"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." - 1 Corinthians xi:2.The apostle Paul shrunk not from the censure of error and condemnation of vice, wherever found; but on the other hand, he was equally ready to commend where praise was due. The general conformity of the Corinthians to the ordinances as delivered unto them, meets his recorded approbation in the language of the text. In its use as the foundation of the present discourse, I propose to discuss the terms of sacramental communion: or, in other words, the qualifications essential to a seat at the Lord's table. In the discussion of this subject, so apt to excite prejudice and to enlist unduly the feelings, I shall be uninfluenced by party rancor, sectarian bigotry, or a love of controversy. Religious controversies at least should be distinguished by courtesy, affection and forbearance; not asperity, resentment and malice: such a spirit, (however common it may be,) being utterly foreign from the spirit of the gospel. My object is to ascertain, to defend, and to enforce the truth; and in endeavoring to accomplish this, I shall strive to be governed by the spirit
_________________________
* This discourse makes little pretension to originality. It claims little merit, except that of condensing and arranging thoughts and arguments, most of which have been before employed in treating this subject. It has been the object of the author to be useful rather than original; and consequently he has not scrupled to employ the thoughts and sometimes the language of others, when suited to the end in view.
[p. 78]
of the New Testament. I shall fearlessly speak the truth as I understand it, but I shall speak that truth "in love." I utter no harsh epithets, no unkind sentiments, no uncharitable insinuations towards those whose opinions differ from my own. If the truth, kindly and fairly stated, fail to produce conviction, I shall resort to no other weapon. I address all present, who may differ from me, as brethren owning a common Lord, equally honest and sincere as I am, and equally desirous to ascertain and obey the truth. And I ask a patient and impartial hearing: patient, because even the briefest discussion of this subject must occupy more time than is usually allotted to pulpit exercises - impartial, because this question has excited, perhaps, as much prejudice as any other which has ever agitated the Christian world. I ask, therefore, of all present, "who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity," that they come to the consideration of this subject free from preconceived opinions and prejudices, and with the spirit of little children, only desirous to know and to obey the will of a kind Father.The discussion on which we enter is one of no ordinary importance. It is not true, (as some seem to think,) that positive institutions, such as the ordinances, are to be regarded as of secondary consequence. They have, (considered in themselves,) nothing about them either morally right or wrong: therefore "the basis, and the only basis on which they rest, is the revealed will of God." We cannot, therefore, slight them or alter them, without disobeying God's revealed will, impeaching his wisdom, and opposing his sovereignty. And as the sovereign will of God is more concerned and manifested in positive ordinances than in any other branches of worship, so it is evident from the history of the Jewish nation, which is the history of Providence for nearly 2,000 years, that the Divine jealousy was never sooner inflamed nor ever more awfully expressed, than when God's ancient people failed in their obedience to positive commands, or deviated from the prescribed rule of positive institutions. The destruction of Nadab and Abihu by fire from heaven - the breach that was made upon Uzzah - the curses denounced against Jeroboam - and the fall and ruin of all mankind by our first parents' disobedience to a positive command, are among the many authentic proofs of this assertion. And though the methods of Providence, under the
[p. 79]
gospel economy, are apparently much more mild and gentle in regard to offenders in similar cases; yet our obligation to a conscientious and punctual obedience is not in the least relaxed. That divine declaration, occasioned by the dreadful catastrophe of Aaron's disobedient sons, is an eternal truth, and binding on all generations. "I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me." When God speaks we should be all attention; and when he commands we should be all submission. "The clearer light afforded and the richer grace manifested, under the present dispensation, are so far from lessening that they evidently increase our obligations to perform every divine command relating to Christian worship. For it is certainly true, that they on whom greater favors are bestowed and higher honors conferred, are so much the more obliged to revere, love and obey their Divine Benefactor." Let us enter, then, brethren and friends, on this discussion deeply impressed with its importance, and anxiously desirous to know and to obey the will of God.In prosecuting our design, I propose to show, that baptism is a prerequisite to sacramental communion: or, in other words, an essential qualification for the Lord's table; and to state and to endeavor to refute the principal arguments which have been adduced by the opponents of this proposition.
To render the discussion complete, it would be necessary to prove, (which might be very easily done,) that the immersion in water of a believer is the only Christian baptism. But to attempt to sustain this point also, would exhaust my strength and your patience. Nor does it seem necessary that I should attempt it on the present occasion. I will only say, that the opinions of the best scholars and lexicographers, many of them being no friends to the Baptists - the signification of the ordinance - the circumstances attending its primitive administration - and the plain declarations of God's word respecting it, all prove that immersion alone is baptism. At this time, however, this proposition must be taken for granted. Enter, then, with me upon the discussion of these two propositions.
I. Baptism is a prerequisite to communion at the Lord's table. I propose to establish this, 1. By the order of the commission. 2. By the signification and position of the ordinances. 3. By the practice of apostles and primitive
[p. 80]
Christians under the commission, and of the Christian world since that time. And, 4. By the reference made to baptism in the epistles, in which it is taken for granted that those addressed were baptized.1. The order of the commission proves that baptism must precede the Lord's supper. The commission is the law of the Christian church, announced by himself just previous to his ascension, and embracing, in one comprehensive enactment, the laws of faith, of baptism, and of external church fellowship. To the commission, then, we resort as the safest - as the only safe guide on this subject.
