord," and although he regarded his friend as one of the Lord's people, yet the terms of access having been prescribed by the Lord, he did not consider himself at liberty to change, the order of things, as delivered to the saints. This is the ground we occupy in declining to com- mune with other evangelic denominations. Having thus gone briefly through the argu- ments to sustain the indispensable precedence of baptism to Church privileges and the Lord's supper, we feel prepared to discuss another important branch of our subject. If baptism as we have shown, is a prerequisite to commu- nion, it is equally necessary that the subject of baptism be a professed believer in Jesus Christ. No unconscious infants are to be received into the churches. The limits of this little work will not per- mit us to go into a long and labored argument 26 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. on the subject. Enough however will be sta- ted to exhibit the ground upon which we stand in conscientiously declining to commune with Pedo-baptists. Our first remark will have reference to the want of scriptural authority for the baptism of any other than believers. There is no war- rant for infant baptism in the Word of God. This is our great difficulty. As Christian pa- rents, we love our children, and are prepared to arrange and labor for their temporal welfare. Above all, we are interested for their spiritual interest. Nothing we can do, in accordance with the Divine will, for the promotion of their eternal good, would we leave undone. We are willing to consecrate them in their earliest being, to God in prayer. The good and the right way we would teach them, impressing upon their tender minds, with the first exer- cise of reason, their responsibilities to God, their maker. The power of a godly example we would bring to bear upon their hearts, thus training them up in the nurture and ad- monition of the Lord. All this we can do, but baptise them we cannot, because God has not required it at our hands. To baptise our chil- RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 2't dren we should deem an act of disloyalty to our Lord, just as the neglect of baptism in our case, as believers, would be disloyal to him. He has not required it at our hands. We have searched the scriptures diligently, desir- ing to know all our duty with reference to the loved ones whom God has given us; but we find them silent on the subject of infant bap- tism. We have read human productions, and examined the arguments employed to sustain this practice, but remain firm in our convic- tions that it is unscriptural and wrong. Nor are we alone in these convictions. A large proportion, even of Pedo-baptists, are either skeptical on the subject, or avowdly opposed to infant baptism. The sentiment is increasing* in strength among Pedo-baptist churches, that the practice is without scriptural warrant. Hence, the number of infants admitted to the ordinance is, in proportion to the increase of adult church members, annually diminishing. It is, too, a fair inference that the diminished hold which this unscriptural usage has upon the regard of Pedo-baptist churches of this land, is owing to the influence of Baptists in 28 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. the testimony they bear on the communion question. We have said that many of the wisest and best of our Pedo-baptist brethren are beginning to acquiesce in the doctrine, that not only is baptism a prerequisite to the Lord's supper, but that baptism can only be appropriately administered to believers. The statement of the distinguished Dr. Woods, that " It is plain there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our sacred writings," finds a re- sponse in the hearts of many of his brethren. The North British Review, high Pedo-baptist authority, but reiterates the sentiment in the assertion that " Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants." The different argu- ments by which infant baptism has been sus- tained, one after another, have been given up by many of the best Pedo-baptist writers. In preparing the mind of the reader to feel the full force of our argument, we insist, in the second place, that the abandonment of the voluntary principle, in the admission of in- fants to the ordinance of baptism, is fraught with the most pernicious results. An unhappy RESTRICTED COMMUNION". 29 effect is produced upon the mind of the child in proportion as his baptism is invested with solemnity, by inducing an undue reliance on the ordinance, and the expectation of some saving efficacy attached to it. The world and the church are thereby amalgamated. "'Are not all national religious establishments traceable to infant baptism? As the carnal mind is alienated from God, will not those who, in one sense or another, become identified with the church in their infancy, and who grow up without a change of heart, be inclined to re- pudiate those great scriptural truths which lie at the foundation of practical religion? Hence the danger arising from infant baptism, that corrupt sentiment and corrupt practice will prevail in what is called the Christian church. As illustration and proof of this, let the his- tory of the great English, Greek, and Roman hierarchies be examined. Let the various branches of Lutheran and Calvinian churches of Europe stand forth as examples of the fact. Is not the tendency of infant baptism to be re- cognized in that sweeping current of error which so fearfully desolated the Congregation- al Churches of New England? And if infant 30 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. baptism should universally be required, and universally prevail, would not the distinctive peculiarities of the gospel system be obscured, if not obliterated? On these accounts, then, we are compelled to repudiate infant baptism. First, its want of scriptural authority; and second, its inju- rious tendencies. None are properly to be ad- mitted to the Lord's table, but the baptised; and none are to be baptised, but such as exercise faith in the Gospel message. If baptism upon a profession of faith be an essential prerequisite to admission to the Lord's table, it becomes important to ascertain what is baptism; and we shall therefore pro- ceed to prove II. That baptism consists in the immersion of the body in water. It is admitted by us in contending for im- mersion as the exclusively scriptural prac- tice, that we shall come in contact with a portion of the Christian world. Various de- nominations regard the acts of pouring and sprinkling as valid and proper. At issue with them in this particular, we respectfully call attention to some of the arguments which RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 31 satisfy us that we keep the ordinances as de- livered by the apostles. 1. We will refer to the places selected for the administration of baptism. In several instan- ces no allusion is made in the evangelic histo- ry to the place of performing the ordinance; but wherever such allusion is found, the in- formation, either direct or implied, sustains the position before us, that in all cases the primitive practice was immersion. The first scriptural record on this subject narrates with peculiar simplicity the baptism of multitudes by " John the Baptist." The place chosen by him for the performance of the ordinance was the river Jordan. Matthew states: "Then went out to him, Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were bap- tized of him in Jordan, confessing- their sins." " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him * * * * and Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straigkhvay out of the water 11 etc. Similar tes- timony is given by Mark. He says they "Were all baptized of him in the river Jordan] 1 and re- ferring to Christ, adds: "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John 32 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. in Jordan, and straightway coming up out of the water" etc. The apostle John, in his histoiy, informs us that "John (the forerunner) was baptizing in JSnon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." Would not every read- er, unbiassed by the prejudices of education, naturally conclude, from the places in which John administered the ordinance, and the lan- guage employed in describing these scenes, that the act performed by him was immersion? Some have endeavored to evade the force of this plain language by intimating that the pre- positions " in" and " up out of" might have been rendered " at" and "up from," and that subsequently to this narrative, John is represented as saying, " I indeed baptize you with (not in) water," thereby indicating that water was applied by pouring or sprinkling. In reply, it may be said that all translations into the English language correspond with ours in regard to the first items, and the four English versions first published render the words in Matthew, iii: 11, "en udati" "in water," and not " with water," Dr. Campbell, John Her- vey, and most distinguished Pedobaptist crit- ics, insist that this is its signification. Said RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 33 Mr. Calvin: "From these words, John iii: 23, it may be inferred that baptism was adminis- tered by John and Christ by plunging the whole body under water. Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the an- cients, for they immersed the whole body in water. Now it is the prevailing practice for a minister only to sprinkle the body or head." The next allusion to place, in the sacred narrative, is found in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. "As they (Philip and the eunuch) went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, see, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Having become satisfied of the eunuch's faith, Philip " commanded the cha- riot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord," etc. The baptism of Lydia and her household, is referred to by the historian in connexion with the fact that Paul and Silas were " by a river side where prayer was wont to be made," preaching the Gospel, and there 4 34 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. the Lord opened her heart, and " she was bap- tized and her household." These are the scriptural allusions, to place, in the administration of baptism. The other cases of baptism are recorded without airy such reference. It is urged by some, that in some of these cases, particularly the baptism of the three thousand in Jerusalem, and of the jailor and his household, the inconvenience of immersing so many, and of findiDg water un- der the circumstances, are arguments against immersion. To this it may be replied that im- mersion, with such attendants as may always be procured, can be performed nearly, if not quite as expeditiously as pouring or sprink- ling, if the sacred words enjoined by Christ are repeated in each case; and in no instance in any part of the world has it ever been found necessary to postpone or neglect immer- sion because water could not be obtained. Wherever human beings can live, there must water be always found in sufficient abundance to immerse them all. Even in the prisons of our country, there are not wanting instances of obedience to this rite. RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 35 2. That baptism is immersion, appears from the incidental allusions to it in the sacred wri- tings. In the epistle to the Romans it is called a burial. " We are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." How beautiful, how forcible is this allusion! They had become dead to sin and alive to God. This was significantly expressed by their bap- tism. As a dead man is buried, and when bu- ried is no more expected to return and mingle with the scenes and pursuits of this world, so the believer professes the great change which has taken place in his character by being bu- ried in baptism, and is no more expected to go back to the old world of sin from which he has been sundered. This is doubtless the pri- mary design of baptism, while at the same time it exhibits the burial and resurrection of Christ. A similar allusion to the ordinance is found in Colossians, ii: 12-13. