OPEN COMMUNION.
by
REV. L. ROSSER, D.D.
The love of truth is natural to man, and strong in every well-disposed mind.
But it may be overborne by party zeal, by vanity, by the desire of victory, or even
by laziness. When it is superior to these, it is a manly virtue, and requires the
exercise of industry, fortitude, self-denial, candor, and openness to conviction.
Reid.
SECOND EDITION.
RICHMOND, VA.:
rrrtE__ AUTHOR.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by
L. ROSSER,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON & CO.
PHILADELPHIA.
PRINTED BY SMITH & PETERS,
Franklin Buildings, Sixth Street, below Arch.
Philadelphia.
PEEFACE.
Men's opinions on matters that are non-essential
are as various as their characters. Thus, subjects
which appear to one mind self-evident and of
indispensable importance appear to another sur¬
rounded with insuperable difficulties and of minor
importance. Reasoning regarded by one mind as
conclusive and irresistible is considered by an¬
other as defective, inconsistent, and unsatisfactory.
Nevertheless, there are certain fundamental doc¬
trines on which all evangelical churches agree; and
any one who should deny these would be deemed
by common consent an infidel or a heretic. The
Baptists differ from other evangelical churches
mainly on matters merely non-essential, and, as
will be found in this treatise, concede to them all
that is truly essential to salvation. They assume
that baptism is indispensably prerequisite to sacra¬
mental communion, and that immersion is essential
to baptism. Let it be carefully observed that in
this treatise I have nothing to do with infant bap¬
tism, nor with the mode of baptism; for if baptism
is not made in the Scriptures indispensably pre¬
requisite to sacramental communion, it is clear
3
4
PREFACE.
that the mode and subjects of baptism do not enter
into the discussion. "Whether therefore tbe Bap¬
tists are right or wrong as to the mode and sub¬
jects of baptism is immaterial. I hope to show
that all true believers have a right to sacramental
communion with all the evangelical churches in
the world.
In the greater part of this treatise I have em¬
ployed weapons furnished by the Baptists them¬
selves ; and particular attention is invited to the
chapter on Baptist concessions. I have had no
wish to invent new doctrines or go beyond the
plain meaning and evident spirit of the Scriptures.
I have had special regard to the wants of the age, and
have endeavored to adapt the treatment of the subject
to the circumstances of the times,—using no argu¬
ments I considered unfair, doubtful, or uncertain,
governed not so much by their number as their
force and sufficiency, and omitting, on the other
hand, the consideration of no material argument
for restricted communion that has fallen under my
notice.
With a solemn conviction that" God shall bring
every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good or whether it be evil," and
with an humble confidence in his providence, I
commit this volume to the public.
L. R.
Norfolk City, Va., March 25, 1856.
TABLE OE CONTENTS.
PAGE
Preface 3
CHAPTER I.
Argument for Open Communion from the Unity of the Church 7
CHAPTER II.
Reply to the Argument that Baptism is prerequisite to Sacramental
Communion 22
CHAPTER III.
Involuntary Neglect of Baptism no har to Sacramental Communion 42
CHAPTER IV.
Involuntary Neglect of Baptism no har to Sacramental Communion
(continued) 52
CHAPTER V.
Concessions of the Baptists 59
CHAPTER YI.
Concessions of the Baptists (continued) 87
CHAPTER VII.
Concessions of the Baptists (continued) 92
CHAPTER VIII.
Unfairness of the Baptists 103
CHAPTER IX.
Restricted Communion a Modern Invention 134
X* 5
6
TABLE OP CONTENTS.
CHAPTER X. PA9K
Communion confined to Membership in the Baptist Church 152
CHAPTER XI.
Restricted Communion unreasonable 164
CHAPTER XII.
Consequences of Restricted Communion 170
CHAPTER XIII.
•Advantages of Open Communion 180
CHAPTER XIV.
Objections to Open Communion considered * 182
CHAPTER XV.
Eminent Baptists in favor of Open Communion 208
CHAPTER XVI.
Appeal to Strict-Communion Baptists 233
OPEN COMMUNION.
CHAPTER I.
argument eor open communion erom the unity op
the church.
The chief argument for open communion may be drawn
from the spiritual unity of the church, which consists prin¬
cipally in two things,—namely, a common faith and bro¬
therly love.
1. A common faith. This is a rallying-point of union,
and embraces a few great fundamental principles, which are
always and everywhere the same, and are vital to evangelical
religion. A sound common faith forms the doctrinal bond
of union of all the churches of Christ over the whole world,
in all time, and is the basis of their communion and recipro¬
cation of brotherly love and enjoyment of Christian pri¬
vileges. Every man that has saving faith has the seal of
God on his heart, which is inconceivably of more import¬
ance than any association of outward splendor or visible
unity can be. To him belongs the spirit and the truth, the
promises and the graces, the privileges and the advantages,
of the gospel, because he belongs to God. He is united in
7
8
ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY
soul to Christ, and to his spiritual church, in all the world,
in all time, and in heaven; and so long as he holds this
union he is inaccessible to all outward disturbing causes, and
to death itself,—like the silent, moveless, deep bosom of the
sea, that cannot he disquieted by the winds and waves that
agitate its surface, or like the high, blue expanse of hea¬
ven, with its countless sparkling worlds, blending their pure
radiance, revolving and unchangeable, in an eternal calm
above the clouds and thunders and jostlings of the earth
below. The mistakes, misunderstandings, controversies,
and schisms of the visible church do not dissolve the bonds
that bind him to the spiritual church, and cannot do it so
long as his "life is hid with Christ in God."
The spiritual church of Christ, consisting in the invisible
association of all who are united by the bonds of true faith,
is scattered through the world, and is anterior to the formal
constitution of the visible church. And hence every mem¬
ber of the spiritual church, by virtue of his union with it,
is already in spiritual union and communion with the visible
church, and has a right to the sacraments of the visible
church. No power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, can in¬
validate this right, though, in any case, the privilege of re¬
ceiving the sacraments be violently or conventionally denied.
The question of antecedence in receiving the sacraments, as
we shall see, is a mere conceit. The right to the Lord's
Supper is not founded upon baptism, but upon a spiritual
nature, for a spiritual nature is entitled to both sacraments
equally, without involving any formal and necessary ante¬
cedence in the observance of them. It is usurpation to
deny any true believer either baptism or the communion.
It is also usurpation to deny a true believer the communion
merely because he has not been baptized. The Baptists
abhor the arrogance of those who assert that there are no
true Christians in any other church but theirs: let the
OP THE CHURCH.
9
Baptist Church, then, conform her regulations to the con¬
stitution of the Kingdom of God.
All true churches hold the same right to the sacraments,
—namely, by the grant of the Lord Jesus Christ; and hence
the members of one true church have the very same right
to the table of the Lord as the members of all other true
churches. No particular church can invalidate a right be¬
stowed by Christ himself upon all true churches in com¬
mon. What Christ has established for the common use of
all his members is the common right of all.
It is the duty of all true churches to observe the sacra¬
ments; for no church can be a true church which wilfully
omits the sacraments. What is lawful and commanded in
one true church cannot be unlawful and forbidden in
another true church, unless it be assumed that the same
duty which is binding upon all true churches respectively
cannot be discharged in one true church as well as in an¬
other,—which is absurd; or unless it be assumed that what
is acceptable and honorable in the individual members of
one true church is unacceptable and dishonorable when
performed by them in another true church,—which is also
absurd. Fundamental evangelical laws govern every true
church; and no particular church can raise a valid exception
to these laws. A mere subdivision of Christ's church, or¬
ganized under certain conventional regulations, can never
set aside or modify the authority of these general laws, or
invalidate the character and rights of the members of any
true church of Christ. The divine law requires the evidence
of Christian character as a qualification for communion; and
no particular church can demand more. To demand more
is to corrupt the institutions of Christ and substitute the
will of man for the authority of God.