That baptism must come before the supper, or the supper before baptism, is evident, since both cannot, in the very nature of things, be observed at the same time. Is it a matter of indifference which shall be first observed, or has Christ left directions as to the order? As might be expected, he has not left this important matter to caprice. Here is the order, in which these ordinances are to be observed, explicitly laid down by the Master himself: "Go ye, therefore, and teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." - (Matthew, xxviii:19-20.) This, as before stated, is emphatically the statute of the Christian church. What does it teach? First, we are to teach, (or as Mark says, "preach the gospel;") secondly, men are to believe; thirdly, are we to administer the Lord's supper? No! They that believe must be baptized. Fourthly, we are then to teach them all things that Christ has commanded, among which is the observance of the Lord's supper. This is undeniably the order of the several acts and exercises mentioned in the commission. Now the order of positive commands is as binding as the commands themselves, both deriving their authority from the sovereign will of God alone. No reason can be given for dispensing with the order of a positive institution, which may not be applied to the institution itself. The very existence, then, of baptism - nay, of both the ordinances, may be endangered by contending that the order of a positive institution is to be regarded as a matter of indifference. A limited commission, too, prohibits tacitly whatever is not expressly granted. The rule which has prevailed
[p. 81]
among statesmen in construing the constitution of the United States, may be employed as an illustration of this sentiment. It is said that those powers only are to be regarded as conferred on the General Government which are expressly granted in the constitution, and such as are necessary to carry the express grants into execution. So this constitution of the Christian church confers only such powers as are expressly granted, and those which are essential to the execution of such grants. On the ground for which we are now contending - the ground, I mean, that a limited commission tacitly prohibits what is not expressly granted - on this ground we, as a denomination, have met and vanquished the Pedo-baptists - only believers, we say, are mentioned as the subjects of baptism: therefore all others are tacitly excluded. So, now we say, baptism is mentioned as coming immediately after believing: therefore all other ordinances are tacitly excluded. The manner, too, in which the mind of Christ is usually enjoined, is by stating duties in the order in which they are to be observed, and this is as binding as if the order and connection had been more plainly expressed. Thus it is said, "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." - (Matthew xxvii:26-27.) Here the order is as evident as if it had been said, he first took bread; secondly, blessed; thirdly, brake it, &c. Now even the most strenuous advocate of mixed communion would not venture first to take the wine, then the bread; and to postpone the blessing to the close of the service. And yet there is as much authority for this as first to take the supper and afterwards to be baptized. No doubt it would have been highly offensive to God, if, under the Old Testament dispensation, the priests and people had first taken the passover, then been circumcised - then burnt incense in the holy place - and then offered the propitiatory sacrifice. Is a breach of order under the new dispensation less offensive? If so, we must suppose God has less regard for the purity of his worship - less jealousy for his honor now than he had under the old dispensation, although superior light is now bestowed, and consequently we would naturally suppose stronger obligations to obedience are now incurred. Should a missionary to the heathen commence his
[p. 82]
labors by first administering the supper, and then baptizing those who had partaken of it, would he not be regarded as grossly ignorant or utterly unfaithful? Will any one contend for a principle here which he is unwilling to see adopted in a heathen land? We conclude, then, that the commission as clearly indicates the order of obedience as if it had been said, first, "Teach," (or "preach;") secondly, "baptize;" thirdly, administer the supper, &c. We say with Mr. Baxter, "To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here?" This interpretation of the commission is established farther, by,2. The signification and place of the two ordinances - baptism and the supper. The ordinances of the gospel are not unmeaning, arbitrary ceremonies; but significant representations of great and glorious truths. They are intended and calculated to impart important religious lessons, and it is both our duty and privilege to heed their instructions. Baptism is a public profession, (so admitted to be by almost all denominations,) of our allegiance to Christ - a recognition and avowal of a change in our relation towards Christ. Such a recognition and avowal are naturally placed at the commencement of that relation which they thus recognize and avow. An avowal of union with Christ prior to its existence, (as in baptism before faith,) or a participation in the privileges of such a union before its avowal, (as in the Lord's supper before baptism,) is surely unnatural. What would be thought of a soldier who claimed pay before he had taken the oath of enlistment? As in baptism we profess to have received spiritual life, so in communion we have the emblems of heavenly food by which we live and grow. As we are born spiritually but once, so we are baptized but once; but as our spiritual life is sustained by continued supplies of heavenly food, so we represent this truth by frequent participation at the Lord's table. It is preposterous to place new life and nourishment (emblematically) before the birth by which that life began. And yet those who contend for the administration of the supper before baptism, are guilty of this absurdity. They strip the ordinances of their emblematical force and beauty by reversing their true positions. Baptism is admitted to be an initiatory ordinance. It is absurd - it is a contradiction in terms, to place any rite before
[p. 83]
the initiatory ordinance. Initiatory means introductory: baptism, therefore, must lose its place as an initiatory or introductory ordinance, or no other rite must come before it. Having shown that baptism must precede the Lord's supper by the order of the commission, and the position and signification of the two ordinances, I establish the proposition still farther, by,3. The views and practice of the apostles and primitive Christians, and those of the great body of Christians in all ages. We can find no where such correct commentators and practical expositors of the words of Christ as his apostles. Their views and practice ought to have controlling authority with us in determining the meaning of the commission. They received it from the lips of Christ - heard his voice, and saw his person. They were secured from error, too, by being inspired. What was their language and practice? Guided by the light of God's word, let us turn back some eighteen hundred years and see. It is the Lord's day. The streets of Jerusalem are thronged with a busy multitude, come up from the surrounding country to traffic, or to celebrate the feast of Pentecost, now "fully come." The splendid temple crowning Mt. Moriah, and glittering in the rays of an eastern sun, is the centre of attraction. The thousands who crowd the streets of Jerusalem are hastening towards its gorgeous portal, eager to behold its beauties and to share in the ceremonies of its service. The disciples are not mingling with this busy throng, but are "all with one accord in one place:" - a little company which attracts the curious gaze, or wins the scornful smile of the passer-by, but on which the eye of God is fixed with far more complacency than on that vast throng of pompous worshipers pressing on to the temple. The disciples pray earnestly, ardently and faithfully, and their prayer is heard and answered. The Spirit is poured out, and sits in the form of cloven tongues on each of them. They speak with tongues. The report flies through the city. The people run together - listen with astonishment to the strange truths pouring from the inspired lips of Peter - are convicted by his preaching, and cry out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter answers, "Repent, and," what? take the Lord's supper? No! "Repent, and be baptized every one of you." - (Acts ii:38.) Here we have the order of the commission, for the