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, and 36 RESTRICTED COMMUNION - . you being dead in your sins, hath he quick- ened together with him." Another figurative reference to baptism is introduced by the apostle in 1 Corinthians, x: 1, 2: " All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." They were figuratively immersed, being envel- oped or covered,, as it were, on all sides, by the cloud and by the sea. Does not Paul here refer to the practice of immersion, just as he does in the third and fourth verses to the supper? In connection with this passage the memorable words of the Divine Redeemer furnish figura- tive allusions to the act of immersion. " I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplished." " Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" The idea conveyed is clear; I am to be submerged in suffering; I am to be overwhelmed with sorrow. Mr. Dod- dridge paraphrases it thus: " I have indeed a most dreadful baptism to be baptized with, and know that I shall shortly be bathed as it were RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 3? in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelm- ing distress." This prediction was verified in the mournful hour, when bearing the sin of many, " his soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." But we pass on to no- tice, 3. The history of the church, as furnishing satisfactory evidence that baptism is immer- sion; or that this was the uniform practice of the primitive churches up to the time of the apostles. There have not been wanting those who, in opposing the divinely instituted ordi- nance of baptism or immersion, have repre- sented it as of comparatively recent origin. It has been traced to the madmen of Munster, or but little farther back in the history of the church. But the reader will permit me to fur- nish testimony which the most reluctant must admit to be irrefragable, sustaining the posi- tion that immersion was generally practiced for several hundred years from the days of John the Baptist. The evidence to be adduced will be from such as cannot be accused of par- tiality towards those who now practise immer- sion. It is mostly from the pens of eminent Pedo-baptist historians and critics. 38 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. « In referring to Haweis' " impartial and suc- cinct" Church History, I find that he says no- thing respecting the peculiar actperformed in the iniatory ordinance, until he reaches the second century, and then he represents it as being " immersion." Vol. I, page 184. Mr. Haweis was a highly respectable Pedo-baptist, of the Independent order.' Dr. Mosheim, a celebrated ecclesiastical his- torian, and a Pedo-baptist, furnishes the follow- ing testimony: " Christ himself desired to be solemnly baptized in the waters of Jordan." Eeferring to the first century he says: " The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that pur- pose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." In the second century, he testifies that the persons baptized " were immersed under water and re- ceived into Christ's Kingdom by a solemn in- vocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," etc. Dr. William Cave, an author of considerable celebrity in the Episcopal Church of England, in his work, entitled " Primitive Christianity, or the religion of the ancient Christians," gives RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 39 the following information: "The party to be baptized was wholly immerged or put under water, which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times, whereby they did more notably and significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism ; for as in immersion, there are in a manner three sev- eral acts; the putting a person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again; so by these were represented Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and in conformity thereto, our dying unto sin, the de- struction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life." * * * * * " But though by reason of the more eminent signi- ficancy of these things, immersion was the com- mon practice in those clays, and therefore they earn- estly urged it, and pleaded for it, yet did they not hold sprinkling unlawful, especially in cases of necessity, as of weakness, danger of death," etc. He then cites Cyprian, who lived two hundred and fifty years after Christ, as authority for the lawfulness of sprinkling in extreme cases. Bossuet, a distinguished French bishop of the Catholic church, and of high repute as a 40 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. pious man, writes: " The baptism of John the Baptist, which served for a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by plunging. When Jesus Christ came to John to raise bap- tism to a marvellous efficacy in receiving it, the scripture says, that he went up out of the water of Jordan. Matthew, iii: 16, Mark, i: 10. In fine, we read not in the scriptures that baptism was otherwise administered, and we are able to make it appear by the acts of coun- cils, and by the ancient rituals, that for thir- teen hundred years, baptism was thus adminis- tered throughout the whole church, as far as was possible." Dr. Whitby, a Pedo-baptist commentator, in his remarks on Romans, vi: 4, and Colos. ii: 12, remarks, " It being so expressly declared here that we are buried with Christ, in bap- tism, by being buried under water * * * and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this institution," etc. Mr. Wesley, in his journal, while in Geor- gia, makes this note: " Mary Welsh, aged ele- RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 41 ven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first Church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." He also testifies in his note on Romans, vi: " Buried with him; alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion^ Mr. Calvin on John, iii: 23, remarks: "Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients; for they immersed the whole body in water." To these witnesses on ecclesiastical history, permit me to subjoin the evidence of two or three eminent German critics, all of whom were Pedo-baptists. "In order," says Tholuck, "to understand the figurative use of baptism, we must bear in mind the well known fact, that the candidate was immersed in water and raised out of it again." Winer observes, " In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolical explanation shows." J. H. Fritsch says: "With infant baptism, still another change in the outward form of baptism was introduced — that of sprinkling with water, instead of the former practice of immersion." 42 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. While on this point, allow me also to call attention to an extract from the reply of Pro- fessor Ripley, to Stuart on baptism, a work admirable, alike for the candor and ability with which it is written: " What was the mode of baptism practised by the churches in the ear- ly ages of Christianity, and AFTER the times of the apostles? That it was immersion, Professor Stuart renders clear by a sufficient number of extracts from early writers. These extracts are made from the Pastor of Hermas, one of the earliest uninspired remains after the times of the apostles, from Justin Mar- tyr, who flourished in the second century, Tertullian, who died A.D. 200, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Dionysius Areopagita, Gregory Nyssen, Damascenus, and several others. After exhibiting these testimonies, Mr. Stuart thus proceeds: ' But enough. It is, says Augusti, (Denkw, vii: p. 216,) a thing made out, viz: the ancient practice of immer- sion. So indeed all the writers who had tho- roughly investigated this subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times, which seems to be more clearly and certainly made RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 43 out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man, who examines the subject, to deny this.' "There is also presented another extract from the same work of Augusti, in which is stated the result to which F. Brenner, a Ro- man Catholic writer came, in view of the his- torical facts; namely, thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and ordinarily perform- ed by the immersion of a man under water; and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods of baptism were called in question, and even prohibited. "Again, in the work of John Floyer, on bathing, p. 50, it is mentioned that the Eng- lish church practiced immersion down to the beginning of the seventeenth century, when a change to the method of sprinkling gradu- ally took place. As a confirmation of this, it may be mentioned, that the first liturgy in 1547, injoins a trine immersion, in case the child is not sickly. Augusti ut supra, p. 229. " The Oriental church, too, that is, the Greek church, it is mentioned, has always continued 44 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. to preserve immersion, even down to the pre- sent time." As farther and more distinct evidence re- specting the practice of the early churches, I introduce extracts from a few of those prom- inent ancient writers referred to by Professor Stuart. Justin Martyr, who flourished in the second century says: " Those who believe are led to some place where there