The church of God, we repeat, is one, in all ages of time
and in all parts of the world. " As the body is one, and hath
10
ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY
many members, and all the members of that one body, being
many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one spirit
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all
made to drink into one spirit. For the body is not one
member, but many." (1 Cor. xii. 12-14.) Neither variety
nor multitude is any impediment to unity where the life of
Christ, the head of the church, pervades all, both individual
members and individual churches. The Spirit of Christ, as
the central source of life, is the same in all the churches of
Christ, and consequently they have all an equal right to the
sacraments of Christ; the claim of one to the sacraments
can no more be invalidated than the claim of another,—the
children of God all having the same right to a seat at his
table, whenever and by whichsoever of his churches it may
be spread; and no church of Christ can be denied admission
to his table without grieving the Spirit of Christ, who pre¬
sides in the church so rejected. It seems that some in the
Corinthian church arrogated to themselves a peculiar pre¬
eminence and sanctity, because they were endued with
superior gifts; and this vain-glorious temper the apostle
severely reproves, and demonstrates to be unreasonable and
invasive of the unity of the church; since they were all
one body and derived their gifts from the same Spirit. So,
when the Baptists assume the exclusive right to administer
the sacraments, by giving an undue importance to a pecu¬
liar form of baptism, they involve themselves in the very
error which the apostle condemns. The evil which he
wished to cure in the Corinthian church, and anticipate in
all ages of the church, is a party feeling, which, wherever
it exists, must disturb the unity and interrupt the inter¬
communion of the churches. He enjoins mutual co-opera¬
tion, and remonstrates against a schismatic spirit: " that
there be no schism in the body." He shows that the very
OP THE CHURCH.
11
constitution of tlie church includes a communion of inte¬
rests,—that individual members should cherish a sym¬
pathy of feeling toward each other,—and that they should
practise a reciprocation of benefits: 11 that the members
should have the same care one for another, and whether one
member suffer, that all the members suffer with it, or one
member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." (1
Cor. xii. 25-26.) How forcibly this illustrates the unity
of the church, and exemplifies the intimate communion of
all true believers, must appear to every impartial reader:—
" Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
(v. 27.) These certain and indisputable principles were not
only particularly applicable to the Corinthian church, but
they are general, and so are applicable to the vital relations
which all true churches individually sustain to the unity
of the whole church. For one church, therefore, to disown
other churches, is to disown the members of Christ's body
and sever the bonds of Christian communion.
The apostle proceeds further with the argument. The
nature of the Christian church is such that, provided its
doctrines and institutions be substantially and practically
maintained, non-essential diversity of opinions, habits,
customs, manners, condition, and government should not
disturb the unity of the church or prevent Christian com¬
munion. " By one spirit are we all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free," &c. God is " no
respecter of persons," and Jesus Christ " tasted death for
every man;" and he designs to gather his church from " all
nations j" and, in accomplishing this merciful plan, non¬
essential, circumstantial matters weigh nothing in his judg¬
ment. Persecution, intolerance, bigotry, ecclesiastical esta¬
blishments, and spiritual despotism may indeed prevent
the visible communion of the churches, but they cannot
destroy the right to it in a single case. And so any one
12
ARGUMENT EROM THE UNITY
Christian church may so hedge itself about with requisitions
as to prevent effectually other churches from communing
with it; nevertheless, the right exists, and it is a very grave
matter not to recognise it. Indeed, this repudiation is an
unequivocal and practical condemnation of a right which
Gfod himself, by a thousand indubitable evidences, has
accepted, sealed, and confirmed. Let our Baptist brethren
suspend their prejudices for a time sufficient calmly and
candidly to review their grounds of exclusiveness and con¬
sider the claims of other churches to all the privileges of
the church of God, and, if they discover not that those
claims are as clearly and strongly supported as their own,
then in despair we must surrender the hope of sacramental
communion with them, and be content to agree to disagree.
2. The second fundamental principle in the unity of the
church is brotherly love.
" Let brotherly love continue," is an injunction that
originates in the nature of God, and is the law that binds
his angelic and ransomed family together. Brotherly love
is the principal proof of reconciliation and communion with
God; for " we know that we have passed from death unto
life, because we love the brethren." It is the safeguard
of the church against hatred, envyings, strifes, clamors,
jealousies, discords, malice, whisperings, backbitings, evil
surmises, vain-glory, wranglings, schism, bigotry, prose-
lytism, and every other ungracious temper and action
which alienate and divide the church of God. It is the
parent of gentleness, kindness, long-suffering, meekness,
mercies, and the whole assemblage of personal and social
graces. The very object of the doctrines, precepts, prayers,
promises, example, tears, and death of Christ was to esta¬
blish the empire of love among men. " For this purpose
was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the
works of the devil. But God is love; and he that dwelleth
OF THE CHURCH.
13
in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. He that loveth
not knoweth not God. Hereby shall all men. know that
ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." The
violation of this holy affection is a practical renunciation of
Christianity itself.
The most exalted grace of the Christian character, and
the most convincing and admirable proof of the purity of
a Christian denomination, is charity,—a grace that legiti¬
mately admits of no defect and is capable of no excess.
All else is hut semblance, self-righteousness, self-deception,
and utter worthlessness in the sight of God. Knowledge
that comprehends all languages and all mysteries, the gift
of prophecy, faith that removes mountains, the virtue of
alms-giving that exhausts the last earthly possession, zeal
that glows even in the fires of martyrdom, all are nothing,
and profit nothing, without this exalted heavenly grace. It
would seem to be impossible for these religious appearances
to exist separated from charity; but it -is possible for
humanity to be so affected by the knowledge and so
improved by the initial grace of God as to produce these
semblances of true religion, while the heart is under the
control of a corrupt and rebellious will and destitute of the
holy principle from which they should spring. Natural
talents, unsupported by charity, may acquire and avow
possession of these magnificent gifts. Ambitious, self-
righteous persons, from the desire to gain renown, may
subject themselves to the most painful exercises of self-
denial and laborious works of formal piety; and they may
even go self-deceived down to the grave and up to the
judgment. Our Lord shows that many such evil cha¬
racters do exist. " Many will say to me, in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy
name have cast out devils ? and in thy name done many
wonderful works ?" &c. His approval and blessing will be
2
14
ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY
granted to nothing but that which springs from his pure,
unselfish love. This to man in this life is the only fully-
convincing proof of the new creature; and the least evi¬
dence of a destitution of it is sufficient to excite the
suspicion that a profession of religion is founded in decep¬
tion or hypocrisy, or that he whose bosom may have been
animated by its presence and expanded by its power has
been transformed into the gloomy and disdainful bigot. -It
is the strong inward tendency and direction of regenerated
real self toward God; it is the positive outpouring of the
richest, tenderest regards to man. It is a celestial passion
that destroys the depraved principle of isolation from God
and his family, and which, so far from hindering in the
least degree the communion of the churches, or invading
their unity, exerts its whole energy in strengthening and
perpetuating their fellowship to the last sigh, and glows
with an ardor proportioned to " the love of God shed abroad
in the heart." The body of Christ is one; and every
member of this body, no matter to what evangelical church
he belongs, has a divine right to spiritual union and formal
communion with every other evangelical church; for he has
a spiritual birthright under the everlasting covenant to all
the privileges and provisions of that covenant. And conse¬
quently every evangelical church is placed under solemn
obligation by divine authority to recognise this relation and
right in every one who she believes u has received Christ
Jesus the Lord, and is walking in him," and to extend to
him cordially the tokens of this recognition by admitting
him to sacramental communion. The denial of this right
by any church is an assumption of power, an exercise of
authority, which the gospel does not justify, founded on
the conceit that there is no true church but herself, though
she calls the rejected disciples of Christ " brethren beloved,"
" dear brethren," "precious saints," "children of God,"
OF THE CHURCH.
15
acknowledges their gifts and graces and rejoices in their
successes,—all the while, no doubt, sincere, though it is
rather an incongruous way of expressing sincerity and love.
How they can fairly discriminate between the character of
Christians, which they admit in others, and the consequent
right of such to all the privileges of the church, which they
deny thej have, it is impossible to conceive, especially when
other evangelical churches hold their right to all the bless¬
ings and privileges of the everlasting covenant by the same
tenure,—that is, upon the same evangelical ground sub¬
stantially on which they hold theirs. If such sects had
existed in the days of the apostles, their arrogance would
have been considered as a violation of the rule of brotherly
love which united the apostolic churches in one common
communion, and as an invasion of the social order and har¬
mony of the Christian church.
Thus, all varieties of opinion and observance which do
not subvert the foundation of evangelical faith, nor corrupt
the substance of the common institutions of Christianity,
nor impair brotherly love, do not prevent reciprocal com¬
munion among the churches of Christ. Difference in rites
and customs in worship, which vary according to the
diversity of place and people, but which do not infringe
the peace and unity of the church, nor are contrary to the
one faith and good morals, and have a tendency to promote
religion and the glory of God among men, is no barrier to
sacramental communion. The apostolic churches had not
all exactly the same form of government; and it is evident
from ecclesiastical history that the churches immediately
succeeding the apostolic times gradually altered their
government from the apostolic form in some places sooner
than in others, and in some more than in others; and yet
all this variety in opinion and in practice did not produce
separate communions, nor burst the bonds of common union,
16
ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY
nor cut asunder the harmony of brotherly love. Rites and
ceremonies change, but faith, the everlasting covenant,
Christ, and his word, change not. Yariety of church-
governments, therefore, if they be not repugnant to the
word of God, can never be a just ground for a separate
communion; for true religion does not consist in external
rites, ceremonies, or forms, but in spiritual benefits,—in
righteousness, faith, love, joy, peace, and true worship.