[p. 84]
first time after it was given, carried into practice. Let us mark that order as recorded here, and in the immediate context. 1st. Peter preached. 2nd. They believed. 3rd. They were baptized. 4th. "They that gladly received his word and were baptized, continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," - (vs. 41-42.)* Nothing could be plainer than such was the order observed on this occasion. Now this church, in its constitution, was either intended as a model for all others, or it was not. If it was not, Christ must have discovered some defect in his first plan of organization, and have altered that plan. Who will say this? No one. Then this church was intended as a model, and consequently none are to be admitted to the supper but the baptized, since none others were admitted in the model church. Here was the model church, under the direction of inspired apostles, worshiping God, and performing duties after an order which is minutely described. Now where shall we look for a safe precedent if it is not to be found here? The practice of the apostles continued the same during the whole of their administration. They first preached - then the people believed - were then baptized, and then were admitted to the Lord's supper and other church privileges.Let us adduce a few instances from the scriptures in proof of this assertion. Philip at Samaria - "But 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." - (Acts vii:12.) Philip to the Eunuch - "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him." (Acts viii:37-38.) The Phillipian jailor "was baptized, he and all his straightway." "Many of the Corinthians, (under Paul's preaching,) hearing, believed, and were baptized." On the profession of faith by Cornelius and his household, Peter "commanded them to be baptized" I might cite many other cases, but these are sufficient to establish the point. Indeed, I hesitate not to say that not one instance
_________________________________
* The italics in this quotation and in those which follow it, are my own.
[p. 85]
can be found recorded in scripture in which there is the remotest probability that the Lord's supper was administered before baptism. This is so clear, that the advocates of open communion admit - most of them at least - that in primitive times, baptizing did invariably precede the supper; but they contend that this primitive order may now be changed, because of a change of circumstances. If a change of circumstances, or "the occurrence of a new case," (to use Ro. Hall's language,) will justify a change in the order of observing the ordinances, will it not justify a change in the ordinances themselves? Nay, more: will it not justify the entire abrogation of the ordinances? It would seem to be certainly so. We may, then, alter the ordinances as "circumstances" seem to require, or if these same "circumstances" appear to demand it, we may abolish them altogether! Such is the legitimate result of the plea for open communion founded on a change of circumstances! Such is the consequence of discarding the principles and practice of apostles and primitive Christians. But to return. I observe that the views and practice of the great body of Christians since that time, have, in this respect, corresponded with those of the apostles. I mean, they have all thought, however erroneous their views may have been as to what constituted baptism, that it is a prerequisite to communion. In proof of this point, we cite the opinions of a few eminent men in different ages of the world. Justyn Martyr, (A. D. 150,) - "This food is called by us the eucharist, of which it is not lawful for any to partake but such as believe the things that are taught by us to be true, and have been baptized." Jerome, generally regarded as among the most candid and learned of the "fathers." (A. D. 400,) - "Catechumens (or learners) cannot communicate at the Lord's table, being unbaptized." Theophylact, (A. D. 1100,) - "No unbaptized person partakes of the Lord's supper." Lord Chancellor King, (A. D. 1700,) - "Baptism was always precedent to the Lord's supper, and none were (ever) admitted to receive the eucharist till they were baptized. This is so obvious to every man, that it needs no proof." Many similar sentiments might be adduced from the "fathers," and other ancient writers, but we pass on to notice the views, on this point, of more modern men of eminence. Dr. Wall - "No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they
[p. 86]
were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized." Dr. Doddridge - "It is certain that Christians in general have always been spoken of by the most ancient fathers as baptized persons. And it is also certain, that as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity extends, no unbaptized person received the Lord's supper." Dr. Dwight - "It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance, that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church of Christ in full standing. By this I mean that he should be a person of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion; and that he should have been baptized." Dr. Griffin - "I agree with the advocates of close communion, 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 commune with me at the Lord's table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I could not receive him,* because there is such a relationship established between the two ordinances, that I have no right to separate them; in other words, I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the church." All these men were eminent Pedo-baptists; so distinguished for their piety and talents as to be thought worthy of the title of Doctor of Divinity. Plainly and strongly, however, as these writers advocated the propriety and necessity of administering baptism before the Lord's supper, yet, with a strange inconsistency, many of them condemned the Baptists for adopting this very sentiment and acting upon it.All the catechisms and confessions of faith that have ever been published, conform to the sentiments just quoted. Such are the tenets and the practice of every church on earth; unless indeed the few open communion Baptist churches form an exception. Indeed the churches must hold this sentiment. Baptism must be regarded in determining the qualifications of a candidate for communion. Will you make your confidence in his christianity the test of
_________________________
* The case here supposed actually occurred with the late Bishop Moore, of this State. The good Bishop, (as Dr. Griffin would have done,) declined to receive the candidate for communion.
