Questions on Chapter 16.

But again, we ask, what is the ground upon which this fellowship is founded? Is it because they harmonize in their views of doctrine, of Church polity, or of external forms and ceremonies? Not one of these things is so much as named. However important, in view of other considerations, these things may be when the right and obligation of Church-fellowship are in question, they are not so much as hinted at; but that right and obligation are based wholly and solely upon the fact that they are partakers of the spiritual benefits of religion, that they are Christians, or members of the spiritual body of Christ.

The Scriptures might be quoted much more extensively still in confirmation of the same position, but any farther testimony we deem superfluous. From what has been presented, we persuade ourselves that the candid and impartial will readily perceive that the Scriptures themselves amply sustain the proposition which we have laid down as a basis for the settlement of the great question of Christian communion.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 16.

QUESTION 1. On the right to the Lord’s-supper, what general proposition is laid down?

2. What is the argument founded on the fifteenth chapter of The Acts?

3. What other Bible proofs are presented in favor of free communion? CHAPTER 17. — OBJECTIONS TO FREE COMMUNION

ANSWERED.

1. IT is objected that “the free communion proposed is impracticable because of the diversity of opinion respecting the institution of baptism.” The leading principles already established, if duly considered, fully refute this objection; yet the subject will admit of some farther discussion. A large portion of those who hold to immersion as the only valid baptism, contending also that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord’s-supper, refuse to commune with, or to admit into their Churches, any unimmersed persons. In considering this question we have no need to discuss the mode of baptism. However that question may be decided, it cannot affect the subject before us. The question of Christian communion rests on entirely different and distinct grounds. The Bible, as we have shown, places the right and obligations of communion, not on ordinances and ceremonies connected with religion, however important in themselves, but on the fact of conversion and adoption into the family of God “by faith in Christ Jesus” — on the fact that “God has received them.” If it be decreed that all who are within a certain house have a right to partake of a rich banquet provided for all the inmates, how ridiculous it would seem for those within the house to begin to quarrel with each other about the mode of entrance! If it be admitted that the invitation was to all within the house, how utterly absurd would it be, when the table is spread, for some to refuse to partake because others, acknowledged to be within the house, had not entered in the manner judged the most proper! To be within the house at the time is the only condition required; and that they have entered by some method is certain from the fact of their presence within. To contend, therefore, either that they are not within the house, or that, although within, they have no right to partake, is alike absurd and ridiculous.

If it be admitted, as we have proved, that it is the duty and privilege of all Christians to commune at the table of their common Lord, how absurd must it be for some to refuse to commune with others because certain rites connected with their religion are thought to have been not properly performed! Admit that they are the children of God, and their right to commune is at once settled; deny this, and none can plead for that right. We may farther argue the right of all Christians to the communion of the Lord’s-supper from the origin of the institution itself. It was not established by the founder of a sect or party. It originated not with any of the ancient Fathers. It was not set up by any of the Popes or councils of Papal Rome. Neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin, neither Cranmer nor John Knox, neither John Wesley nor Andrew Fuller, nor any other reformer or leader of a party, ever pretended to have originated this institution. They knew their places — they knew the Scriptures better. Hence, we affirm that this is no sectarian or denominational institution. The very idea of an Episcopalian, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Baptist communion-table, is absurd and monstrous; it is a burlesque upon the institution itself! This holy ordinance claims paternity in no denomination of Christians. It was instituted and ordained by the one Christ and Lord, the Saviour of all his people, and for and in behalf of all his followers of every name and order, wherever found or however circumstanced. With what propriety, therefore, can any one party or denomination of Christians claim the right to exclude any of God’s children from his own table? Who gave them that right? Where, in all the book of God, do they find authority for this lofty prerogative? Were it a Presbyterian or a Baptist table — were it a mere denominational arrangement — had it originated with a sect or party, the assumption might be less unreasonable; but, as it is, it is perfectly absurd and ridiculous! The scriptures we have adduced, establishing the right of all the children of God to the table of the Lord, are abundant and explicit. If they do not establish that point beyond doubt or cavil it will be difficult to place any sensible comment upon them. How, then, we ask, can we admit that any man is a child of God, and yet deny him the privilege of partaking of that one loaf in the Supper? To proceed thus is not to be guided by the Scriptures, but audaciously to push them aside! Where, we may well inquire, is any divine authority for any man, or set of men, to sit in judgment on the case of others, to determine whether they may be admitted or not to the Lord’s-table? The apostolic rule on the subject is, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” 1 Corinthians 11:28. Paul is not to examine Peter; and Peter, John; and John, James, etc.; but Paul, Peter, John, James, and all the rest, must each one examine himself. For self-examination, in view of the Lord’s-supper, there is express Bible warrant; but for brother examining brother, there is none. Whoever assumes this prerogative has usurped an authority for which he can show no credentials. We know that close communionists plead that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord’s-supper, and that immersion is essential to baptism, and that, therefore, they cannot, conscientiously, commune with unimmersed persons.