This rule is applicable in all ages of the church. Nor are
differences in subordinate points of doctrine sufficient
ground for separate communions. By subordinate doc¬
trines are meant all that may be believed or doubted without
sacrificing any fundamental principle or vital truth of
evangelical religion. There is no necessity here for nice
and subtle distinctions. The plainest mind can distinguish
with sufficient accuracy what is essential for every experi¬
mental and practical end.
And so we infer by what the unity of the church may be
broken. It may be broken by schism,—which is the rupture
of brotherly harmony, and hence is a violation of unity and
Christian fellowship; for love permits no schism, cherishes
no faction, is the bond of union, does every thing in har¬
mony, and is the source of evangelical reciprocity. But
schism impedes the progress of the gospel, shakes the faith
of some, causes others to apostatize, grieves the strong,
weakens the power of the church, and merits the severest
condemnation of God. The unity of the church may be
broken also by the renunciation of the fundamental faith ;
for the very principle of the being of the church is her
faith, and renunciation of any fundamental doctrine of
Christianity is a blow at the very foundation of the church,
for she is " built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner¬
stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together,
of the church.
17
groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. ii. 20, 21.)
That is, the revelation made by Christ and his inspired
prophets and apostles is God's testimony concerning that
" eternal life which he has given to us in his Son," and
which is addressed to the faith of his church; and thus
the church exists by faith, and faith alone. The denial of
any capital article of the Christian faith is to mar the sym¬
metry and destroy the unity of the church. And so also
the visible unity of the church is broken by withdrawing
wholly from her communion. A sect does this by setting
up a separate and restricted communion; and this the
Baptist Church, to some extent, has done. It is incon¬
ceivable how a part of the one church can be separated from
her one visible communion and yet be a part of the one
visible church, as it is inconceivable how a branch can be
dissevered from a tree and yet be united to the tree, or a
stream can be cut off from its source and yet be connected
with its source. Union is the basis of communion. How
then can particular churches, which are parts of one whole
and constitute but one body, constitute separate and
restricted communions, without invading the visible unity
of the church ? What paradox can be more palpable than
that different parts of one whole, having the very same
original and divine means of life, health, and vigor, should
have no sacramental fellowship with each other, and should
regard such fellowship as "unwholesome, unholy, and
unlawful" ? Different communions exclude the idea of
visible unity. Two churches, refusing communion with
each other, thereby renounce their relation to each other as
parts of the one visible church of Christ. The visible unity
of the church cannot consist with such divisions. The
church that disturbs this unity alone is culpable, and is
culpable to the extent to which it renounces communion
with other true churches of Christ.
2*
18
ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY
We also infer by what means the visible unity of the
church may be preserved and promoted. It may be pre¬
served and promoted by an inflexible adherence to the one
faith. This is to be embraced and professed by all true
churches the world over, and then there can be no doctrinal
ground of difference. It may be preserved and promoted
by conforming to the customs and usages of worship in any
particular church in themselves not inconsistent with the
plain word of God or clearly deducible therefrom. Forms
of worship or of church-government that do not affect the
substance of the one faith, nor disturb the peace of the
church, but which tend to promote Christian fellowship,
should not prevent the members of one branch of the church
from communing with another branch of the church which
they may happen to visit. Local or national peculiarities,
or things indifferent, should not be permitted to clash with
the terms of communion: certain rites and usages in
worship, in themselves indifferent, and forms of ordination,
and the form or mode of baptism, are matters of this kind.
The visible unity of the church may be preserved and pro¬
moted by respecting and supporting discipline, by what¬
soever true church administered. All the parts of the one
true church are invested with equal authority to administer
discipline according to the gospel; and hence a member
justly expelled from any particular church is expelled from
the one church of Christ, and other particular churches
should so regard the expelled member. The sentence of
one court of Christ's kingdom is to be held valid and sacred
by every other. Not to do this is to reject the ministry
and ordinances of Christ. One church of Christ can never
innocently interfere with the judicial acts of another, or
release from censure or condemnation each other's offenders.
Thus they declare their social union, impart mutual strength,
and maintain the dignity and purity of the church of God.
OP THE CHUROH.
19
The visible unity of the church is further preserved and
promoted by ministerial and Christian communion with
one another as opportunity offers. Ministers and private
Christians in good standing in other churches, and of irre¬
proachable lives, should be received into communion by one
church as fully and cheerfully as she receives her own.
And ministers and private members of one church should
as solemnly feel it to be.their duty, and make it their prac¬
tice, to commune with other true churches the world over,
as occasion offers, as with their own; for the obligation to
obey God is the same in all his churches. The one church
of Christ, scattered over the whole earth, should have but
one communion. And he, whether minister or private
member, who is in communion with one part of the church
of God is in communion with every other part of it, and
should be so acknowledged and received by every other part
of it. Not to do this "is to make new boundaries of
Christian communion, and a new Christianity, and a new
gospel, and new rules of Christ's kingdom; and in effect to
dethrone him, to rival him in his highest prerogative,—
viz.: the establishing the terms of life and death for men
living under his gospel. It is to confine salvation, in the
means, to such or such a party, such a church, arbitrarily
distinguished from the rest of Christians,—as if the privi¬
leges of his kingdom belonged to a party only; and that, for
instance, the Lord's table were to lose its name, and be no
longer so called, but the table of this or that church, consti¬
tuted by rules of their own devising. For, if it be the Lord's
table, they are to keep it free, to be approached upon the
Lord's terms and not their own. In the mean time, what
higher invasion can there be of Christ's rights ? And since
the Christian church became so over-wise above what is
written, in framing new doctrines and rules of worship,
20
ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY
how miserably it hath languished and been torn in pieces
they cannot be ignorant who have read any thing of the
history of it."*
A church that refuses to hold communion with any other
assumes at least that she alone is pure, and that the rest
are too corrupt to commune with her. Before a church
takes this lofty position, she should be certain that offences
are not concealed in her own bosom; that she does not
connive at abuses in her own members; that her rites,
ceremonies, usages, forms, modes, opinions, doctrines, prac¬
tices, only are scriptural; that she only is pure and spotless;
that she only is the true church, and the whole church, of
God on earth. Otherwise she runs the extreme hazard of
offending against the visible unity of the church of God,
and so of violating the commands of Christ to cultivate
that unity. No separate and exclusive communion can be
acquitted from serious imputation. The learning, talent,
piety, extensive usefulness, charity, and convincing evi¬
dences of God's sanction and support of other churches
milst greatly enhance the imputation. Such an assumption
in any church is, in effect, to unchurch -other churches, and
to declare that they are no churches, and that their minis¬
ters and members are not the ministers and followers of the
Lord Jesus Christ, or that they are so corrupt as to render
communion with them unlawful. This is the spirit of
bigotry without disguise and the spirit of excommunication
in disguise,—wanting nothing but the form and power to
constitute the sect which it governs an excommunicating
church,—a conclusion from which the pious heart, in these
palmy days of tolerance and charity, recoils with fear and
horror. In this virtual denial of the visible Christianity
* Howe's Works: Sermon entitled " Peace, God's blessing."
OP THE CHURCH.
21
of other churches, in this refusal to commune with other
churches, in this virtual unchurching and excommunicating
all other churches, we may acquit the Baptist Church of
intention; but such is the consequence of her arguments
and the tendency of her practice as far as it goes; for, in
excluding other churches and Christians from communing
with her, what more does she deny to them than to the
infidel, the profane, the profligate, the heretic, and the
idolater? The Baptist Church, in denying the visible
Christianity of other churches, or—which is the same
thing—in withholding the communion from and refusing to
commune with them, virtually assumes to be the only true
church of Christ on earth, and so virtually inflicts excom¬
munication—the heaviest penalty in the kingdom of God—
upon all the rest, which, we joyfully believe, will not be
ratified in heaven. Though the Baptists, in denying us
the holy communion, treat us as open unbelievers, we hope
our reasons for receiving it at other hands will be found
valid, and ourselves acquitted at the tribunal of God. And
we may remind the Baptists that they should review their
ground as those "who shall give account." They cheer¬
fully receive into their fold, whenever occasion offers, and
admit to communion, the fruits of our ministry; and in this
they have received from us no small accession to their
number and strength. It seems that consistency and
justice require that they reciprocate this Christian service
at the table of the Lord, where so many of the signs of our
ministry and Christian integrity are recognised as the
children of God and true members of the "household of
faith." That the mere mode of baptism (immersion)
should give these converts a title which their spiritual
fathers do not possess, is, in fact, an argument that sacri¬
fices the substance to the sign, and constructs a separate
communion upon the destruction of the visible unity of the
22 baptism not prerequisite
very cliurch from which, the Baptists derive so much of
their strength. May the flimsy sophism speedily yield to
the common sense of America as it is yielding in England
and Canada!