[p. 87]
admission? Will you permit him to partake at the Lord's table because you believe him to be a Christian? If this be the test you must reject many who are now admitted; for it will readily be conceded that there are many, in every denomination, who are not christians. If this be the test, you must closely examine every candidate's faith, opinions and life, and if, on such examination, it seem probable he is not a christian, you must reject him, though he be baptized and belong to the church. The truth is, other denominations do not admit those to the supper whom they believe unbaptized. Why then charge us with intolerance, bigotry and narrow-mindedness for pursuing the same course? Though, according to this principle, they might admit us, we cannot admit them. They believe us to be, baptized, but we do not believe them baptized. Each should be permitted to act on his own faith. Indeed our Pedo-baptist brethren require us to give up our views of baptism, when they ask admission to our communion. They would not come as unbaptized persons, if invited in this character, and we cannot, without sacrificing our views of baptism, regard them in any other.The views and practice of the apostles and subsequent Christians, have been shewn, we think, triumphantly to sustain our views. We pass on very briefly to notice, that -
4. Our position is still farther confirmed by the references made to baptism, in which it is taken for granted that the members of the churches have been baptized. Paul says to the Galatians "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." - (Galatians iii:27.) When urging the Romans to holiness, a motive is fetched from their baptism - "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism 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." - (Romans vi:4.) When rebuking the Corinthians for divisions among them, an appeal is made to their baptism - "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" - (1 Corinthians i:13.) Every address to the churches in which baptism is referred to, supposes that the parties addressed were baptized persons. Indeed, it would appear to be a work of supererogation to attempt a labored proof of the proposition that those only were, primitively, admitted to the supper who were baptized,
[p. 88]
since this is admitted, as before stated, by most of the advocates for mixed communion.I have now gone through the argument in support of the proposition with which we commenced, viz: that baptism is a pre-requisite to the Lord's table. I hope no one will conclude that I have failed to sustain this proposition, unless he can show that the argument which has been employed is unsound. Let us recapitulate. We are sustained in our views - 1. By the order of words in the commission. This is the proper order, or caprice may govern, and a man may be baptized who never heard the name of Christ. 2. By the position and signification of the ordinances, baptism is initiatory - the supper a privilege belonging to the initiated. 3. By the practice of the apostles, and primitive Christians, and those of the great body of Christians since. And 4. By the addresses to the churches, all of them implying that the persons addressed had been baptized.
I will only add two propositions, in the form of sylogisms, in order to illustrate the point of the argument employed. Pedo-baptists believe that baptism is a pre-requisite to communion. Pedo-baptists also believe that the use of water in pouring, sprinkling, or immersion, is essential to baptism. But Quakers have not been baptized with water baptism; therefore Pedo-baptists cannot admit Quakers to the communion. Baptists believe that baptism is a pre-requisite to communion - Baptists also believe that the immersion in water of a believer is essential to baptism. But Pedo-baptists have not been immersed in water as believers: therefore Baptists cannot admit them to the communion. If the first propositions in these two sylogisms be admitted, (and no well informed person will question them,) then the others follow of course, and we are placed in the same position with other denominations.
Here we might rest the argument; but I desire to present, as fairly and fully as space and time will permit, both sides of the question before us, and therefore I notice,
II. The principal arguments which have been adduced in opposition to the views we advocate. I shall endeavor to state these arguments or objections fairly and candidly, without suppressing or distorting any one of them.
1. It is said that John's baptism and Christian baptism were separate institutions, and that as the latter was not administered
[p. 89]
until after the death of Christ, the Lord's supper was administered prior to Christian baptism, seeing that Christ instituted it himself while on earth.It was the opinion of Ro. Hall, (infinitely the most ingenious, learned and eloquent advocate of mixed communion who has yet appeared,) that "the connection of this question with the point in debate is casual and incidental, rather than real and intrinsic." On this account I would not notice the argument or objection, but that others appear to attach more importance to it than Mr. Hall did.
Suppose we admit, for the sake of argument, that there was an essential difference between baptism before and after the death of Christ, we must also admit that there was an essential difference between the Lord's supper before and after that event. If John's dispensation, (reaching it is said to the death of Christ,) was an entirely distinct institution from the Christian dispensation, and the baptism of John a different ordinance from Christian baptism, then the supper under John's dispensation must have been an entirely distinct institution from the Christian supper. This objection of our opponents is entirely fatal to their own argument. No reason has ever been given - none can be given - why baptism administered before Christ's death should on this account be regarded as not a Christian ordinance, while the Lord's supper, administered during the same period, is a Christian ordinance.