This plea looks plausible, and if it be sound, it will go far toward vindicating them from the charge of inconsistency with themselves. But when this argument shall be closely examined, it will be found halting on both legs. It is defective in both the premises and conclusion. First, not to moot the mode of baptism, which is of no consequence in this controversy, it cannot be proved that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord’s-supper; but were we, for the sake of argument, to admit it, and to admit also that there is no baptism but immersion, it would not necessarily follow that no one holding these sentiments could, conscientiously, commune with an unimmersed person. It is enough for each to be the keeper of his own conscience.

We shall now endeavor to show the defect in both the premises and conclusion in this argument. First, in the premises, it has been assumed that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to communion; but this the Scriptures nowhere expressly teach. This fact the close communionists are compelled to admit. Were it otherwise, they would long since have presented their express Scripture to establish their position. But this, I believe, they have never attempted; but they have relied solely on inference and deduction.

Now, as baptism and the Lord’s-supper are both positive institutes, and, as Protestants believe, the only divine ordinances of the new institution, it would seem passing strange, judging a priori, if there be such a connection between these two ordinances that baptism must in all cases precede the Supper, that there should be no express precept to this effect. Such would be an exceedingly loose method of presenting a positive institute. The Mosaic law, which was as the shadow to the substance, compared with the gospel, was minute and particular in describing the persons who had right to the privileges of the Jewish temple and altar. But shall we suppose that Christ and his apostles, in setting up and ordering the new — the better — the everlasting dispensation, have left the matter so loosely described that the persons entitled to the immunities of this latter and better house are only to be determined by mere inference?

Again we think we have amply proved, by express testimony from Scripture, that all the “children of God by faith” have a right to the communion. Consequently, it would follow, if none but the immersed have a right to the communion, that no others can be the children of God. But this close communionists will not, dare not, affirm, By so doing they would unchristianize, and leave to the uncovenanted mercies of God, the entire body of the Pedobaptist Churches — yea, the great mass of the Church of God — for centuries together. At such a conclusion the heart of humanity shudders. Close communionists will not adopt it; therefore the only alternative left them is either to admit that baptism is not essential to the communion, or that immersion is not essential to baptism. Which will they choose? Will they stoutly set themselves against all the declarations of Scripture showing that all the children of God have a right to the communion? Will they deny that there are any of God’s children among the millions who, in the successive ages of the Church, have lived and died — many of them martyrs to the faith — without immersion? Will they give up their cherished idea that immersion alone is baptism? or, finally, will they admit that their inference, that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to communion, has been drawn in haste?

It was a primary and all-important object with our Saviour that all his followers should be united in the most harmonious fellowship. Hence, had he considered baptism an indispensable prerequisite to that fellowship, would he not have rendered the subject so plain that no honest and sincere disciple, in any age of the world, could ever so far mistake as to suppose he had been baptized when he had not? Would he not have taken special pains so to define and explain the matter that throughout all coming time “the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein”? We cannot reconcile it with our conceptions of God as a being of infinite wisdom and goodness, that he has left the great mass of his children so much involved in doubt and uncertainty on a subject so vitally important.

The close communionist would infer the correctness of his position — that baptism must precede the Lord’s-supper —

(1) First, from the order in which these institutions were originally established.

He argues that “baptism was established prior to the Lord’s-supper, therefore no one should be admitted to the Supper till he has been baptized.” Although this plea was set up by the celebrated Booth in his “Apology for the Baptists,” we really cannot help considering it too flimsy to merit a serious reply. But lest it might strike others with more force than it does us, we pay it a respectful notice. The reasoning is rotten in all its parts. First, the position assumed is false. It is not true that the Christian baptism was established prior to the Lord’s-supper; and if the reference is to any other baptism, it is foreign to the subject. It is the Christian baptism alone of which we are speaking, and consequently, if any other baptism be referred to in the premises, the argument is the most glaring sophism imaginable. If one baptism be referred to in the premises, and another in the conclusion, then the argument would run thus: something called baptism originally preceded the Lord’s-supper, therefore something else entirely different, also called baptism, should always precede the Lord’s-supper. Who does not perceive that there is no connection between the premises and the conclusion? You might as well argue that John Jones owes you a shilling, and that therefore John Smith owes you a shilling. There is about as much connection between Jones and Smith as there is between the Christian baptism and those baptisms that preceded it. They are no more identical than are Jones and Smith.