CHAPTER H.
reply to the argument that baptism is prerequi¬
site to sacramental communion.
The Baptists assume that baptism is indispensably pre¬
requisite to the Lord's table, and their argument is the
following :—No one has a right to the Lord's table who is
not a member of the visible church. No one is a member
of the visible church who has not been baptized,—that is,
immersed. Therefore, no one has a right to the Lord's
table who has not been immersed. This argument they
endeavor to sustain, first, by the commission of Christ to
his apostles, and, secondly, by the practice of the apostles.
That is, they deduce from the commission of Christ, and
the practice of the apostles, such a dependence of the sacra¬
ments upon each other as renders baptism indispensably
prerequisite to the Lord's table. This is their whole argu¬
ment for close communion.
The proofs on which the Baptists mainly depend for
separate communion are thus stated :—" It is to the com¬
mission—the law itself—that we refer you as the authority
on which our practice is founded."* "While we appeal to
our Lord's commission as our primary authority, we consider
the example of the apostles as an important auxiliary, both
* Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 238.
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
23
as an inspired explanation of the law and a pattern of obe¬
dience evidently intended for our imitation,"* Here the
Baptists take their stand. When driven from every other
position, they halt in these last entrenchments, and, though
stormed and levelled to the ground, they vainly and repeat¬
edly endeavor to rebuild and repossess them. The argu¬
ment against the Baptists on this point is invincible.
1. That faith in an unbaptized adult should precede
baptism there can be no doubt. This the great commission
settles. That this is the law of adult baptism we are all
agreed. But this is not the question. The true question
is, Is baptism indispensably prerequisite to sacramental
communion ? On this particular point not one word is
found in the great commission; and hence an invariable
order in the observance of the sacraments cannot be founded
upon the great commission. If it can be showh that sacra¬
mental communion in all cases depends upon baptism, as it
can be that sacramental communion depends upon faith, .we
give up the cause. Or if it can be shown that sacramental
communion depends upon baptism, as it can be that an
unbaptized person should believe before he should be bap¬
tized, we give up the cause. Circumcision, it is true, under
the Jewish dispensation was indispensably prerequisite to
the Passover, because it is expressly stated, " No uncircum-
cised person shall eat thereof." But it is nowhere stated in
the New Testament, No unbaptized person shall partake
of the Lord's Supper; and Mr. Fuller admits that it is
"nowhere, certainly,"f so stated. The Baptists have a
very convenient way of arguing from the supposed order in
which things occurred in apostolic days when it suits their
case, but never otherwise. The mere fact, in some cases,
& Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 246.
t Ibid. p. 239.
24
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
that baptism succeeded the profession of faith, is no proof
that this was always the case. We can argue nothing from
the external order which the apostles pursued, unless they
expressly and plainly enjoined that order as an invariable
standard for the church in all ages. This they have not
done in one single particular. If Christ and his apostles
had expressly and plainly enjoined that baptism should in
all cases precede sacramental communion, controversy would
be at an end. But nowhere can this injunction be found
in the Bible; and therefore the question in this case cannot
be settled by the commission of Christ or the practice of the
apostles, as in other cases—admitted on all hands—the
church has since very properly varied from the practice of
the apostles.
The reason why baptism ordinarily preceded sacramental
communion and every other church-service in the apostles'
days is found in the circumstances of the times, and not in
any essential relation which the two sacraments hold to
each other. In their day, ordinarily, immediately upon the
profession of faith it is probable the subject was baptized,
and hence no period elapsed in which the believer might
observe the sacrament of the Lord's Supper or any other insti¬
tution of Christianity. It is not so now; it is not probable
that it was always so in apostolic times. Now often neces¬
sarily a considerable length of time intervenes between
conversion and baptism; and during this time no positive
duty (and sacramental communion is such a duty) should
be neglected. That is, in the enactment of positive laws,
the time of their enactment cannot give precedence to one
over another in the mere order of their observance, for all
are equally binding, and each is to be obeyed as opportunity
offers; so that a law enacted thousands of years ago should
be obeyed repeatedly before one enacted yesterday can be
obeyed for the first time. For example:—the Sabbath was
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
25
instituted at the creation, and it may he observed often,
after faith, before an opportunity occurs to be baptized) or
one may be baptized, or be may partake of the sacred
supper, before be for the first time properly observes the
Sabbath, though baptism and the Lord's Supper were insti¬
tuted thousands of years after the institution of the Sabbath.
Unless antecedence in the observance of laws and ordinances
is positively and expressly enjoined, it cannot be required
as a matter of invariable duty. Mr. Hall has laid down
this principle in the most forcible manner. " In the details
of - civil life, no man thinks of regulating his actions by an
appeal to the respective dates of existing laws, but solely
by a regard to their just interpretation \ and, were it once
admitted as a maxim that the particular law latest enacted
must invariably be last obeyed, the affairs of mankind would
fall into utter confusion. It is a principle as repugnant to
the nature of divine as it is to human legislation. It
appears from the history of the patriarchs that sacrificial
rites were ordained much earlier than circumcision; but no
sooner was the latter enjoined than it demanded the earliest
attention, and the offerings prescribed on the birth of a
child did not precede, but were subsequent to, the ceremony
of circumcision."* Mr. Fuller employs a sophism in reply
to this. He assumes that baptism and the Lord's Supper
are to be " observed in a certain orderf and appeals to the
great "commission" as proofwhereas the Lord's Supper
is not even mentioned in the great commission, much less
enjoined as an observance invariably to succeed baptism.
The statements of Dr. Howell on this branch of the
argument admit of easy refutation. "That the order in
which the several duties are enjoined in the commission is
* Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 367, 368.
f Fuller on Strict and Mixed Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 238.
3
26
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
divinely prescribed is tbus conclusively established by the
commission itself."* Not one word respecting the Lord's
Supper is contained in the commission: how, then, can the
order of its observance be "prescribed" in the commission ?
If the duty of observing that ordinance had not been pre¬
scribed elsewhere in the Bible, the church would have felt
no obligation to observe it at all; and, consequently, the
commission enjoins no order but what may be prescribed
elsewhere, and nowhere in the Bible is the necessary
dependence of communion upon baptism specified. We
reiterate the call for the proof, and reiterate in vain. A
brief consideration, however, of his argument from "the
design of the two institutions" may amuse the reader:—
" Baptism being the emblem of the reception of life, and
the eucharist of the food by which we are sustained, the
metaphorical representation requires that baptism should
always be received as a condition of communion, since we
must necessarily live before we are capable of receiving the
food by which life is supported." j" If this argument be
sound, then baptism is the necessary condition of spiritual
life,—that is, we must be baptized " before we are capable
of receiving the food by which life is supportedwhich is
not only the ex ojpere operatum dogma of heretical Rome,
but is refuted, as we shall see, by the concessions of the
Baptists. Besides, as " the eucharist is the emblem of the
food by which we are sustained," it must be admitted that
the relation of the emblem to the substance is such that he
who possesses the substance is entitled to the emblem; or
we must assume the absurdity that the relation of the
emblem to the substance is merely nominal and immaterial.
If the eucharist were an emblem of baptism, then there
would be a necessity that baptism—the substance—should
* Howell on Communion, p. 42.
f Ibid. p. 4*1.
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
27
precede the eucharist. But this is not pretended; and
hence, as there is no necessary dependence of one emblem
upon another, we can only conclude that he has a right to
an emblem who possesses the "substance with which that
emblem is associated. That pious Pedobaptists have the
substance signified by the Lord's Supper the Baptists them¬
selves admit; and we need go no further to establish the
right of the former to the Lord's Supper.