But it is said that the rite performed by John, when mentioned, is almost invariably accompanied by some explanatory epithet. It is called "The baptism of John," - "the baptism of repentance," - "baptism in water," &c. Christian baptism on the other hand, is almost always expressed in the absolute or simple form, as baptism: they must, therefore, (say open communionists,) be different institutions. This fact unquestionably favors the contrary supposition. The reason of the epithet "the baptism of John," is, that John introduced it. It was a new rite, and therefore it was entirely natural it should be designated by a descriptive epithet. But after the pentecost being no longer a new rite, it drops this descriptive epithet, and is simply called baptism. Had Christian baptism been a different institution from John's baptism, would it not have been called in the scriptures Christian baptism, in order thus to distinguish it
[p. 90]
from John's? As it is not thus designated, but is simply called baptism, is not the conclusion natural - nay, almost inevitable - that they are the same? We would say, if it had not the appearance of boasting, that thus we cut off Goliath's head with his own sword. In very much the same way may all the arguments be disposed of, which have been adduced to prove John's baptism and Christian baptism distinct institutions. There is this insurmountable obstacle in the way of this view. In order to establish it, Christ must be made subordinate to John, as Christ's disciples during John's ministry - nay, during the whole of his own ministry - must have baptized with John's baptism. Can we allow this? Can we consent to consider Christ as a mere "co-adjudicator" of John - as simple assistant of his forerunner? And yet this must be done if John's dispensation, as a separate institution, extended to the death of Christ. The truth seems very evidently to be, that the two institutions, though circumstantially different, were substantially the same. Before Christ's death, to which baptism and the supper both pointed, these ordinances were prospective - after that event, they were retrospective. Reminding you again that whatever becomes of baptism under John's dispensation, the Lord's supper must share the same fate: - I pass on to notice a second argument or objection which has been urged against our views.2. It is said, "God has received the sincere Christian, though unbaptized, and we should not reject him." In support of this position, the following passage of scripture has been cited: "Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him." - (Romans xiv:1-3.) Reception to external church fellowship cannot be here meant, because both parties were members of the church at this time - both were baptized. Those who advocate the opinion we have just noticed, adduce this passage of scripture to sustain that opinion merely because one body of Christians is exhorted to receive another body. To show the fallacy of such an opinion, observe that, in the same epistle, the apostle says, "I commend unto you Phebe, our sister, that ye receive her in the Lord." -
[p. 91]
(Rom. xvi:1-2.) To the Corinthians, he says: "Receive us: we have wronged no man; we have corrupted no man; We have defrauded no man." - (2 Corinthians vii: 2.) To the Philippians of Epaphroditus: "Receive him, therefore, in the Lord, with all gladness; and hold such in reputation." (Philippians ii:29.) In none of these cases, (which are only a few of a number which might be mentioned,) can communion be intended; and yet the same word receive is employed; and employed, too, with just as much probability that it means a reception to communion.Besides, the case of the person mentioned in the quotation, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye," &c, is not at all analogous to that of an unbaptized Christian. These persons were to be received whether they ate meat or not; to receive persons whether baptized or not, on the same ground, is to put baptism on a level with eating certain meats, and thus to make it no better than an abrogated Jewish ceremony. To give the argument founded on this passage of scripture force - to make the case of an unbaptized believer analogous to that mentioned in this passage - the following propositions must be adopted: Eating meat or not eating meat is a matter of indifference under the New Testament dispensation: therefore pious persons ought to be admitted to communion whether they eat or not. Being baptized or not being baptized is a matter of indifference under the new dispensation: therefore pious persons ought to be admitted to the communion whether they are baptized or not. No professing Christian is prepared to admit these propositions, and yet this must be done to give force to the argument. But admitting, for argument's sake, that receiving our brother in the passage quoted means receiving him to church fellowship, such reception must include all the ordinances - not one without the other - and all, too, in the order in which Christ has appointed them: first, baptism; second, the supper. Convince me that God has received any one, and I am ready, heartily ready, thus to receive him. But still it may be said, "Is it not true that God has received the pious professor of another denomination, and how can you reject him?" God has received him it is true; but to what? Surely not to sacramental communion, but to his favor. Now when did God make his sovereign grace, in manifesting favor to the sinner, your rule in administering
[p. 92]
his ordinances? When did he permit you to dispense entirely with one of his ordinances, (baptism,) in order that in administering the other, (the supper,) you might attempt to rival his free favor in saving a sinner? Take care lest, in the exercise of mistaken charity, you fall into presumption.3. It is said, that "the genius of the gospel is eminently spiritual," and that "when its spiritual service comes in conflict with its ritual observances, the latter must yield." But they cannot come in conflict, for Christ has commanded both. Ritual services claim as high an origin as moral and spiritual duties. To contend that these ever conflict, is to say that Christ has issued commands which are contradictory to each other, and thus most seriously to impeach his wisdom. Obedience to ritual service, so far from conflicting with what is spiritual, is entirely consistent with it, and (like the washing of Naaman) furnishes a test of character. "Ye are my friends," says our Lord, "if ye do whatsoever I command you." - (John xv:14.) Can we claim this title if we depreciate, slight, or neglect (intentionally) any of Christ's commands? The argument we are endeavoring to meet, is not strengthened by telling us, in the eloquent language of Ro. Hall, that "ritual service is but the terrestrial attire of the Christian to be left on the threshold of eternity!" Be it remembered, we are this side that threshold. While on earth it becomes us to wear earthly or terrestrial attire. When we get to heaven, (and not before,) we shall lay aside this earthly garb and put on celestial attire. And let me observe here, that it is a sufficient answer to those who say "we expect to commune with Pedo-baptists in heaven, and therefore ought to do so on earth," that when we get to heaven, we will do as they do there - while on earth, we will do as we are commanded to do.