is water, and there bathe in the water." In another place, he says: "We represent our Lord's, sufferings and resurrection by baptism in a pool." Tertullian, who lived about the commence- ment of the third century, remarks: "We are immersed in water." " Let down into the wa- ter and dipped." " Peter immersed in the Ti- ber." Basil of Cesarea, who belonged to the fourth century, in one of his discourses, thus speaks: " How can we be placed in a condition of like- ness to Christ's death? By being buried with him in baptism * * * * How are we to go down with him into the grave? By imita- ting the burial of Christ in baptism, for the RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 45 bodies of the baptized are in a sense buried in water. For this reason the apostle speaks figuratively of baptism, as a laying aside the works of the flesh * * * * We have experienced one death to the world, and one resurrection from the death, of which baptism is a figure. For this purpose the Lord, the giver of life, hath instituted baptism a repre- sentation of both life and death, the water overflowing as an image of death," etc. About the year 400, Chrysostom thus de- scribes the ordinance of baptism: ''The candi- dates for baptism spent thirty days in prepar- ing for that sacred bath; before they were baptized they made the following confessions: I renounce thee, satan, and thy pomp, and thy worship, and am joined to thee, Christ. To which they were ordered to subjoin: I believe in the resurrection of the dead. After which, they were three times immersed in the flood." In his works, Chrysostom frequently al- ludes to the act of immersion. Similar testimony might be adduced from multitudes of the early writers, but that al- ready quoted will suffice. From all that has been said, and from the evidence furnished by 5 46 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. the whole history of the church, we learn that for several centuries, extreme cases excepted, it was the uniform practice to immerse. So far as we can gather the facts at this remote period, it may be stated that the first instances of sprinkling occurred in Africa, in the third centmryj but these only were allowed in sea- sons of extreme illness, and the persons thus sprinkled, were called clinics. These cases created considerable disputation, and by the most enlightened, were regarded as unbaptiz- ed. In all parts of the Christian world, im- mersion was still the general practice, until, in France, during the eighth century, frequent changes from immersion to pouring, and then to sprinkling, began to be allowed. "While Pope Stephen III. in T54, was an exile in France, to escape the dangers threatened the city of Rome by the king of the -Lombards, he was consulted by some monks on several questions; among others — "Whether in the sickness of an infant, it was lawful to baptize by pouring water out of the hand, or a cup, on the head." To this inquiry, Stephen re- plied; that if such necessity existed, such a baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 41 should "be held valid. The distinguished James Basnage, in one of his learned works, referring to the canons of Pope Stephen III., thus speaks of this decision; "Although it is accounted the first law for sprinkling, yet it doth not forbid dipping; that it allows sprink- ling only in cases of imminent danger; that the authenticity of it is denied by many Catho- lics; that many laws were made after this time in Germany, France and England, to compel dipping, and without any provision for cases of necessity: therefore, that this law did not alter the mode of dipping in public bap- tisms: and that it was not till five hundred and fifty years after, that the legislature in a council at Ravenne, in 1311, declared dipping or sprinkling indifferent." I will here introduce the sentiments of a few distinguished Catholics in relation to this change of the ordinance. The celebrated an- tiquary, Paul Maria Paciandi, in his volume of Christian Antiquities, published by authori- ty of the pope, in 1155, speaks of two baptist- eries at Kavenna, where the artists represent John the Baptist as pouring water on the head of Jesus. "Nothing he exclaims, can 48 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. be more monstrous than these emblems. Was our Lord Christ baptised by aspersion ? Noth- ing can be more opposite to truth." Dr. De Vicecomes of Milan, of high repute in the Catholic church, says: "I will never cease to profess and teach that only immersion in water, except in cases of necessity, is law- ful baptism in the church. I will refute that false notion, that baptism was administered in the primitive church, by pouring or sprink- ling." Father Mabillon, another Catholic writer, remarks: that although there is mention in the life of S. Liudger, cf baptizing an infant by pouring on holy water, yet it was contrary to an express canon of the ninth century; con- trary to the canon given by Stephen, which allowed pouring only in cases of necessity; contrary to the general practice in France, where trine immersion was used, contrary to the practice of the Spaniards, who used single immersion; and contrary to the practice of many who continued to dip till the fifteenth century. Lewis Anthony Muratori, celebrated for his learning and research, exclaims in allusion to RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 49 trine immersion as practised by the followers of St. Ambrose; "Observe the Ambrosian method of baptizing; they do not baptize by pouring as Romans do, but taking the infant in their hands, they dip the hinder part of his head three times in the baptismal water ; which is a vestige yet remaining of the most ancient and universal practice of immersion." We thus perceive that in the Romish church, immersion gradually gave place to pouring, or sprinkling. With regard to the English church, it is known that the liturgy of Edward VI., required the child to be dipped three times in the font, and more recently the rubric instructs that the child " shall be warily dipped." Bishop Cranmer, who lived in the time of Edward VI., in a sermon, remarks, "Baptisme and the dyp- pyinge into the water doth betoken that the olde Adam with all his syne and evel lustes ought to be drowned and kylled by daily con- trition and repentance." The Calvinist Reformers allowed the vali- dity of dipping, as Calvin says: " The word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient 50 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. church," but they inconsistently practised sprinkling, or pouring. The Greek church, as before stated, have always practised immersion. Mr. Voltaire, the French infidel, remarks: "The Greets, who never received baptism but by immersion, plunging themselves into baptismal tubs, ha- ted the Latins, who in favor of the Northern Christians, introduced that rite by aspersion." I will sum up the argument, grounded on the history of the church, by calling attention to the distinct testimony given by two or three standard works, not merely in regard to the antiquity of the practice of immersion, but to the period token it was changed into sprinkling or pouring. The Encyclopedia Americana, on the article entitled Baptism, states: " In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and to express more fully his change of character, generally adopted a new name. The immersion of the whole body was omitted only in case of the sick who could not leave their beds. In this case sprinkling was RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 51 substituted, which was called, clinic baptism. The Greek church, as well as the schismatics in the East, retained the custom of immersing the whole body; but the Western church adopted in the thirteenth century the mode of sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, the Baptists only excepted." The Edinburg Encyclopedia, (edited by Sir David Brewster, who is distinguished for his learning,) on the subject of baptism, has these words: "The word baptizo means to immerse, or Paul would never have said, that we are buried with Christ by baptism. Immersion was practised by all Christians until the beginning of the fourteenth century. The council of Ravenna, held in 1311, first sanctioned sprinkling, but corrupt as was the church of Rome, whose counsel this was, it did not enjoin sprinkling, but merely said, that it was admissible." The Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica, published under the patronage of the most distinguished men in Great Britain, thus refers to the argu- ments in favor of sprinkling. " Whatever weight, however, may be in these reasons, as a defence for the present practice of sprink- ling, it is evident, that during the first ages of 52 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. the church, and for many centuries afterwards, the practice of immersion prevailed, and which seems never to be departed from, except where it was to be administered to a person at the point of death, or upon a bed of sickness, which was considered indeed, as not giving the party the full privileges of baptism, or when there was not a sufficient supply of wa- ter. Except in the above cases, the custom was to dip, or immerse the whole body into water." Dr. Neander, one of the most distinguished German critics, and a Pedo-baptist thus testi- fies: ''Baptism was originally administered by immersion, and many of the comparisons of St. Paul alluded to this form of 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." I have been thus particular in these cita- tions, not because I suppose them necessary to make out the divine authority of immersion. If the history of the churches from the times RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 53 of the apostles, were now a perfect blank, we should still find our warrant to immerse be- lievers sufficiently clear from the pages of the New Testament. But the fact is an interest- ing one, and important in the argument before us, that such an array of testimony in favor of immersion, is furnished from history, and that too from the pens of pious and learned Pedo-baptists. This testimony not only goes to prove the general practice of immersion by all professing Christians for several hundred years, but the sentiment entertained by them, that this practice was to be traced to the age of Christ and his apostles. 