2. There is nothing in the nature of the sacraments that
should render the reception of baptism prior to that of the
Lord's Supper. If baptism was instituted for the remission
of sins, (as the Campbellites maintain,)—if baptism were
necessary to regeneration, (as the Puseyites and Boman
Catholics maintain,)—then there would be strong reason
why baptism should have priority in order. But these
dogmas both the Baptists and evangelical Pedobaptists
reject with abhorrence. But faith is the only condition of
remission of sins and regeneration, and there is no reason
why the believer should invariably receive one of the sacra¬
ments before the other. Each of the sacraments has its
own nature and design, and should be received at the ear¬
liest convenience, without regard to priority in order. If we
must follow strictly the apostolic practice, then, as the
apostles ordinarily did, the Baptists must baptize in the
" day" and " the hour" their converts believe. But this
they fail to do; and, while they are delaying to administer
baptism, shall their converts be refused sacramental com¬
munion ?
Consider a moment the nature and benefits of the Lord's
Supper. Its nature : it is a sacrament or oath of a most
solemn nature, denoting affection, zeal, and inviolable
fidelity to Jesus Christ. It is called the Lord's Supper,
because it was instituted in the evening by him, at the close
of the Jewish passover; because he partook of it with his
28
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
disciples; and because it sets forth the bread of life which
we receive by faith. It is called the communion, because
therein we have communion with Christ and his people.
It is called the eucharist, because at the institution of it
Christ gave thanks, and we, in receiving it, also give
thanks. It is commemorative, because in observing it we
remember the person, love, and death of Christ. In it we
confess our sins and wants. In it we profess our faith in
Christ, our love for him, and our hope of his coming again.
It is a standing ordinance, to be observed by the church
till the end of time. Its benefits: it is a means of strength¬
ening faith. It affords consolation. It increases love and
joy. It instructs in spiritual things. It produces aversion
to sin and grief for sin. It excites and strengthens all holy
desires and resolutions. It revives the liveliest sense of
.obligation to Christ. It binds all Christians in the ten-
derest bonds of a holy brotherhood. All these blessings
flow sweetly from a proper observance of the sacred supper;
and should any true believer be denied them ?
To consider more at large the nature and use of the
sacraments, and to whom they are to be administered.
First,—they are signs and seals of the everlasting covenant
of grace. Hence, all believers, everywhere and in all time,
having the thing signified, have an equal right to the sign.
Secondly,—the sacraments represent Christ and his bene¬
fits. Hence, all believers, being spiritual partakers of Christ
and his benefits, have a right to those ordinances that saera-
mentally confirm their interest in him. Thirdly,—the
sacraments visibly set forth the difference between those
that belong to the spiritual church and the rest of mankind.
Hence, all believers have a right to this badge of discri¬
mination; and, consequently, any particular church that
refuses to distinguish true believers from the world corrupts
the very substance of the sacraments. Fourthly,—the
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
29
sacraments solemnly bind all true believers to tbe service
of Christ according to his word. Hence, no true believer
can innocently omit wilfully the sacramental oaths, and
consequently no particular church can innocently exclude
from communion true believers of another particular church.
Fifthly,—where there is identity in internal principle, it is
puerile to insist on difference in form as a ground for a
separate communion. The internal principle of baptism is
the same in the judgment of the Baptist and evangelical
Pedobaptist churches, and hence the mere mode or form of
baptism cannot be a just ground for a separate and restricted
communion in the Baptist Church. As soon as we lose
sight of internal principle we lose sight of land, and the
harmony of the visible church is broken. It is the internal
principle that invests the form or mode with value and
impressiveness; and thus any mode of baptism, in itself not
repulsive or inappropriate, is invested with the sanctity of
religion, and excites in the subject or beholder reverence
for the Author of the internal principle. While the evan¬
gelical Pedobaptist churches have the substance of Christian
baptism, and repose on the solid and precious foundation,
the Bock of ages, no argument can set aside their right
to sacramental communion. Sixthly,—the question in
controversy is not about the substance, the vital principles
and virtues of the gospel, which constitute the transcendent
glory of the church, and which are the seal of Hod's eternal
Spirit, but about accidents, mere forms, peculiarities, and
imperfections, which neither destroy the unity nor being
of the church nor impede her efficiency in the world. The
lawfulness of sacramental communion reposes on the footing
of the common faith, and grows out of doctrine, and not
out of external and non-essential circumstances. The com¬
munion of Christ embraces all his visible members. All
believers have a spiritual fellowship with Christ and each
3®
30
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
other, and their, external distance and repellant divisions are
inconsistent with this union, are founded upon principles
and causes not contained in the gospel, and are such as can
never be a substitute for the visible fellowship which the
ordinances of the gospel are designed to display.
The sacraments are not party-ordinances,—the secret
watch-words, signs, or badges of a particular sect', nor are
they the oaths of any secret fraternity. They have in them
no sectarian mark or quality, nor can they without sacrilege
be transferred to any sectarian temple whatever. The holy
table is the badge of no party but the whole church of God.
At this table all who " know his name and put their trust
in him" unite in homage and fealty to Him who " loved
them and washed them from their sins in his own blood."
Here Christians of every name put off the sectarian and say
to each other, " Beloved, let us love one another, for love is
of God."
The test of Christian union involved in sacramental
communion has greatly annoyed the Baptists j and, to break
the edge of this argument for open communion, Dr. Howell
denies that such a test is contained in the design of the
Lord's Supper. " That sitting down with them [communi¬
cants] at the Lord's table should be considered as the cri¬
terion of our love to individuals or to any Christian com¬
munity does not appear from the word of God. It is a
memorial of God's love to us, and of Immanuel's death- for
us, in memory of whom it is received."* This argument,
he admits, he borrows from Booth. A sufficient answer to
this is, sacramental communion, in the nature of things, is
a test—the most solemn and impressive test, though not the
only test—of Christian union and brotherly love. If it is
not, among other things, a formal and solemn indication of
* Terms of Communion, p. 105.
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
31
the union of all the children of God, what is? The death
of Christ is the common source of all the privileges, bless¬
ings, and hopes of Christians in time and eternity; and,
while it is true that sacramental communion is primarily a
commemoration of God's love for us, it is also true that the
love for his people, which we derive by faith in the death
commemorated, is vindicated. The very idea of communion
demonstrates this. How did it happen that the word ever
came into use ? Why has the doctor written a treatise on
"sacramental communion" ? Would the doctor admit any
one to the communion who he had sufficient reason to
believe was destitute of brotherly love ? Do not pious Bap¬
tists, every time they surround the Lord's table, feel and
indicate a love for each other? Would not the exclusion
of one believed to be holy indicate the want of love for him ?
The eucharist is called " the Lord's table" and "the Lord's
Supper," and the idea of a table and a supper involves
social love, which in the Christian sense is but another term
for Christian union and brotherly love. Singing and prayer
have immediate reference to God and indicate our love for
him and confidence in him; but do they not also indicate
our love for one another ? Baptism has immediate reference
to our relation to God and his relation to us; but does it
not also indicate our relation to each other as members of
the same body? But the doctor himself, in another place,
asserts all for which we contend. "Baptism, preaching,
singing, prayer, and every other department of religious
worship, are no less forms of communion than the sacrament
in question, and a united participation in them [is] equally
expressive of Christian fellowship."* Surely that cause
which requires a serious abridgment of the import of the
eucharist for its support must occupy a slender foundation,
* Terms of Communion, p. 115.
32
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
especially when one of its warmest advocates, by a single
concession, overturns the superstructure. Besides, Professor
Curtis (a Baptist writer to whom we shall refer again) enter¬
tains the proper view on this point, and is opposed to Mr.
Booth and Dr. Howell. " It [the Lord's Supper] is not
only committed to their care, but is to be administered
among' them as a symbol among other things of that fra¬
ternity which they bear to each other as such. Other
things are no doubt signified also, but this none the less."*
3. If baptism be indispensably prerequisite to the. dis¬
charge of the Christian duty of sacramental communion,
then it is indispensably prerequisite also to the discharge
of every other Christian duty. That is, a Christian must
neglect every Christian duty till he is immersed. We are
not to pray, nor engage in the praise of God, nor read his
word, nor hear it preached, nor observe the Sabbath, nor
exercise self-denial, nor perform acts of benevolence, nor do
good of any sort or in any form; nothing of the sort is to be
done till we are baptized or immersed! A dead pause in
the discharge of religious obligations" must intervene between
faith and baptism, no matter how long the interval is! This
cannot be true. Very well: why should the duty of sacra¬
mental communion only be made to depend upon the ante¬
cedent reception of baptism, especially when no such thing
is enjoined as an exception in the Bible ? In other words,
does baptism specifically refer to the observance of the
Lord's Supper any more than to the discharge of any other
Christian duty ? In receiving the Lord's Supper the com¬
municant does not indicate that he has been immersed.