4. "Pedo-baptists believe they are baptized - they are sincere, and if in error, ought to be tolerated." And so sincerity in error is to be accepted as a substitute for the truth! If sincerity is to be the test, we should receive Universalists, Catholics and Mormons, for no doubt many of them are sincere: nay, even idolaters could not be excluded, for no one could question the sincerity of thousands of them. The idea that error is to be tolerated because its advocates are sincere, is too often heard in the Christian world. This sentiment is calculated to sap the very foundations of true religion.
[p. 93]
places the idolaters of Athens on the same footing with the apostle who preached to them. It secures to the deluded worshipers of Juggernaut the same prospect for heaven with the devoted follower of Jesus. It levels all distinctions between right and wrong, and erects "sincerity" as the only arbiter of men's opinions and actions. If sincerity be made the test, all power of judging of the qualifications of a candidate for communion is transferred from the church to the individual. He is to decide, (if he be only sincere,) whether he is fit for communion or not. If he be vested with the power of decision in this case, what deprives him of it when a candidate for baptism, or in any other case? The truth is, another man's faith may be, and ought to be his guide, but not mine. A Pedo-baptist believes himself baptized, let him act on that belief. I do not believe him baptized, let me act on mine. I ask no more than I grant. Whatever he may think of it, if I do not think him baptized, I must act towards him on my convictions, not on his.5. "Strict communion betrays a want of fellowship for our brethren and denies the best feelings of our nature." This is not true. Fellowship is not confined to the sacrament. Spiritual fellowship - the highest and holiest - may be, and frequently is enjoyed, without administering the Lord's supper. But if it were true that spiritual fellowship is confined to the sacrament, we should feel compelled to deny ourselves the privilege of such fellowship with our Pedo-baptist brethren rather than disobey Christ. Nor does strict communion "deny the best feelings of our nature." The best feeling of our nature is obedience: therefore if Christ command us to restrict sacramental communion to the baptized, our "best feelings" are gratified in obeying him. Good feelings, too, let it be remembered, may be abused. They should never be followed when they would lead us away from the path of obedience. God's requisitions sometimes demand a sacrifice of "good feelings." Of this we have a memorable instance in the offering up of Isaac by Abraham. In this case, Abraham's "good feelings," (in the mixed communion sense of the term,) were all on the side of disobedience, and yet his obedience, in this instance, has been held up, for thousands of years, to the imitation and admiration of the world. Let it be noted, too, that in this case, it was not the performance of a moral duty, but
[p. 94]
obedience to a positive command which was required. We may, and ought to love our Pedo-baptist brethren, but we should never let that love induce us to disobey Christ. Let us remember the language of Samuel to Saul: "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." - (1 Samuel xv:22.)6. "It is the Lord's table, and all the Lord's people should have a seat at it." It is the Lord's table, and for this very reason we feel bound to exclude all whom the Lord has not directed us to invite. If it were our table, we would freely invite all. We would use our own pleasure in the matter. We might be justly charged with bigotry or inhospitality, if we excluded or omitted any. But it is the Lord's table. He is the Ruler of the feast. He has prescribed the conditions of admittance; who will alter them? He has surrounded it with an enclosure; who will break through? He has prescribed the bounds; who will transgress them? Yes, it is the Lord's table. His grace has spread the feast, let his will regulate it.
7. "It is inconsistent to pray and to preach with Pedobaptists, and then to refuse to commune with them." If this were true, it does not prove we ought to commune with the unbaptized. It only proves we ought not to pray with them. But it is not true. Baptism is not a pre-requisite to prayer and benevolence. Saul of Tarsus prayed, and prayed acceptably, before he was baptized. And so have done thousands since. So, too, public preaching is not confined to persons related in a church state, but the Lord's supper is. There is a great difference between hearing a minister preach of those things which he holds in common with us, and violating God's law in order to eat the supper with him. It will be admitted, that circumcision was a pre-requisite to the paschal supper. This being true, the most eminent and pious, who had preceded Moses, if they had been in the wilderness with him, would not have been allowed to sit at the passover. Enoch, though he walked with God, and predicted the coming of Christ to judgment - Noah, though an heir of righteousness by faith - Melchisedeck, though a priest of the Most High God, superior to Abraham, and a type of Christ: these, with all their piety, talents and holiness, could not have been admitted to communion with the chosen tribes of Israel - to the communion of the passover. And yet if
[p. 95]
Enoch had been in the camp at the rebellion of Korah and his company, Moses, doubtless, would readily, gladly have listened to an exhortation from him on the punishment awaiting the wicked at the bar of Christ. No doubt all would cheerfully have heard a dedication sermon from Noah on the design and emblems of the tabernacle, had he been present when this structure was erected. The New Testament, my brethren, not only permits, but requires us to love them that love the Lord. But it does not permit us to give them the supper without the requisite qualification. We should sin if we did not love them; but we should also sin if we did give them the supper without permission.As the subject relates to the church militant, I may be permitted to enforce it by a military illustration, borrowed from a forcible writer:* "An officer beats up for recruits to resist a foreign invasion. A fine young man offers his services. He is taller, by head and shoulders, than some who have been enlisted. The officer surveys him and thinks he has obtained a prize. He welcomes him to his Majesty's service, and proceeds on the first convenient opportunity to administer the oath of allegiance. The young man says: 'No: I cannot take the oath. It is now [not] unnecessary, for it was administered to me many years ago in my very infancy.' This does not satisfy the officer. As he is instructed to have the oath administered, and the young man declines to take it, the officer promptly replies, 'Then I cannot receive you.' Your scruples may be conscientious ones: I presume they are; and you may be a loyal man and might make a very good soldier; but here is the Royal Commission; read it if you will; and you will find that it runs thus: Enlist all the young men in the district, ADMINISTERING TO THEM THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, and send them to the regiment to be further instructed. Now can any thing be more explicit than this, or more peremptory? What can I do? I am 'a man under authority:' it is at my peril to deviate from my instructions. I Cannot Receive You. And if you were to go to the regiment, and propose to join their ranks for a single day, if they believed you had not taken the oath of allegiance, they would not admit you. In vain would you plead your loyalty, or that in other services they did not require
_____________________
* J. G. Fuller, "On Communion," pp. 43-44.