4. I must now call attention to the signifi- cation of the original word. By this, we are to determine the precise action required in the initiatory ordinance. It constitutes our chief argument. If the word has a uniformly defi- nite meaning, we surely cannot be at a loss to ascertain it. To this examination, the reader is invited. Our term baptism is a Greek word (bap- tisma) with an English termination, from baptizo, a derivative of bapto. The word em- ployed in the New Testament in relation to 54 RESTRICTED COMMUNION, the ordinance is not bapto, but baptizo. Let this be distinctly kept in mind. In the baptismal controversy, the words have been too often confounded, and thus the true merits of the question have not been perceived. — Baptizo is not a sacred word, coined for the occasion by Christ, but a term of frequent oc- currence in all the Greek classic writers. In its scriptural use it is to be received in its ordinary acceptation. We have no informa- tion that it is to be understood in any other way. The question now arises: has this word a specific meaning? I answer, most unques- tionably. Its signification is as definite and limited as that of any word in the Greek language. Mergo in the Latin and dip in the English, are not more so. What then is the precise import ? To arrive at correct conclusions in this in- vestigation, it will be necessary to examine the use of the word by Greek authors, both sacred and profane, and the signification given by the best lexicographers. The term bapto signifies to dip, to plunge, to overwhelm; in a secondary sense, to d} 7 e, because this action implies and includes the act of dipping. In RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 55 some instances the word was ultimately ap- plied to dyeing of any kind. Its primary meaning then, and the same in which it is universally used, excepting when it has refe- rence to dyeing, is covering over, plunging, etc. Bapto, however, is not the word in ques- tion, but its derivative, baptizo, which is never used in this secondaiy sense. Its universal application, by all Greek authors, is confined, literally, or figuratively, to the idea of dip- ping, plunging, or overwhelming. It would not be appropriate, with our brief limits, to introduce its examples to sustain this asser- tion. Mr. Carson, distinguished for his learn- ing, says: "Baptizo, in the whole history of the Greek language, has but one meaning." He then furnishes a copious list of examples from various Greek authors, and challenges the learned world to find any instances in which it can be tortured to signify pouring or sprinkling. Mr. Jevvett, late professor of Ma- rietta College, Ohio, and a minister of the Presbyterian church, by a careful examina- tion of this subject, was compelled to abandon his position as a Pedo-baptist, and to be im- mersed. In his little work on baptism, he 56 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. remarks, "If any person is disposed to ques- tion this," that baptizo signifies to immerse, " he can satisfy himself by examining places in which the words occur in the Greek. In about two hundred passages, taken at random, when these words are employed in their pri- mary and proper sense, the idea is in every in- stance, to dip, to plunge, to immerse. I here repeat the remark, that in its literal and pro- per sense, baptizo never means anything but to immerse, dip or plunge; and when used in a figurative application, the figure entirely depends for its force and beauty on the prima- ry idea of immersion. If erroneous, these po- sitions can easily be disproved by a reference to the original classics. But adding my own labors to those of the writers, whose works I have examined, I have never been able to dis- cover a single passage, which authorizes me to abandon the ground just taken." Let us now turn our attention to the voice of lexicographers, respecting the signification of baptizo, the word rendered in the English, baptize. Dr. John Jones. — Baptizo — I plunge; I plunge in water, dip, bury, overwhelm. RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 57 Richardson's English Lexicon. — To dip, or merge frequently; to sink, to plunge, to im- rnerge. Donnegan. — To immerse, submerge, satu- rate, drench, etc. Parkhurst. — To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, Schleusener. — To immerse, to plunge, to sink into water. Pickering. — To dip, immerse, submerge, pluDge, sink. Greenfield. — To immerse, immerge, sub- merge, sink; and referring to Mark, vii: 4, to wash, perform ablution, cleanse, (these last doubtless including the idea of dipping.) Wilson's Christian Dictionary. — To baptize, to dip into water, or to plunge one into the water. Young. — To dip all over, to wash, to bap- tize. Numerous other lexicons might be refer- red to, all of which render the word to dip, plunge, immerse; wash, as its radical meaning, and two or three add, to sprinkle. To these authorities universally respected in the learned world, I add the decision of se- 6 58 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. vcral distinguished Pedo-baptist critics on the use of the word baptizo in the New Tes- tament. Dr. George Campbell, of Edinburg, on the phrase, "came up out of the water," says, "Let it be observed further, that the verbs raino and rantizo, used in scripture for sprink- ling, are never construed in this manner. — When therefore, the Greek word baptizo (ren- dered I baptize) is adopted, I may say rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted, when we have so much evidence that even good and learned men, allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sects they prefer." Referring to the meaning of the word, he says, "Both in sacred authors and in classical, it signifies to dip, to plunge, to im- merse." Luther determines, that, "baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished, for they do not RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 59 dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them, they ought, nevertheless, to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out, for that the etymology of the word seems to demand." Again he says, " I would have those that are to be baptised to be altogether dipt into the water, as the word doth sound." Beza. — " To be baptised in water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water." Dr. Porson, a celebrated Greek scholar of London, assured Dr. Cox that the word " sig- nified a total immersion." Dr. Chalmers. — " The original meaning of the word baptism, is immersion." Calvin. — " The word baptise signifies to im- merse." Buttmann, in his large Greek grammar, puts iown bapto, to immerse. The Confession of Faith prepared by Melanc- thon, and adopted by the Saxon churches, contains these words, "Baptism is an entire action; to wit: a dipping, and a pronouncing of these words, I baptize thee," etc. Professor Stuart, of Andovcr, inquires, " In what manner, then, did the churches of Christ, 60 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. from a very early period, to say the least, un- derstand the word baptizo in the New Testa- ment ? Plainly, they construed it as meaning' immersion. They sometimes even went so far as to forbid any other method of administering the ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy only excepted. * * * * We are left in no doubt as to the more generally received usage of the Christian church down to a period seve- ral centuries after the apostolic age. * * * * That the Greek Fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek (language), understood the usual import of the word bap- tizo, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial." With respect to the authorities which have been introduced to sustain our position, that the original word signifies to immerse, it may be said, that they occupy a commanding emi- nence in the literary and religious world. They are competent judges in determining the question. They were not only learned men, but most of them inured to habits of rigid in- vestigation. By their profession main' of them were compelled to carry not only their thoughts but their language through a most careful RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 61 scrutiny. Their character as philologists is unimpeachable. But besides this, they were connected with sects that did not practice immersion. They could not therefore be ac- cused of prejudice and partiality in forming their judgment. The decision they gave was in direct contrariety to the custom of the churches to which they belonged, and in spite of early predilections and party influences. They were men who would neither violate their consciences, nor hazard their reputation for sound learning, by indolently pursuing their inquiries, or declining candidly to state the conclusions at which they arrived. You should remember too, m}^ brethren, the weight of these authorities as it relates to their num- ber. The judgment given by the above cited philologists is the almost uniform decision of the learned world. Smatterers in knowledge, or those warped by sectarian prejudices, may determine differently, but in doing this, they only subject themselves to the just rebuke of the discerning and candid. To determine still farther the soundness of the views of these eminent critics on the mean- ing of the original word, reference should be 62 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. made to various approved translations of the scriptures. The New Testament translated into the Persian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Syrian, Ar- menian, German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish languages, has baptizo rendered by some word signifying to immerse. I will here present the testimony of that distinguished critic and scholar, Mr. Green- field, who, in referring to the withdrawal of aid from the Serampore translation by the British and Foreign Bible Societ}^, insists, that when Dr. Carey and his colleagues rendered baptizo by a phrase signifying- to immerse, they discharged a solemn duty. He contended that the phrase rendered was idiomatic; that it was a correct rendering of the word baptizo, and that to render it by a term signifying to immerse was in accordance with established usage. " It may be safely affirmed (he re- marks) that many of the most accurate and valuable versions, both ancient and modern, are involved in the same accusation, and that there is no one which isdirectly hostile to that interpretation." He adds: " In consistency, if that aid (that is, of the British and Foreign Bible Society) be withdrawn from the Seram- RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 63 pore missionaries, because they have~rendered baptizo, to immerse, then must it also be with- drawn from the churches of Syria, of Arabia, of Abyssinia, of Egypt, of Germany, of Hol- land, of Denmark, etc.; and the venerable Peshito Syriac version, the Arabic versions of the Propaganda, of Sabat, etc., the Ethiopian, the Coptic, and other versions must all be sup- pressed." Mr. .Greenfield was an Episcopalian. The same sentiment is expressed by F. W. Gotch, A.B., of Trinity College, Dublin, and