There is nothing in the Lord's Supper that signifies the
antecedence of baptism in any form; nothing that holds the
relation of one duty necessarily subsequent to another duty;
Progress of Baptist Principles, pp. 303, 307.
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
33
nothing requiring an invariable order in discharging
Christian duties. The premises therefore involve too
much, and so fall by their own weight.
4. But this position of the Baptists—a prescribed and
invariable observance of commands according to the chrono¬
logical order of their enactment—is refuted by their own
conduct. Prayer, praise, and preaching were instituted be¬
fore baptism: and y6t the Baptists themselves unite with
Pedobaptists in these services when opportunity offers,
which, on their own showing, is a violation of the rule.
And if they feel justified in violating their own rule,—as
they undoubtedly are justified,—why not carry their practice
through, and unite with their Pedobaptist brethren at the
Lord's table ? Or why not carry their rule out in all its ap¬
plications, and decline communion with all other churches
in prayer and praise and preaching, which, Mr. Fuller
admits, " were duties before the formation of a single Chris¬
tian church, and. would have been duties to the end of time
had no such institution existed"?* And Mr. Fuller even
affirms, "In uniting with Pedobaptists in prayer and
praise, and preaching the gospel, and acts of benevolence,
we cultivate such a union as evidently is our duty."-\ But
prayer and praise and preaching were instituted before the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained: therefore, it
is the duty of the Baptists to unite with Pedobaptists in
sacramental communion,—Mr. Fuller being judge.
5. The nature of faith is opposed to this imagined inva¬
riable order. Faith gives a title to both baptism and the
Lord's Supper: how then can baptism give a title to the
Lord's Supper, when the right is already included in faith?
or why should the Baptists make one sacrament prerequisite
to the other, when the title to both is included in faith ?
* Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 243.
f Ibid. p. 24?
34
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
The sacraments are signs and seals that belong to one and
the same person. How then can one sign be made con¬
ditional of the other, when the believer has already a right
to both signs ? There is no more reason why baptism should
precede the Lord's Supper than the Lord's Supper should
precede baptism; and man has no right to determine arbi¬
trarily which should have antecedence. One does not de¬
pend on the other, but both on faith and a spiritual nature.
The Romish and the Baptist Churches make baptism in¬
dispensable to communion, but for a different reason,—the
one maintaining that regeneration accompanies baptism, and
the other that God has so commanded. If the Romish
opinion of the efficacy of baptism were right, then there
would be a reason why baptism should be required in order
to the Lord's Supper; but, as the reason supposed does not
exist, the Romish view must be rejected. If the Baptist view
of the connection of the two sacraments be correct, there must
be some reason for it, and none is offered but the assumption
of a positive divine command; but we call in vain for such a
command, and'the presumption is that no such, connection
exists in the nature of things, since the believer, without bap¬
tism, is qualified spiritually to observe the communion; or,
if such connection does exist, the presumption is that pious
Pedobaptists have been properly baptized, and the Baptists
are wrong in the dogma of exclusive immersion, for pious
Pedobaptists are spiritually entitled and spiritually qualified
to partake of the communion.
6. But the fact in the case is against the position of the
Baptists, and we only refer to the fact to set aside their
position, and not as the ground of a rule for the invariable
practice of the church. The fact is, the Lord's Supper was
instituted before baptism. It was instituted by Christ
before his death; baptism was instituted after his death.
The only reply to this is, that John's baptism was Christian
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
35
baptism, and therefore Christian baptism was instituted
before the Lord's Supper. But the Baptists have been so
often completely-routed on this field, and especially by their
own elegant and accomplished Hall, that we need not stop
long to review the ground.
We observe that when a dispensation ended its seal ended
with it. The Jewish dispensation was preparatory to the
Christian, and it had its outward seal,—circumcision j John's
dispensation was blended with the Jewish, without the
abolition of any of its rights and ceremonies, and thus it
became also preparatory to the Christian dispensation and
had its characteristic seal. Now, when the mixed dispensa¬
tion of Moses and John ended, as it did on the death of
Christ, both circumcision and John's baptism ended with it ',
and all that was retained by Christ of John's baptism was,
not its form and meaning, but the element of water, with
the application of which Christ connected a new form and
a new meaning. John's baptism was no more Christian
baptism than circumcision was a Christian sacrament. And
therefore the Lord's Supper was instituted before Christian
baptism, since the former was instituted before, and the
latter after, the death of Christ.
Besides,- if John's baptism was Christian baptism, it is
singular that the Lord's Supper was not instituted sooner,
since it was not instituted till three years at least after
John commenced baptizing. What a state of things for
the Christian church,—three years with but one sacrament!
Three years in the visible church of Christ before, admitted
to sacramental communion ! Three years in the visible
Christian church before its foundation—the death of Christ
—was laid!
Moreover, John's baptism is spoken of as something dif¬
ferent from Christian baptism. , Matthew, Mark, and Luke
speak of it as "the baptism of John," "the baptism of
36
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
repentance," "the baptism of water;" Peter calls it "the
baptism which John preached;" Paul calls it the "baptism
of repentance;" and Paul caused several of John's disciples
to be rebaptized. Two institutions thus represented as
different cannot be the same.
Again, if John's baptism was Christian baptism, by the
same reasoning the Jewish passover was the Lord's Supper,
for John celebrated the passover as well as administered
baptism. But as the passover was different from the Lord's
Supper, so was John's baptism different from Christian
baptism. And so, as the Lord's Supper is to be dated from
its first celebration by our Lord, Christian baptism is to be
dated from the commission given by our Lord after his
resurrection. Thus, the Lord's Supper was instituted before
Christian baptism, which subverts the foundation on which
the Baptists rear the whole superstructure of their argument
for close communion.
But this is not all. The twelve apostles had not received
Christian baptism when they partook of the last supper
with Christ. These at least were without Christian bap¬
tism, and Christ himself admitted them to his sacred
supper. And what are we to say of the "seventy dis¬
ciples," of whom the Baptists boast so much ? We hear
not a word of their rebaptism, and certainly they were
admitted to the Lord's table by the apostles. Besides, the
Baptists assume that these "seventy disciples" aided the
apostles in baptizing the " three thousand" on the day of
Pentecost; and thus they attempt to remove a difficulty to
immersion. But they extricate themselves from one diffi¬
culty but to be involved in another; for how could these
"seventy" baptize others when they were not baptized
themselves? And then there are the "five hundred
brethren" of whom Paul speaks: we hear not a word of
their rebaptism. They were " brethren," and consequently
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 37
belonged to the apostolic or Christian church, and therefore
were admitted to the Lord's Supper without Christian bap¬
tism. Now, here are facts directly in opposition to the
opinion that baptism is indispensably prerequisite to sacra¬
mental communion; and they are facts that occurred under
the eye of Christ and his apostles.
But we proceed further. If John's baptism was Christian
baptism, then the Baptists do wrong in requiring repentance
and faith before baptism, for John's baptism preceded
repentance and faith. Let the Baptists abandon the false
idea of John's baptism, or renounce the true doctrine of
Christian baptism. They must either grant that the Lord's
Supper was instituted before Christian baptism, or they
must invert the order of their indispensable prerequisites to
the Lord's Supper and make them baptism, repentance,
and faith : in the former case they relinquish the invariable
order they require in the administration of the sacraments;
in the latter they overturn their church as evangelical.
Again: if John's baptism was Christian baptism, and
John's baptism was required before repentance and faith,
then the apostles were baptized (if they were baptized at
all) before they repented and believed. Why, then, if
John's baptism and Christian baptism are the same, did
they invert the order, and teach repentance and faith in
adults before baptism ? Besides, if the modifications made
by Christ in John's baptism did not change it into Christian
baptism so as to make it a new and distinct sign and seal,
then the modifications made by Christ in the Jewish pass-
over did not change its nature and meaning so as to make
it a new and distinct Christian sacrament; and, therefore,
the Lord's Supper being identical with the Jewish passover,
the Lord's Supper was instituted long before Christian bap¬
tism, for it was instituted by Moses in the wilderness long
before John's baptism was instituted. Moreover, if John's
38
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
baptism was Christian baptism, why did Christ strictly
charge his disciples before his ascension to tell no man that
he was the Christ ? This caution was absurd if John and
Christ's disciples disclosed this great secret every time they
baptized. Finally: if John's baptism was Christian bap¬
tism, then all who received Christ under John's dispensation
rejected him under the Christian dispensation,—that is,
became apostates. But, in the first place, " he came unto
his own, and his own received him not." And, in the
second place, neither the prophets make the remotest
allusion to this apostasy, nor do the apostles remind the
Jews of their baptismal vows assumed under John's dis¬
pensation, " and of their unspeakable impiety in crucifying
the divine person to whom they had previously dedicated
themselves in solemn rites of religion."* And Mr. Hall
observes, "Since it is manifest that the baptism of John
did not supersede the Christian ordinance, they being per¬
fectly distinct, it is natural to inquire, Who baptized the
apostles and the hundred and twenty disciples assembled
with them at the day of Pentecost ? My deliberate opinion
is that, in the Christian sense of the term, they were not
baptized at all."f
In replying to the argument on this topic, Dr. Howell
furnishes an example of how much truth may be sacrificed
in support of error. Says he, " If it was not John's, then
it was certainly the Christian baptism; if it was John's
baptism, then John's baptism issued from the personal
authority of Christ. In either case Christian baptism was
administered before the death of Christ, was an institution
prior to the eucharist, and had been received by all who
were admitted to the Lord's Supper." J That "John received
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 388. f Ibid. vol. i. p. 303.