John’s baptism preceded the institution of the Supper, and so did the baptism our Saviour authorized his disciples to perform at the commencement of his ministry. John was a mere harbinger. His ministry preceded the Christian dispensation and passed away. His baptism, and that of the disciples of Christ before his crucifixion, were “unto repentance;” but the Christian baptism was “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” — or more briefly, “into the name of Christ.” The Christian baptism was instituted by the Saviour after his resurrection from the dead, in his grand commission to the apostles. (Matthew 28:18-20.) Without delaying to argue so plain a point, we observe that it is only necessary to know that John’s disciples were re-baptized when they embraced the gospel, as may be seen from apostolic history, and its essential difference from Christian baptism must be admitted. (See Acts 19:1-5.)

Thus it appears that the argument for the indispensable precedence of baptism to the communion of the Supper, based upon the supposed priority of the former institution, rests entirely on a false assumption. The truth is, the Supper was instituted before the crucifixion, and the Christian baptism not till after the resurrection of Christ. When the institution of the holy Supper was originally founded, the Christian baptism had never been heard of on earth. It only existed in the mind of Him who knew all things. And of all that company to whom the Saviour himself administered the holy Supper, though they were a band of ministers, not one of them had then received the Christian baptism!

And yet it is argued that Christian baptism must, in all cases, precede the Supper! Is this following the example of Christ? Is it not inverting the order he established? Is it not subverting the order of things as they came fresh from heaven, and practicing upon a plan directly opposite to the example of him who was the founder of both institutions?

It will occur to the reflecting mind that while the advocates of close communion, could they have shown that baptism preceded the Supper, would thereby have gained nothing to their purpose, yet the establishment of the fact that the Supper preceded the Christian baptism is fatal to the close communion argument. The mere fact that the Christian baptism was instituted before the Supper, had such been the truth of the history would not have proved that baptism in all cases must precede the Supper. The order of time in which any two institutions originated will not, of itself, demonstrate that they must necessarily always succeed each other in the same order. It must first be shown that there is a necessary connection between them, either in the nature of things or by divine appointment, rendering that same order always indispensable. On the day of Pentecost the people were exhorted to be baptized, with the promise that they should receive the Holy Ghost. At the house of Cornelius the Holy Ghost first fell on them, and they were afterward baptized. In these two instances the order of events was reversed. But we demand, How is it possible that baptism can be an indispensable prerequisite to the Supper, when, as we have seen, in its first institution under the direct administration of the great Head of the Church, we are furnished with an example in which the Supper preceded Christian baptism? The position that Christian baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to the Supper must be relinquished, or the truth of the gospel history of these institutions must be set aside. Let those concerned choose their own position.

(2) Again, the close communionist appeals to apostolic precedent to prove that baptism must always precede the communion. He argues that the apostles never admitted to the communion an unbaptized person, and that, therefore, no others ever should be admitted. To this we reply that it never has been and never can be proved that the apostles never admitted to the communion an unbaptized person. The premises in this argument have been assumed without demonstration. We admit with great pleasure that, so far as appears from The Acts of the Apostles, it was their general practice to administer baptism to converts immediately upon their profession of Christianity. But this is as much as can, with certainty, be affirmed. It is nowhere said that this was the invariable practice. No man can affirm from the Scriptures either that it was or that it was not. Nor does it matter at all, so far as the present question is concerned, which way that point be decided, or whether it be decided at all. The question now involved is not whether all Christians should be baptized immediately on their profession of Christianity or not. This all parties admit and contend for. The point involved in controversy is, whether the neglect of baptism from an honest misunderstanding of the subject necessarily deprives of the right, and releases from the obligation, of communion. Is there any apostolic precedent deciding this point? No such precedent exists. No such case ever occurred, so far as we are informed in Scripture, for apostolic adjudication and decision. Admitting that all to whom the apostles administered the Supper had been baptized, this could not demonstrate that baptism must, in all cases, necessarily precede the Supper without a precept to that effect, unless it could be shown that the circumstances under which the apostles acted would always continue essentially the same. The fact that the apostles performed any given act in a specific way, under certain specific circumstances, will not prove that they would perform it in the same way when those circumstances are essentially changed. Indeed, it is certain they would have varied their conduct to suit the essential change in the circumstances of the case. And if the apostles themselves would have varied their course under an essential change of circumstances, their mode of action in the given case cannot be considered a precedent binding others to the same mode, when those circumstances have essentially changed. But we ask, Have the circumstances in the case before us essentially changed? Close communionists admit that they have. They admit that in the apostolic day all real Christians were baptized, and that there are many thousands of the most pious and exemplary of the present day who have never (according to the views of close communionists) been baptized at all. If, then, in the apostles’ day all Christians were baptized, and in the present day they are not all baptized, it is most certain that the circumstances have essentially changed; and if so, the apostolic precedent here claimed, if admitted to exist, cannot apply to the case in hand; consequently, the argument from this source is refuted.