a member of the Episcopalian church, in " a critical examination of the word baptizo, in the ancient and many of the modern versions of the New Testament," etc. Having given these highly respectable au- thorities in determining the question that baptizo signifies to immerse, it may perhaps be inquired whether, although it expresses the idea of immersion, it cannot also be used to signify sprinkling or pouring. So far as the usage of Greek authors may assist in the in- vestigation, it is answered that it cannot, ex- cepting in a few cases where it expresses by heavy sprinkling or pouring*, a complete satu- ration, or wetting all over. 64 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. Iu these cases, it is figuratively regarded as an immersion, or covering with water. That this is the definite and exclusive signifi- cation of the word all eminent lexicographers agree. But still, it may be asked, is not the word baptizo used in the New Testament to denote sprinkling or pouring, on account of the barrenness of the language, there being no words better to express these actions ? Here, again, the reply is ready. The Greek language is remarkable for its copiousness. It has words expressing with great distinct- ness the various actions to be performed in or with water. The word raino and rantizo de- note the act of sprinkling. If the Saviour had intended to command the application of water by sprinkling, the terms raino and rantizo would have been peculiarly appropriate. The same may be said with respeGt to the use of water by pouring. This action is denoted by the word cheo. Nipto expresses the act of washing the hand, louo to wash the body, pluno to wash garments, &c. If any one will take pains to examine those places in our ver- sion of the New Testament in which the word sprinkle occurs, he will discover that in the RESTRICTED COMMUNION". 65 Greek it is not bapto or baptizo, but raino, or the compounds of clieo. So with respect to the English word pour, in the original it is never bapto or baptizo, but chco, or some other word. In all those places in which the word dip is found, in the Greek it is never nipto, louo, pluno, cheo, or raino, but bapto, or bap- tizo ! Upon this point Mr. Shannon, formerly Pre- sident of the College of Louisiana, and more recently of the State University of Missouri, observes: " While I filled the Professorship of Ancient Languages in the University of Georgia, I had occasion to compile a table of passages where the words clip, pour, sprinkle, and wash, in their various modifications occur in the English Bible, with the corresponding term used in the Greek of the New Testament, and the Septuagint. " Dip I found in twenty-one passages. In all of these except one, bapto or baptizo is found in the Greek. "The 1 one exception is in Genesis, xxxvii: 21, where Joseph's brethren took his coat and dipped — emolunam (smeared or daubed) it in the blood of a kid. Mark the accuracy of the 66 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. Greek here; the idea is that of smearing- or daubing, and the Septuagint so expresses it. 11 Sprinkle in some of its forms, I found in twenty-seven passages. In not a single instance is bapto or baptizo used in the Greek. " Pour I found in no less than one hundred and nineteeri instances, but in not even one of them did I meet with bapto or baptizo in the Greek. " I found wash in thirty-two cases where reference was had not to the whole person, but to a part, as the eyes, the face, the hands, the ftet. In none of these was bapto or baptizo found." We may thus determine that the Divine Eedeemer, in selecting the word baptizo to denote the act by which the responsibilities of his kingdom should be assumed, chose to make it as explicit as possible, leaving no ground for prevarication or dispute. If he had designed to leave the ground open, allowing his followers to select any mode of using water, according as convenience or inclination might dictate, other words might have been employed. Either the word agnizo, to purify; or nipto, to wash or wet, would have furnished RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 67 a suitable term to express an indefinite action in the use of water. Cleansing or wetting" might have been effected by sprinkling, pour- ing, or immersion. But no such indefinite term is made use of by Christ or his apostles, in referring to the ordinance, but one, which, in the whole range of Greek literature, is found to express the simple idea of dipping or plunging. Will not every candid mind irre- sistibly arrive at the conclusion that immer- sion, and immersion alone, is Christian bap- tism ? But I will come to another point in the argument. 5. While the ordinance consists in the im- mersion of the body in water, its validity is destroyed by any other action. Immersion is absolutely essential to the proper and acceptable 'performance of the initiatory ordinance.. Those who have united with a Christian church by sprinkling or pouring, are unbaptized, and therefore disobedient to the express command of Him whom they profess to love. This part of our subject deserves special consideration, because it applies with peculiar force to thousands of excellent Pedo-baptists, who are not at issue with us in the preceding 68 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. part of the argument. When such men as John Calvin, Martin Luther, George Campbell, Philip Doddridge, and many others in the pre- sent day, contend that baptism is a prerequi- site to the privileges of the Lord's table and of church fellowship, and also, that baptism, according to Church history and the meaning of the original word, is immersion, how do they escape the conclusion that they them- selves are disorderly, and not properly entitled to a place at the Lord's table ? In remaining unimmersed their conduct is certainly incon- sistent, but they satisfy their consciences by devices which we now seek to expose. The Catholic insists that the church is empowered to make changes in the laws of Jesus Christ when circumstances may seem to justify; hence the substitution of the wafer for bread and wine, and sprinkling for immersion. But Protestant Pedo-baptists found their practice on some other basis. We shall briefly consi- der their arguments, and thus sustain the principle that immersion is essential to the validity of the institution. The first which we will name, is the pretext that while immersion was the action prescribed RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 69 and practiced in primitive times, it was rather in accordance with the frequent ablutions so common in the East, and that Christ intended merely the application of water as essential to the ordinance. In reply, we may say that, according to the argument already considered, the word which was employed in the commis- sion refers to a distinct act, a burial, an im- mersion in water. That the lawgiver had regard merely to a prevalent custom among the Jews, or in that particular part of the world, remains to be proved. He has furnished no information to warrant such an inference. It is nothing but conjecture, and without good reason to justify it. Is there the slightest ground upon which to base the presumption that the quantity of water used is unimport- ant ? None, absolutely none. We must carefully distinguish between what is circumstantial and what is essential, in the ordinances. Whatever pertains to the signi- fication or design is necessary to the institu- tion. The supper was first taken in an upper room, in a reclining posture, and in the after- noon of the day. They made use of unleavened bread. All these were mere circumstances hav- 1 70 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. ing no immediate connection with the practical design of the ordinance. But bread and wine are essential to its proper celebration, because they are the emblems selected by Christ to designate his broken body and shed blood. This bread and wine they were required to eat and drink in remembrance of him. The Papists have stripped this institution of its essential excellence by a change of the ele- ments, and of the mode of partaking them. Thus, in relation to baptism there are many things circumstantial and unimportant. The time, whether day or night; the dress, wheth- er in the usual attire, or in robes prepared for the occasion; the artificial pool constructed from the running brook, or the deep and broad river; these, and other things which might be mentioned, are far from being important, But take away immersion, and you not only mar, but destroy the ordinance, because you de- prive it of its significancy. Both the ordinan- ces are figurative, and both derive their force and solemnity from the emblems they express. The first ordinance is intended to be obeyed by each Christian once, and this, when he be- lieves, in order to declare the fact that he is a RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 71 new creature, having become dead to sin, and passed away from the old world or state of sin, into the new world of grace. " He is buried with Christ by baptism, into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so he also should walk in newness of life." While his death to sin and rising to a new life is declared by bap- tism, so also is it emblematic of the burial and resurrection of Christ, and of the future glo- rious resurrection of the just. The second ordinance, which is so frequently observed, is also emblematic; for in it believers " show forth the Lord's death till he come." In each of these institutions, while there are circum- stances which may, or may not be connected with their observance, there are also things essential, as without them, their significancy and design would be utterly lost. Another reason which satisfies many minds in a departure from the primitive practice, arises from the peculiar genius of the gospel dispensation. The glory of the Jewish econo- my consisted in its numerous types, its impos- ing forms and ceremonies. Their costly and magnificent observances were to be regarded T2 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. in every particular with scrupulous care, and no omission could occur, without subjecting the offender to summary punishment. But the kingdom of Christ is spiritual in its charac- ter, requiring' of its subjects right affections, rather than obedience to ceremonials. This is the argument of the class to which we now refer. But its fallacy will at once appear, when we consider that although the Christian ordi- nances are few and simple, they nevertheless originated in the will of Jesus Christ, and are made by him positively binding on all his follow- ers. They may not occupy the same position in the scale of duties with repentance, faith, and love, but the} 