J Howell on Communion, p. 74.
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
39
his commission from Jesus in person ," the doctor affirms,
" no one contends."* How then ? Why, because " Christ
is God," and as such is " head of the church,"■{" therefore
John's baptism "issued from the personal authority of
Christ." Yery well: then the Mosaic dispensation, with
all its rites and ceremonies, was the Christian dispensation,
because it issued from the personal authority of Christ as
God and as the head of the church. But Christ abolished
by his death the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic dis¬
pensation : therefore he abolished Christian rites and cere¬
monies by his death! The radical and fatal defect in the
doctor's premises is the total want of discrimination between
the different dispensations of the covenant of salvation, all
of which issued from the personal authority of Christ as
God. And thus as the Mosaic was different from the
Christian dispensation, so John's was different from the
Christian baptism. Had John received his commission
from Christ in person, it would not have necessarily fol¬
lowed from this fact that his baptism was Christian baptism,
unless Christ had specified it as such; but since he did not
so specify it, and as, from the reasons already given, it is
seen to be different in several essential particulars from
Christian baptism, the premises of the doctor must be aban¬
doned as wholly untenable. No truth is more evident than
that a common origin of laws and institutes does not neces¬
sarily constitute them the same. They may be enacted at
different times and for different purposes, though they are
all invested with the same divine authority, and are suitable
and proper no longer than exigencies require. Thus, the
two Christian sacraments are invested with the same
authority, and are of perpetual obligation j but no one will
pretend that they are the same. To use the quotation of
* Howell on Communion, p. 72. f Ibid. p. 72.
40
BAPTISM NOT PREREQUISITE
the doctor from St. James, " there is one Lawgiver;" but
his laws and ordinances are not by consequence necessarily
the same.
It maybe added that the distinction between John's and
Christian baptism is maintained by all the ancient fathers
who have written on the subject; "nor would it be easy to
discover a single divine, previous to the Reformation," by
whom it is not made; "and since that period it has re¬
ceived the sanction of a Grotius, a Hammond, a Whitby,
a Doddridge, a Chillingworth, and a multitude of other
names of nearly equal celebrity."* Thus, the supposed
identity of the two dispensations and of the two baptisms
is a modern innovation, and the innovation may be fairly
ascribed to the ingenuity of the Baptist Church to support
its claims.
7. In the case of the siclc. If baptism be indispensable
to communion, and immersion be indispensable to baptism,
then the sick on a dying bed cannot be baptized, and so
must be deprived of the precious privilege of commemorating
the death of their Lord and of deriving a gracious con¬
solation from the pious service. Mr. Remington, in his
popular little Baptist pamphlet, admits this. "I know it may
be argued that the sick would, under these circumstances,
be often deprived of the privilege of communion while
upon their dying beds. The great question is, Have we
Bible authority for the practice ? If we have not, then we
should submit with pious resignation. It is a very great
attainment to submit patiently to suffer the will of God
concerning us. The hour of affliction and death, of all
others, is the one when we should rely upon Christ alone.
The fewer forms we have to attend to then, the better."-]*
Is it possible that "the Bible" can deny a Christian the pri-
* Hall's "Works, vol. i. p. 387. f Restricted Communion, p. 72.
TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
41
vilege of communing upon a sick or dying bed ? What!
"submit with pious resignation" to be disinherited of a
most sacred privilege upon a death-bed ? Is this "suffering
the will of God concerning us" ? This "a great attainment"
in grace,—to consent to be deprived of grace? The "fewer
forms" in the sick chamber, or on the death-bed, "the
better"? Then have done altogether with singing, and
prayer, and reading God's word, and instruction, and en¬
couragement, in the sick-room! Christ instituted and par¬
took of the sacrament a few hours before his death) and
why may not his dying saints do the same? Would not
the Baptists administer the sacrament to a sick or dying
member of the Baptist Church ? Most assuredly. Alas!
the religious system must be radically defective in the par¬
ticular that involves such severity under the pretext of
"pious resignation."
We conclude this chapter. The whole controversy turns
on the necessary dependence of the Lord's Supper on
baptism. If such a dependence exists, it must be either in
the inherent connection of the two sacraments, or it must be
made by positive law,—neither of which, we have seen, is
the fact. We have denied that immersion is essential to
baptism, and hence have assumed that Pedobaptists have
been baptized, and so are members of the visible church,
and therefore, upon the supposition of the necessary ante¬
cedence of baptism to the Lord's Supper, they have a right
to the latter ordinance. We shall not stop to prove that
Pedobaptists have been properly baptized: we have gone
upon the supposition that they are not, though we believe
they are in the truest scriptural sense. To assume that they
are would be foreign to the ground we take in this treatise,
and would be an end of the controversy: besides, it is a
matter of no concern to Pedobaptists, for they believe that
they are baptized. But, admitting that formal association
4*
42 involuntary neglect oe baptism
with the visible church depends upon baptism, we deny
that there is such a dependence of the Lord's Supper upon
baptism as that the involuntary neglect of baptism destroys
the right, or annuls the obligation, to observe the Lord's
Supper. This shall be the subject of the next chapter.
CHAPTER III.
involuntary neglect oe baptism no bar to sacra¬
mental communion.
The doctrine of close communion is founded upon a mis¬
conception of the import of baptism, and so is a misappli¬
cation of one of the sacraments to the abuse of the other.
This is easily demonstrated.
Baptism signifies obligations and rights already existing
in the subject. Mark this. It gives no right and imposes
no obligation that does not already exist in the subject.
With respect to the believer, we are all agreed; and the
question before us refers to the believer only, for believers
only have a right to the communion. The believer, though
unbaptized, has a right to the communion before he is
baptized, and therefore baptism cannot give him a right to
the communion: baptism only signifies the believer's right
to the communion. And hence a person baptized in infancy
has no right to the communion till he has believed. Infant
baptism involves prospectively faith as prerequisite to the
communion. In all cases, then, the right to the communion
is obtained by faith, and not by baptism. Admitting, then,—
which we do not by any means,—that infant baptism is a
nullity, and that immersion is essential to baptism, the
believer has a right to the communion before he is baptized.
This is clear.
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 43
Next: the obligation of the believer to observe the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper exists before he is baptized:
baptism only signifies this obligation as already existing,—
does not originate it, since it cannot originate what already
exists. Infant baptism involves this obligation prospectively ;
that is, upon the exercise of faith. In all cases, then, the
obligation to observe the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is
involved in faith and not in baptism. Admitting, then,—
which we do not by any means,—that infant baptism is a
nullity, and that immersion is essential to baptism, the
believer is under obligation to observe the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper before he is baptized. This also is clear.
Now, setting aside infant baptism altogether, and admit¬
ting that immersion is essential to baptism, the believer has
a right to the Lord's Supper, and the obligation to observe
that sacred ordinance exists, before he is baptized. The
Baptists themselves must admit this. Very well. But
does the want of the sign, in all cases, invalidate a right
and absolve from an obligation already existing? If so,
then faith also is destroyed; for. faith gives the right and
imposes the obligation. But pious Pedobaptists do yet
believe, and that, too, till they die, the Baptists themselves
being judges. Therefore their right to the Lord's table is
not invalidated, nor are they absolved from obligation to
observe that sacred ordinance, though in the opinion of the
Baptists they have never been baptized. If such is their
right and such their obligation, then baptism in all cases
is not indispensably prerequisite to the Lord's Supper.
That is, a right and obligation existing before baptism
cannot be set aside in all cases by the want of baptism.