[p. 96]
the oath. They would reply to a man: 'We do not dispute either of these points; but THE KING'S REGIMENTS MUST BE FORMED AND REGULATED BY THE KING'S INSTRUCTIONS. Your scruples may be conscientious, and therefore may be your guide; but we are not to deviate from our instructions in deference to your scruples: that would be honoring your scruples more than his Majesty's orders. Our laws are explicit and peremptory: WE CANNOT RECEIVE YOU INTO THE REGIMENT. But engage in any service for which the oath is not required, and we will, according to the best of our ability, unite with you in it, and cordially wish you success in the King's name. And when the war is 'over and the army is disbanded, we will unite with each other as loyal subjects, who have served his Majesty, each agreeably to the dictates of his own conscience: all of whom, therefore, may cordially unite in the celebration of his triumphs.'"The application of this figure is easily seen. While we readily admit our pious Pedo-baptist brethren to be loyal subjects of our common King, and while we will cordially cooperate with them in every service which does not require the oath of allegiance, we cannot participate with them in any service which does require the oath, seeing they have never taken it. But see on this subject the course of a competent judge, even Paul: "Some," he says, "indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; supposing to add affliction to my bonds." - (Philippians i: 15-16.) Here the principles on which these persons acted, were "envy and strife;" the end to "add affliction to his bonds." How base the principles! How detestable the end! But was the apostle offended? Did he charge the Philippians not to hear them? Let him answer: "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is presented; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" - (v. 8.) Would Paul have admitted these men to the Lord's supper? Certainly not. After this shall we refuse to hear our Pedo-baptist brethren preach, who act on so much better principles and are moved by so much purer motives? Does any one hope to deter us from spiritual communion with our Pedo-baptist brethren - from joining them in prayer and praise by the charge of inconsistency? If so, such a one will be mistaken.
8. And lastly, it is said "Strict communion is "bad policy." If it be the command of Christ, it must be good policy,
[p. 97]
however it may seem to be otherwise. And in this case, reason and experience both prove open communion to be "bad policy." Pedo-baptists must, in their secret souls, think more highly of those principles which even our love for them will not induce us to abandon. They will think there is something in a view to which we cling so tenaciously. Wherever the open communion principle has been adopted, its blighting effect has been invariably felt, sooner or later. John Bunyan's church has had ever since his day, with one, or at most, two exceptions, none but Pedo-baptist pastors, and it is now almost or altogether a Pedo-baptist church. The elder Hinton very honestly acknowledged that the mixed communion principle, adopted by his church, had resulted only in heart burnings and difficulties. And even Ro. Hall, with his shining talents and transcendant eloquence, was unable fully to counteract the baleful influence of this principle. Mixed communion must lead to mixed membership. We cannot grant the greater and refuse the smaller privilege. If we give a person a seat at the Lord' table, we cannot deny him the right to vote for a messenger to a district association. Mixed membership inevitably leads to inextricable confusion, and utterly destroys, instead of promoting Christian fellowship.But after all, we say, in the language of a distinguished minister,* "All the clamor on this subject deserves no better name than croaking." We are really, in our communion, the most liberal of all denominations. We receive all our members to communion - Pedo-baptists reject two-thirds of theirs; for all are rejected who are baptized in infancy, and do not afterwards profess conversion. Nor, after all their clamor, do Pedo-baptists, of different denominations, commune among themselves any more than we do with them. Episcopal Methodists, Protestant Methodists,. Old School, New School, Cumberland and Hopkinsian Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Catholics, all have, in reality, separate communions. Why, then, charge us with bigotry for pursuing the same course? Indeed, there is the same necessity for separate communions as for separate denominations. No reason can be given for one which does not apply equally to the other. Pedo-baptists feel this and act on
_____________________
* Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore.