7 derive their authority from the same source. If the gospel system is not distinctly ceremonial, whatever ceremonies are enjoined should more readily and literally be fulfilled. Because the yoke is easy, shall it therefore be worn with less pleasure? If the burden be light, is it therefore not to be borne? Shall the eye of the servant be evil, because the master is good? God indeed looks at the heart, and by its exercises determines the character, but does not therefore release his people from the obligation to obey his posi- RESTRICTED COMMUNION. T3 tive injunctions, whether they be ceremonial or moral. Baptism, therefore, or immersion, is a solemn duty, devolving' on every believer, and without immersion he fails to do the will of his Lord in regard to the iniatory institu- tion — he is still unbaptized. Besides, this argument which makes immer- sion as the precise action to be performed, un- essential to the validity of the ordinance, would justify an entire neglect of it. If, be- cause the great requirements of the gospel are spiritual, and relate to character, it is there- fore unimportant that the believer be immers- ed, then it would follow that sprinkling, pour- ing, or any act might also be omitted. But this act of immersion cannot be unimportant, since Christ peremptorily requires it, and since it is the most expressive symbol of great facts in the death of the believer to sin, and his re- surrection to a new life, and also in the joyful resurrection of the body at the last day. It is again alleged that while immersion was the primitive practice, the improvement of society renders sprinkling and pouring more appropriate; and withal, they may be performed with more convenience, both to the 74 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. subject and administrator. This is an objec- tion entertained by many Pedo-baptists. As an answer, we still urge the will of Christ as explicit. He required a definite action to be performed, and this action is essential to the great practical design of the ordinance. If, however, it were not altogether consistent with the refined state of the age, and were at- tended with some sacrifice of ease and conven- ience, shall the believer hesitate to exercise self-denial in obeying Him, who endured the cross, despising the shame that sinners might live? Surely not. But the objection has its origin in a morbid sensibility. The serious beholder, however cultivated his taste and manners, will never find any thing offensive in the proper administration of baptism. It is admitted, that in some cases there has not been sufficient regard to preparation of place and dress, but this is no argument against the ordinance itself. It will not be denied, that in the sprinkling or pouring of infants, cir- cumstances partaking of the ludicrous have occurred. But these could be of no valid ob- jection, if the act were divinely authorized. The immersion of a believer in the name of the RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 15 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is, in itself, an impressive and solemn scene. I have known almost an entire assembly deep- ly affected as the Christian has been slowly buried beneath the yielding wave, in token of his death to sin. The hearts of the disciples have been cheered, and sinners have been awakened. As an evidence that the ordinance is not in itself revolting to persons of refined feelings, it may be sufficient simply to state, that while it always excites a general interest in the community, and a desire to witness it, no per- son is known to absent himself from the place because he fears that his sensibilities will be shocked. And it is a well authenticated fact that thousands have dated their earliest reli- gious impressions at these baptismal occa- sions. A brother, who has been eminently use- ful in one of the New England States, in a letter published in the Christian Watchman, thus remarks: " Hundreds of Christians can testify that their first permanent, serious im- pressions were obtained at the river's side. It was when witnessing the baptism of an only sister, by the late beloved Professor Knowles, 76 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. then pastor of the Second Baptist Church in Boston, that my own attention was attracted to the subject of religion. It has been my happiness to baptize almost every month for the past four years, and I do not know of one instance in which the ordinance has not been blessed, to the conviction and conversion of one or more individuals. No doubt each time persons have been seriously affected, and per- haps converted to God, whose names I shall not know until the judgment day." With respect to the inconvenience of im- mersion, it is more in imagination than reali- ty. Those who adhere to the practice find no objection to it on this account. Even if it were tenfold more difficult to be performed, it is still a positive institution, and ours should be, not the spirit of dictation, but obedience. It is objected again, by some., that it could scarcely be the design of Christ to make the proper performance of this duty to consist in immersion alone, as in many cases it could not be administered without endangering health, and even life. I answer, there are many du- ties which, under peculiar circumstances, the good man may be compelled to neglect. Phy- RESTRICTED C0MMUNI0X. 1? cal impossibilities God has never required Although attendance upon public worship is a positive obligation, there may be an inabili- ty to fulfil it. In such a case God knows the heart and accepts the disposition to obey, al- though the act of obedience has not been per- formed. So with respect to baptism. But the danger contemplated in the objection does not really exist. Even persons of delicate con- stitution and feeble health may, in this thing, safely obey their Lord. Among the hundreds baptized by the writer, during his whole min- istry, he has not been aware of a solitary in- dividual by whom injury has been sustained. This is true, although he has baptized through- out the coldest winter, on almost every Lord's day, and in many instances the candidates have been debilitated and diseased. This will be in general the testimony of all Baptist min- isters. Another objection to the practice of the pri- mitive churches consists in the perturbation of mind to which the subject of baptism is supposed to be subjected. I state the language of a respectable author: " Is it in the power 78 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. of every person to receive baptism by immer- sion, without having his thoughts deranged, his mind agitated, and his spirits fluttered, so as to render him incapable of those sedate and devotional exercises which ought always to accompany this solemn ordinance?" The same objection might be urged to sprinkling. To occupy a conspicuous position in the presence of a large assembly, would be well calculated to discompose some minds. The probability of agitation, and incapability of sedate and devotional exercises, would not be greater in the one case than the other. In every in- stance much would depend upon the motive and spirit with which the duty was performed. If the individual was exceedingly desirous, in the Redeemer's own appointed way, to confess him before men, and entertained correct views of the significancy of the ordinance, we might rather expect that his mind would be the seat of humble, holy joy. This act, constituting " the answer of a good conscience towards God," would be likely to produce, if any agi- tation, an overflowing of grateful emotion which would find vent in the utterance of the RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 79 Redeemer's praise. Such is ordinarily the in- fluence on the mind of the believer, in perform- ing this duty. To close this part of the argument, it may be maintained that no objection can be urged of sufficient validity to overthrow the position that immersion was not only the practice of the primitive Church, but is essential to the ordi- nance itself. Without this act, no individual is baptized. We have before proved that bap- tism is an indispensable prerequisite to the participation of the supper. III. We now proceed to sustain the propo- sition that it would be wrong so depart from the primitive practice of requiring those who come to the Lord's table, first to be baptized or immersed. We are under solemn obliga- tions to " keep the ordinances as delivered" to us. Restricted communion is the only con- sistent course. A few reasons on this point will be presented. 1. The practice of mixed communion is in- expedient and impracticable. It cannot be carried out even among Pedo-baptist churches themselves. Suppose a Presbyterian minister were to teach publicly, and from house to 80 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. house, that infant baptism is unscriptural, and therefore wrong, and after suitable admoni- tion, should persist in the practice, Would he not be excommunicated ? Were he then to join a Baptist church, could he be welcomed to the communion of the church from which he had been driven ? The same state of things might be supposed in reference to each deno- mination of Christians. And yet, in accord- ance with the principle of open communion, such excluded persons, bearing a good moral character, and joining another church could not with propriety be denied access to the Lord's table as spread by the excinding body. 2. The will of Christ in this arrangement is authoritative. As he has required in the most definite manner this order of things, making it the duty of believers immediately upon the exercise of faith to put him on in im- mersion, and as the supper is one of the pri- vileges and duties connected with church fel- lowship, no man has a right to suggest a change. Nor has any synod, or association of men, though composed of the wisest and best, the authority to alter or amend the laws of the kingdom. It is the Lord's table. He has RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 81 prescribed the conditions of access to it. One of these conditions is baptism, nearly the whole Pedo-baptist world being witness, and we have incontrovertibly proved that immer- sion only, is baptism. If it were our table, most gladly would we receive unbaptized persons, but as the head of the Church has authorized no change in the original terms of approach to the supper, we are bound to adhere to them. The distinguished Dr. Griffin, on this sub- ject remarks: " I agree with the advocates for close communion in two points: 1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance which in- troduces us into the visible church: of course, where there is no baptism there are no visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from his principles, as to wish to com- mune with me at the Lord's table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is such relationship estab- lished between the two ordinances that 1 have no right to separate them; in other words I have 8 82 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 110 right to send the sacred elements out of the church." 