It is a very easy matter, however, to show that the apostolic precedent, and that confirmed, too, by express precept, is altogether on the other side. It is certain that the apostles admitted all “believers” — all true Christians — to the communion. This none can deny. Close communionists are free to admit it; but it is equally certain that close communionists do not receive all “believers” — all true Christians — to their communion. This they are also free to admit. And hence it necessarily follows that their practice in this particular, and apostolic precedent, sustained too by apostolic precept, are in direct antagonism. They never can be reconciled.

There must of necessity be some standard, some principle, or rule, by which to determine who ought and who ought not to be admitted to communion. The apostles, it is agreed on all hands, admitted all “believers.” The general tenor of Scripture, yea, numerous express passages plainly and explicitly teach that it is the duty of all “believers” to extend fellowship and communion to the entire “household of faith.” On the other hand, while it may be conceded that the apostles admitted none but baptized persons to the communion, it is not contended that there is a direct precept teaching that none but such should, under any circumstances, be admitted. It is, therefore, most evident that the standard, or rule, by which the apostles were governed in admitting persons to communion related not to baptism, but to faith. Their principle was not to admit the baptized because and in virtue of their baptism, but the believers because and in virtue of their faith. If they admitted none but baptized persons, it was because all the “children of God” were baptized. Their admission or rejection turned not upon the question of their baptism, but upon the question of their adoption as “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

Again, admitting that the apostles everywhere, both by precept and precedent, enjoined upon all Christians the duty of attendance upon both the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s-supper, by what mode of reasoning do we arrive at the conclusion that a neglect of one duty releases from the obligations of another? We are commanded to “search the Scriptures,” and “to hear the word of God;” but will any man say that we are to be prohibited from the one because we have omitted the other? We are commanded to repent, to believe, to seek, to ask, to love God, to love our neighbor, to love our enemies, to visit the sick; but who would argue that a neglect of any one of these duties releases from the obligation of another? If it be said that these duties are separate and distinct, having no such connection as necessarily to require that in all cases the one should precede the other, to this we reply, Let it be proved that there is such a connection between baptism and the Lord’s-supper that the former is an indispensable prerequisite to the latter, and the dispute is ended. But this can never be shown. Indeed, we are sure there can be no such connection, for in the very origin of the Supper it preceded Christian baptism.

(3) Close communionists plead, in justification of their exclusive practice, that “many of the Churches around them are loose in their discipline and modes of receiving members; and they think it wrong to commune where perhaps they would meet at the table with unworthy persons.” The first reply we make to this objection to free communion is this: It is very questionable whether those close communion Churches would have any the advantage in a comparison of membership in view of moral and religious character with most of those Churches whose fellowship they reject. The presumption is, that the “tares and the wheat” would be found growing together in quite as unfavorable proportion among them as among most other denominations. At any rate, it savors too much of that Phariseeism condemned by our Saviour for one denomination, having no just claims to peculiar sanctity, to say to all others’ “Stand off, we are holier than you.” But this sensitive dread of meeting at the table of the Lord some unworthy communicant is based entirely upon a false assumption. It seems to grow out of a supposition that a sincere and upright believer, by meeting at the table an unworthy brother, would thereby become contaminated. No position can be more erroneous than this. In approaching the table of the Lord, each Christian goes on his own responsibility. “To his own Master he standeth or faileth.” It is his duty to “examine himself,” and not his brother; and if he is unworthy, his going to the table of the Lord will avail him nothing. However holy the persons may be with whom he mingles, their righteousness can do him no good. On the other hand, if he be worthy, if he be sincere and honest, humble and devout, his approach to the table of the Lord will be an acceptable service. However unworthy portions of the communicants may be, their unrighteousness can do him no harm. Did our approach to the table of the Lord involve us in the sins of all the unworthy communicants with whom we may mingle, we might never be able to commune with safety. How can we certainly know, whether we commune at home or abroad, in this or the other Church, that there may not be a deceitful hypocrite at the table? We can have no guarantee for our protection in a single instance upon this supposition.