[p. 98]
this conviction. The union of all Christians, in sentiment, feeling and action, not only on this subject, but on every other, is certainly desirable. It is an object for which the true child of God does not forget to pray and to strive. To see the whole "sacramental host of God's elect" marching, in solid phalanx, shoulder to shoulder, "with one heart and one mind," against the powers of darkness, would be a spectacle worthy the admiration of angels. But pleasing as such a union - I mean the union of all believers - would be, it is not to be desired or sought at the sacrifice of the truth. To be either efficient or acceptable to God, it must be founded on the truth and cemented by the truth. Split the Christian world into ten thousand sects, and separate them as far asunder as the poles, rather than give up one iota of what Christ has plainly required. But that a union such as that we have named, has not taken place - does not take place, cannot be our fault. We advocate a baptism universally admitted to be valid and scriptural; and we demand such qualifications for the Lord's table as the word of God plainly sanctions, and the great body of the Christian world has ever required. However, then, we may lament that temper of mind which induces any of our brethren to charge us with bigotry and intolerance, we are consoled in this matter by "a conscience void of offence towards God and man." We are satisfied that our course meets the approval of the Master, and for his sake we are content to endure the obloquy which a maintenance of the truth in this case seems to require.My hearers, I commend the subject to your serious attention. Take it into prayerful consideration. All who profess to be the servants of God, are peculiarly interested. Let no prejudice blind you, my brethren. See to it that you "obey God rather than man," or your own inclinations. Hard as it may be, (and I know it is hard for proud human nature,) to retrace any steps which may have been taken in error, determine to retrace them if any of you have taken such. I know that the doctrine of open communion is plausible and pleasing at the first blush, and therefore persons are apt at first to be captivated by it. But it is unsound and unscriptural. Remember, my brethren, the significant language of the text. Paul commends the Corinthians for "keeping the ordinances as they were delivered to them." It is here plainly and strongly implied that divine ordinances are given
[p. 99]
us to be kept; that they who keep them as they were instituted, are to be commended; and that they who do not keep them at all, or observe them in a different order or manner from that at first appointed, are worthy of censure. Take, my brethren, Christ and the apostles for your guides, and you will never err.I cannot close these remarks without reminding the sinner that, important as is a proper observance of the ordinances, this is not his first concern. No, my friend, it is your business to repent, believe and be baptized; and then you may enjoy the privilege of which I have been speaking, and many higher, better privileges. By repentance, faith and obedience, you may not only sit down at the Lord's supper here, but at the marriage supper of the Lamb hereafter. Without submission to Christ you lose not only the privileges of his people here, but the joys of his people hereafter. You lose heaven, eternal happiness, and your own soul. Then "to-day, if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." And now "to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."
_________ NOTE
The high commendation bestowed by the apostle Paul upon the Corinthians, and very appropriately made the foundation of the foregoing comprehensive and unanswerable discourse, the Baptist churches of this country may, without presumption, and in the spirit of conscious fidelity, safely transfer to themselves. The ordinances of the gospel, as handed down to us from Christ and his apostles, we have sacredly kept. Sometimes we have been misapprehended both as to our views and the reasons which have governed them. Sometimes we have been jeered and abused in a style more indicative of love to party than love to Christ. But after all, though it has been amid much misrepresentation and no little obloquy and reproach, we have, and we thank God for it, firmly stood our ground.
It is no easy thing for one to remain firm in adherence even to what he knows to be truth, when all the world stands arrayed against him. All will admit readily, and contend earnestly, that all ought to do it: but whoever makes the experiment, finds it no easy trial.
[p. 100]
All Pedo-baptist communities are obliged to oppose us, or to yield their denominationality: in other words, to become Baptists. By the necessity, therefore, of duty, of stem duty, not of choice, otherwise than as duty leads to choice, we are arrayed against the whole world, and the whole world against us. We are arrayed against the whole Christian world in its denominationalities; and against the whole unbelieving world in benevolent aggressiveness for its conversion and salvation. In this we claim no honor for ourselves, but all honor for the truth. And the time must come, it now cometh, it approximates, when the world must do justice to us, and to the cause we advocate.By the highest order of talents - by the most extensive attainments in Biblical and ecclesiatical literature and criticism - by the greatest moral worth - in every Pedo-baptist denomination in Christendom, every position on their side has been yielded, and every argument in its defence surrendered. But it is not done simultaneously and concurrently: it is done at one time in one quarter of the field, at another in another; and therefore, although the victory is in fact decided, the battle is continued. But the end of it must come and is at hand.
To any whose convictions of truth and confidence in God are not immovably fixed, ours is no enviable position. But every Baptist church, and every individual Baptist, has unblenchingly maintained it. We can no more yield it than we can yield our belief in the laws of gravitation, or our hope of the ultimate and universal triumph of representative government over the oppressions of monarchy and despotism.
Often have we, (personally we mean,) feared, within the last thirty years of innovation and mutability, that just at this point, our ranks might give way. For the doctrines of grace, we have never had a fear, no more than for a return of the darkness of the middle ages; but we have at various times feared partial and temporary surrenders as to the ordinances of the gospel. But of late years not a shadow has darkened our horizon. All is safe, not only ultimately, but now. No onset can break our ranks. Every Baptist feels himself a defender among the only class of defenders on earth, of the only rituals left by our Lord, commemorative of the past, illustrative of the ever present, and contemplative of the future, in his glorious kingdom. - Editor.
========== [From Henry Keeling, editor, The Baptist Preacher, New Series, May, 1852. No. 5, pp. 77-100. Document from Google On-line Books. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]More on Andrew Broaddus
Baptist History Homepage