3. To receive at the Lord' table, or into the church, unimmersed persons, is tacitly to ad- mit that sprinkling and pouring are right, or that the initiatory institution may be omitted altogether. To allow such an admissioD would be grossly inconsistent. Pedo-baptist chur- ches contain too a large number of persons who were sprinkled not as believers, but when they were unconscious infants. They have therefore never professed Christ by a volun- tary obedience to any act which they might call baptism. Is it not perceived that as all agree in the sentiment that baptism is the prerequisite ordinance, we should be lending countenance to infant sprinkling, if we admit- ted such to the Lord's table ? We would be thereby declaring our confidence in the validi- ty of their baptism. This would be such a glaring departure from established principle, that Pedo-baptists themselves would have reason to reproach us. Infant sprinkling is an institution as pernicious as it is unscrip- tural. It is the foundation of all national re- ligious establishments in the Christian world. RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 83 We feel it our solemn duty to protest against it, and to urge the exclusive propriety of be- lievers' baptism. This is done in declining to commune with those whom we deem serious- ly delinquent in substituting a human device for the significant institution authorized by Jesus Christ. We cannot conscientiously lend countenance to the neglect of the prere- quisite ordinance. 4. The tendency of departing from the pri- mitive practice of restricting communion to baptized believers, would be to obliterate the established line of separation between the church and the world. This line is immersion. Unquestionably this was the design of the institution. As we have proved in a former part of this essay, it was the formal method of confessing Christ, and therefore it produced visible separation from the world. It was the oath of fidelity to Christ's kingdom. With what importance then, is this act invested, and how essential it is, that this form, pre- scribed by Christ should be preserved. But the tendency of open communion is to destroy this form. Let us look at this result. If it be right to receive unimmersed persons at the 84 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. Lord's table, will it not also be proper to re- ceive them as members of the church ? It is the Lord's church, as well as his table, and if because unbaptized persons who may be con- sidered his people, shall therefore be entitled to the one privilege, who can deny them the other? Upon this principle many of the open communion Baptist churches of England al- lowed mixed membership, receiving Pedo- baptists as well as Baptists. If then persons be properly received into the church by sprinkling, instead of immersion, cannot all see, that soon immersion may, and will be dis- pensed with, and that the ordinance of Christ's own appointment, intended as the line of de- markation between the church and the world must become obsolete. Such has already been the effect of open communion, and mixed membership. The church at Bedford, over which John Bunyan presided, and then an open communion Baptist church, is now under the pastoral care of a Pedo-baptist minister. And the late excellent James Hinton, pastor of an open communion church of Oxford, Eng- land, thus observes in reference to his own experience: " I cannot be free in my ministry RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 85 without giving offence: the congregation is of so mingled a nature, that I find it impossible to escape censure, either from Baptists or Pe- do-baptists, from dissenters or friends of the establishment." The effects produced by open communion in these churches at Oxford and Bedford, were natural, and indeed almost necessary, and we might expect wherever the practice prevailed, that the result would be similar. We are bound then in maintaining, and preserving un- corrupted the "one baptism" of primitive times, to restrict the communion to immersed persons alone. . 5. Open communion overlooks the fact, that the Lord's supper is specifically an ordinance which belongs to the churches, as such. It is a social institution. Jesus broke bread with his disciples. The church at Jerusalem, con. tinued together in breaking of bread, and in prayers. The Corinthian churches are refer- red to as coming together in one place, to eat the Lord's supper. It is not an ordinance be- longing to the ministry, which they are to ad" minister to individuals, or to members of the church in their individual capacity. It is 86 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. made the duty of the churches, to partake of the bread and the wine, together, as churches, in commemoration of the death of their Lord. "The bread which we eat is it not the communion of the body of Jesus Christ (or the^'o^ participation of the body of Jesus Christ) — the cup which we drunk, is it not the communion (or joint participa- tion) of the blood of Christ ?" If then it be a church ordinance — an ordi- nance in which a church, as such, are to cele- brate the love of Christ in the use of these affecting emblems — then the question arises, What is a Christian church, and who are au- thorized to regard themselves as members of a church, or what are the conditions of admis- sion into a church of Christ ? According to the whole argument before us, none but bap- tized believers can properly be received into an organized congregation of the Lord, and be entitled to all the privileges of church fellow- ship. 6. We should be inflicting an injury on our brethren who neglect the ordinance of immer- sion, by receiving them at the Lord's table. We regard them as guilty in omitting to obey RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 8T Christ in the first institution, and as it is a prerequisite to the supper we should be un- faithful to them, by giving encouragement to their neglect. Love to them dictates the course we take. "We thus remonstrate with them, and urge them to do their duty. Every time an an unbaptized believer witnesses the ordinance of the supper, and finds himself excluded, he is reminded of the last command of the ascending Savior, and of his guilt in failing to comply with it. In closing this tract, the writer may be permitted to notice some of the objections which are brought to bear against the practice of close communion. It is true, that the fore- going argument includes all that is essential to a fair and full view of the subject, still, as certain objections are so frequently urged as to become current and popular, justice de- mands that they shall be directly answered. Objection 1. Baptism is a non-essential, and therefore its omission constitutes no proper bar to communion. A penitent trust in Jesus does, indeed, bring the soul into relations of amity with God. We contend that men are justified before God; not by baptism or any other 88 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. human work, but by the righteousness of Christ. But by what authority is baptism, or any requirement of the Gospel, deemed a non- essential ? Baptism is a command of the ascending Redeemer, and given under circum- stances the most solemn and affecting. Who shall dare to denominate it unessential ? If the Son of God utters his word, every disciple should listen and obey. Baptism is essential to the proper performance of his will, and, as we have already shown, to a proper partici- pation of all the privileges of his house. No properly organised church can admit to the table of the Lord any person who has neglected the prerequisite ordinance of baptism. Objection 2. The practice of restricted commu- nion indicates a spirit of bigotry inconsistent with fervid, scriptural piety. This is a serious charge. It is sometimes alleged by prominent men among our Pedo-baptist brethren. But is it true ? If our churches indulge in this temper, they are fearfully guilty. On their behalf, however, we must be permitted to repel the allegation. Far be it from us to cherish an uncharitable disposition. We love all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, and we believe KESTRICTED COMMUNION. 89 there are many who, through strong educa- tional influences, have been blind to their duty in regard to baptism. Yes; there are thou- sands who, as soon as they perceive their guilt in this particular, will repent of it, and sooner lose their right arm than fail to follow Christ in baptism. It is not because we have no love to them, but because our love to Christ is stronger. We do indeed love them. It is because we love them that we dare to be faith- ful by insisting that they are unbaptised, and therefore not properly prepared to participate in the privileges of the Lord's table. We hope in this way to do them good, while we glorify our Divine Redeemer and Lawgiver by keep- ing the ordinances as delivered to us. I must be permitted also to say that this is in some respects a painful duty we are re- quired to perform. To break away from those we love, and to incur their odium, is far from being pleasant. But we are held in this thing by allegiance to the King in Zion. Our Pedo- baptist brethren mistake us when they sup- pose that we indulge a proud, pharisaic, in- tolerant spirit, in declining to commune with them. We are governed not by a rule formed by 90 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. our churches, hut by a rule adopted and carried out in primitive times. In accordance with the preceding argument, we are warranted in the conclusion that no one refusing to he immersed, in the days of the apostles, would have been received into a Christian Church or at the Lord's table. A conscientious regard to the will of Christ constrains us, even in the midst of reproach, to adhere to this rule. We re- quire those who come to the Lord's table, first to be baptized, and regard immersion only as valid baptism. Dismissing this point, it will be seen that the charge of intolerance on the part of Bap- tists, towards other denominations, is without foundation. That we have bigots among us is not denied, but what church has them not? Who that looks at the state of things in the religious world does not perceive that there is as much friendly regard among the Baptists for Pedo-baptists, as there is among different persuasions of Pedo-baptists towards each other ? Do Episcopalians sit down at the Lord's table with Presbyterian churches? Are Methodist and Presbyterian churches on closer terms of intimacy than are Presbyterians and RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 91 Baptists ? I think not. We would have all, then, to beware of a deception to which the mind may become subject by this charge of bigotry. So far as we can, without a sacrifice of principle, unite with those of other denomi- nations in doing good, we shall feel happy in the union; but union at the expense of princi- ple, by the sacrifice of a divinely appointed institution, we are not willing to purchase. Objection 3. The scriptures inculcate forbear- ance in those various differences of opinion which may exist in the church of Christ. This is true. But the scriptures nowhere teach that, in re- spect to positive institutions, neglect or abuse is to be allowed. The various injunctions of the New Testament on the subject of forbear- ance were addressed, as we have proved, to those who acknowledged only one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The churches then were composed of immersed believers, and they, in all questions of expediency, not affecting vital truth or the ordinances as delivered to the saints, were exhorted not to judge another man's servant, but to bear each other's infirmi- ties. Objection 4. Close communion tends to keep up 92 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. the tcall of separation which has been reared between the disciples of Christ. We have already stated that Pedo-baptists are not more united among themselves than the Baptist churches are with them. So far as this question is concerned, there are but two great divisions, Baptists and Pedo-baptists. Would the abandonment of our principles as Baptists serve to break down the separating wall, and bring us into close affiliation with our brethren who practice sprinkling and pouring ? Let the history of open communion churches in Great Britain testify. They are as distinct and unassociated as our churches in this country. But we call attention to the fact, that the wall of separation can only be broken down by Pedo-baptists themselves. They are re- sponsible for its continuance. All of them admit that ours is valid baptism, many of them insist that it was the only baptism to which believers in primitive times yielded. We regard it as the only baptism. They can consistently be immersed, we cannot yield that sprinkling is right. Now, for the sake of union, let our brethren do that which they can conscientiously do, and not require us to RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 93 violate our consciences. We do not ask them to call themselves Baptists. We cling not tenaciously to the name. But we do ask them in the name of our glorified Saviour and King to perform the solemn duty, which they can do without any sacrifice of conscience, and thus tear down the wall which has so long sundered us. Objection 5. The sincerity of Pedo-baptists is impugned by the practice of restricted communion. We have never doubted the sincerity of those with whom we hesitate to commune at the Lord's table. But it is manifest that sincerity is no criterion by which to determine what is right. It is as easy to be sincere in pursuing a wrong as a right course. The word of God is the only authorised rule of conduct. Be- sides, in performing our duty we are to be governed by our own conscientious views of God's word, and not by the consciences of others. Let the New Testament be read, care- fully, and with an obedient heart, in reference to baptism, and we are willing to abide the result. It is not that Pedo-baptists are insin- cere, but, if the statements of thousands who have changed their views on this subject are 9 94 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. to be regarded, the whole question of duty in regard to the ordinances is not sufficiently ex- amined by the simple light of inspiration. Objection 6. Close communion is a reflection on all JPedo-baptist communities, tacitly representing t/iem as not being churches of Jesus Christ. A church of Christ is composed of baptized be- lievers. Pedo-baptist churches, in so far as they depart from this platform of primitive practice, are irregular in their organization. While we recognise them as christians, and honor them as worthy on many accounts of imitation, we are compelled to regard them as seriously defective in their method of con- stituting the congregations of the saints. They keep not the ordinances as delivered by the apostles. Objection 7. It is the " table of the Lord," and the " Lord's supper," and therefore none of the Lord's people should be excluded from the pri- vilege of communion. This objection has already been considered. Because it is the Lord's ta- ble, we are careful to regard his own arrange- ment in approaching it. As he has prescribed the prerequisites, we dare not alter or amend them. It will be seen too, that this argument, RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 95 if it proves anything, proves too much. All young converts might be received at the Lord's table at once, without reference to bap- tism, because they are the Lord's people, and thus the ordinance which, in some way, all re- gard as preliminary and proper, might become an obsolete law. Objection 8. By restricting communion to im- mersed believers, it will be often necessary to sepa- rate at the Lord's table the people of God, who are related by the strongest earthly lies. We are aware that this is with many a potent objection. That the husband and wife, both professing attach- ment to Christ, should not be allowed to unite at the Lord's supper, because one or the other is not baptized, constitutes with many a rea- son for the practice of open communion. This, however, is an appeal to carnal feeling, un- warranted by reason and the Word of God. If it will hold good with respect to baptism, it will also with respect to any other duty. When principle is involved, we are to know no man after the flesh. " If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my 96 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. disciple." This solemn asseveration of Jesus Christ requires a sacrifice of expediency, and even the natural relations of life, when they come in collision with the laws of his kingdom. Objection 9. All Christians will commune in heaven, and why should they be denied the privi- lege on earth? In answering this objection, it will be proper to notice the fact, that those who make it, are inconsistent with themselves. Do they not refuse to commune with many in this world, who are acknowledged as proper subjects of the heavenly glory. Do Presbyte- rians of the Old School habitually and regu- larly sit down at the table which is spread by those who have seceded from them? Are not the members of the Reformed Methodist church regarded by the Episcopal Methodists as prepared for heaven, but do they commune together at the Lord's table on earth? The Episcopalians will not sit down at the table of the Presbyterian or Methodist churches, because they deem their pastors and preachers unauthorized to administer the ordinances; and yet they recognize them as Christians, and entitled to the privileges of the upper world. But considering this objection farther, RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 97 we may ask, does it follow because all God's people, in the glorified state, shall be perfect- ly pure and united; that upon earth, regard- less of principle, and the express injunctions of the New Testament, they are to come to- gether at the Lord's table? We admit that all Christians, so far as fundamental truth and the ordinances are concerned, ought to be per- fectly joined together on earth, and the period is anticipated when this blessed union will take place. We cannot believe, however, that under any circumstances it will be proper to violate the rule which Christ has adopted, by which all who enter his kingdom on earth must first put him on, being buried with him in baptism. To observe the laws of his spirit- ual kingdom in this world, should constitute the earnest endeavor of all his people, leaving all questions in reference to the upper world, to be made known to them when they shall be called away by death. Other objections might be introduced, but they are of minor consequence, and, indeed, are comprehended in those already considered. It remains for us to address a few words to two classes of persons. 98 RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 1. To those who have neglected to obey Christ in the solemn and significant ordi- nance of immersion, we beg leave respect- fully and affectionately, to appeal. It be- comes your duty to examine this subject. With you, surely, it will not be an unim- portant thing to ascertain the will of your Lord. Has he not redeemed you by his pre- cious blood? Is he not now at the right hand of God, ever living, to make intercession for you? Do you not acknowledge him as your sovereign? You cannot regard any require- ment he makes, as unessential. We ask you then, with simple reference to his will and gloiy, to examine the New Testament for the purpose of ascertaining whether you are in- deed negligent and disobedient. Endeavor to forget all prepossessions and earthly alliances, and. with unbiased heart, notice every passage which relates to baptism, exercising your own common sense, as to its import. This is your imperious dut} 7 . Your ignorance and sinceri- ty will be no mitigation of your sin in disre- garding the injunction of Christ. It becomes important that you look into the question; and if you find that you have failed to follow RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 99 Christ, by being buried with him in baptism, let nothing" prevent the performance of your duty. The sacrifice may be great. You may find it necessary to break away from early formed associations, and from cherished kin- dreds and friends. Remember the words of your Redeemer: "Who so loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." 2. We add a line or two to those who, as Baptists, claim to adhere tenaciously to pri- mitive institutions. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory. To indulge in bigotry or unkindness towards those whom we regard as disobedient to the law of baptism, is inconsistent and wrong. Nothing can justify such a course. We ought earnestly to con- tend for the restoration of the ordinance as de- livered by Christ, but let us always speak the truth in love; not to build up a denomina- tional interest, but to honor Christ, and sub- serve the interests of his kingdom. All his precepts let us gladly fulfill, endeavoring, in the family, the world, and the church, to glo- rify God. •