But look one moment at the arrogance of this position: Afraid to approach the table of the Lord, lest you might meet there an unworthy brother, one whose polluted character might soil the pure white robe of your own spotless righteousness; and yet the immaculate Saviour of the world condescended to commune at the table with Judas Iscariot, knowing him to be a devil! Are you so much better than the Saviour? Is the servant so far above his Lord? Is Christ not too good to “eat the bread and drink the wine” with him who meditated the betrayal of his innocent blood, ready most shamefully to barter it for “thirty pieces of silver”? but is a poor sinful worm — one who scarcely dare look up in the presence of that almighty Saviour — too holy to humble himself to commune with his brother?

(4) Close communionists, when driven from every other subterfuge, often try to excuse themselves from communing with other denominations on the ground that it would offend their brethren. “We have a Church-rule,” say they, “which prohibits us from communing with other denominations; and were we to do so, it might offend many of our brethren.” We are persuaded that this plea, though never urged, so far as we know, by ministers, or writers on the subject, is doing more than any other one thing to bolster up the system of close communion. It therefore merits a serious consideration.

The remarks of our Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of St. Matthew on the subject of “offenses” is often relied on by close communionists as furnishing a vindication of their course in refusing to commune with other denominations. Our Saviour says: “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” This is the principal if not the only text on which they seem to rely as vindicating their conduct. There are two acceptations in which the English word offense may be taken. It may mean simply to wound the feelings of another, or cause him to feel sorrowful, or it may mean to put a stumbling-block in his way, so as to cause him to sin.

The word skandala, here rendered offenses, signifies stumbling-blocks. The sense is this: whoso putteth a stumbling-block in the way of his brother, so as to cause him to fall into sin, etc. It is very clear that rendering a brother sorrowful by reproving him for his sins cannot be offending him in the sense of the text. Were we thus to construe it, St. Paul would be brought under the malediction; for he made the Corinthians very sorry with a letter. The only sense which can be put upon the text with consistency is that which we have given above. We may therefore conclude that this scripture was never intended to prevent the Christian from reproving the sins and endeavoring to correct the errors of his brethren, however much it might grieve them, provided he proceed in that gentle manner, and is actuated by that Christian spirit, which the gospel enjoins. St. Paul reproved St. Peter because he “was to be blamed.” Christians are exhorted to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” The great foundation question for the Christian to settle at the tribunal of his own judgment and conscience is this: What is true? what is right? This being decided, his line of duty is plain and direct. He must contend for the truth, and do what is right, leaving the consequences with God. Now if the close communionist is convinced that all Christians, according to the Bible platform, ought to commune together — if he is satisfied that this is in accordance with the genius of Christianity and well-pleasing to Heaven, he is most sacredly bound to use his utmost influence to promote that object, be the consequences what they may. How can he do this, while by his own practice he sanctions the very opposite? It might be a question of prudence whether he should first withdraw from a Church that will not allow him to commune with others before he proceeds to the violation of the rule of that Church; but it can be no question with him whether he should continue to practice upon the close communion principle. He has already decided that the practice is unscriptural.

The declaration of the apostles, when prohibited from preaching in the name of Jesus, now comes home to him with all its force. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Therefore, to such as refuse to commune with other denominations because their Church-rule forbids it, we now say: Will you make void the law of God through the traditions of men? In the great matter of Christian communion, are you prepared to violate your own views of what is right, merely to please erring brethren? Is it better to offend the entire “household of faith” (except your own denomination) by doing wrong, than to offend a portion of that denomination by doing right? Are you so much afraid of offending a few erring brethren, that to avoid it you will do wrong yourself, and yet so willing to give offense to all the people of God beside, that you will offend them rather than do right? In one word, are you unwilling to offend your brother by doing right, and yet willing to offend God, your Saviour, by doing wrong?

It is only necessary for the great body of lay members, united with close communion Churches, who have long been convinced of the impropriety of the practice of close communion, led by some noble-minded Robert Hall, to resolve to follow out in practice those principles of free communion which their consciences approve, and a blow will soon be struck that will cause the citadel of bigotry to tremble to its center, and thousands of God’s dear children, who have long dwelt in the same land, aliens and strangers to each other, will flow together in the arms of pure Christian fellowship and brotherly love.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 17.

QUESTION 1. What is the first objection to free communion, and how is it answered?

2. How is it proved that baptism is not an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord’s-supper?

3. How is it shown that apostolic precedent is against close communionists?

4. What is the plea of close communionists, founded on the discipline of other Churches?

5. How is this plea answered?

6. What is their excuse, founded on their Church-rule?

7. How is it shown to be untenable?