To say that pedobaptism is no baptism at all does not meet
the difficulty; for with pious Pedobaptists the right and
obligation still exist, for they yet believe. True, if the
believer knowingly and deliberately neglect baptism, he
44 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OP BAPTISM
sets aside his faith, and in doing this he forfeits his right
to the Lord's table and violates his obligation to observe
that sacred ordinance; for it is the solemn and positive
duty of the unbaptized believer to be baptized. But candid
Baptists have never directly charged wilful neglect upon
pious Pedobaptist churches,—never; and it can never
be justly alleged against them. Then, whether pious Pedo¬
baptist churches have been baptized or not, they have a
right to the Lord's table and are bound to observe that
sacred ordinance. If so, the Baptists cannot justly repel
them from sacramental communion, since no human au¬
thority can transcend divine authority or clash with rights
secured and obligations imposed by divine authority. The
Baptists may involuntarily and conscientiously oppose the
authority of God, and clash with the rights and obligations
of their pious Pedobaptist brethren; but they cannot justly
do either.
In this argument we have proceeded upon the admission
that immersion is essential to baptism, and therefore that
pedobaptism is no baptism. But this indeed we do not
admit; and assuming—which we do—that pedobaptism
is valid baptism, then, if baptism is indispensably pre¬
requisite to sacramental communion, pious JPedobaptists
have a right to it obtained by faith and signified by bap¬
tism. In a word: on the one hand, if baptism be not indis¬
pensably prerequisite to the communion, the Baptists must
show that Pedobaptists are not believers before they can
deny their right to the Lord's table; but the Baptists admit
that Pedobaptists are believers. On the other hand, if
baptism be indispensably prerequisite to the communion,
the Baptists must prove that pedobaptism is no baptism
before they can deny the right of pious Pedobaptists to the
Lord's table; but this they have not done. Thus, whether
pedobaptism be right or wrong, pious Pedobaptists have a
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 45
right to sacramental communion, and they are hound to
observe it.
If the involuntary neglect of one ordinance does not
necessarily involve the forfeiture of the thing signified by
another ordinance, then there can be no necessary depend¬
ence of the latter upon the former. That is, if Pedobap-
tists have the thing signified by baptism, and in the involun¬
tary neglect of baptism yet retain what is signified by bap¬
tism, and forfeit not what is signified by the Lord's Supper,
there can be no necessary dependence of the latter upon the
former. The involuntary neglect of the sign in one case
does not result in the forfeiture of the thing signified in
either case. The involuntary neglect of baptism does not
destroy the right to baptism, for the thing signified by
baptism still remains; and of course, the right to baptism
still remaining, Glod consequently regards his injunction of
baptism as having been virtually and substantially, though
not formally, obeyed. If, however, the neglect of baptism
is voluntary, and proceeds from a criminal motive, and is
accompanied with a clear conviction of its divine authority,
in this case the right of the person to communion is denied;
for thereby his right to baptism is forfeited, because the
thing signified in both sacraments is forfeited. But, when
the thing signified in both sacraments is not forfeited by an
involuntary neglect of one of the sacraments, no argument
can prove that the person has not a right to the other sacra¬
ment, unless it can be shown that the involuntary neglect
of the sign in one sacrament results in the forfeiture of the
thing signified in both sacraments,—which the Baptists do
not pretend, and never can prove, is the case with pious
Pedobaptists. What, then, is signified by each of the two
sacraments ? and have pious Pedobaptists the thing signified
in each of them ? Baptism is the symbol of inward and
spiritual purification: pious Pedobaptists have this. The
46 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OF BAPTISM
Lord's Supper is the pledge of the Savior's love : that pious
Pedobaptists enjoy this no one questions. It is the evi¬
dence of the perpetuity of the Savior's presence with, his
people : that Christ is with pious Pedobaptists the Baptists
themselves do not deny. It is the symbol of the vital com¬
munion of Christians with the Savior: that pious Pedobap¬
tists enjoy this communion in the largest sense the Baptists
themselves admit. In a word, that pious Pedobaptists
possess, whole and entire, the things signified in baptism
and the eucharist, the Baptists themselves cheerfully con¬
cede. Now, if the involuntary neglect of the sign in one
case does not involve the forfeiture of the things signified
in either case, (and the Baptists concede that the facts
evince that it does not,) it follows incontestably that there
is no necessary dependence of one of the signs upon the
other, unless the absence of the sign in one case necessarily
involves the absence of the substance in both cases,—which
the Baptists do not pretend, and never can prove, is the
fact with pious Pedobaptists.
The divine sanction of sacramental communion by the
Pedobaptists is a convincing proof that Pedobaptists are
properly baptized, or, if they are not baptized, a convincing
refutation of the conceit that baptism is divinely prescribed
as an indispensable condition to sacramental communion.
" Communion," says Dr. Howell,11 has its laws, by which it
must in all respects be governed. To violate them in its
observance is a contempt of the authority from which they
emanated; and, in consequence of such dereliction, where
it exists, this part of sacred devotion ceases at once to be
an act of either faith, obedience, or worship."* Here we
join close issue with the doctor. Would it not be infatua¬
tion to say that the Holy Spirit would confer his blessing
* Terms of Communion, p. 116.
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 47
upon an act of devotion that was a " contempt" of Christ,
a " dereliction" of duty, and destitute of " faith, obedience,
or worship" ? And would it not also be infatuation to say
that the Holy Spirit does not in a signal manner confer his
blessing upon Pedobaptists in sacramental communion ?
The strictest Baptist in Christendom, whose opinion is
worthy of consideration, will not assert either of these. If,
then, "communion has its laws, by which it must in all
respects be governed," it follows that the Holy Spirit sanc¬
tions, in the case of pious Pedobaptists communing, a con¬
tempt of Christ, a dereliction of duty, and an act destitute
of faith, obedience, and worship, or that Pedobaptists are
properly baptized; or, if they are not baptized, baptism is
not an indispensable condition to sacramental communion.
The Baptists assume that in excluding Pedobaptists from
communion they do as the apostles would have done. This
amounts to a claim to infallibility, though they do not
attempt to evince their possession of this extraordinary gift.
Suppose Jesus and his apostles should now appear among
men, and on a sacramental qpcasion in some -pious Pedo-
baptist church this blessed company should surround the
sacred table with the members of this church, and Christ
and his apostles distribute the elements to the happy and
grateful recipients. A Baptist—the most pious and " loyal"
Baptist in the land—enters and beholds the scene. There
is Christ, who gave "the commission;" there are the
apostles, who received, preached, and acted under the
commission; there is Paul, the chief of the apostles,—all
communing with " unbaptized" Christians ! Christ invites
the wondering Baptist to a place at his table and a seat
among his apostles and disciples. The Baptist for a moment
hesitates, and inquires, "Am I deceived? No; I cannot
be. That is Christ, those are his apostles; for I have just
seen and communed with them in my own church If I
48 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OP BAPTISM
am mistaken now, I was mistaken then. They are as really
here in this Pedobaptist church as they were with us in the
Baptist church. They said nothing about this intended
visit to the Pedobaptist church j and, while I expected to
find them in the preaching, praying, and singing in this
place, I did not expect to find them engaged in cele¬
brating the Sacred Supper with these Christians. One
thing to my mind now is certain : either these Pedobaptist
Christians have been properly baptized, or baptism is not,
as I supposed, an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord's
Supper. No matter which : I will doubt, hesitate, no more.
Though they are not of 1 our faith and order,' Christ and
his apostles of a truth are with them. That is enough : I
will join them in the sacramental service, teach my church
as it may."
Say not that this is fancy, for it is all as spiritually true
as if it had transpired before us in open day. Baptists
have been present as spectators on sacramental occasions in
pious Pedobaptist churches; and what have they beheld ?
Peace, and joy, and comfort, and love, diffused around the
happy family and beaming from many a bright countenance.
Tears and smiles of joy were mingled, and shouts and songs
were blended. The tide of gushing rapture swelled and
overflowed all its bounds, and thrilling praise burst from
every lip. The scene was solemn, the place was awful, the
service holy and blessed. This is wonderful. The pious
Baptist exclaims, " This is wonderful. Surely Gfod is in
this place. Christ must be with this people. The Holy
Spirit must be with this people. They have the spirit of
the apostles. Am I mistaken ? No; I am not mistaken;
for this is just such a scene as I have witnessed around the
sacramental table in my own church. If I am mistaken
now, I was mistaken in my own church. Christ is as really
here in a spiritual manner and power as he is with us in
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 49
the Baptist Church. These Christians here are as sincere
as we are : this is no hypocrisy. No; 'in the Pedobaptist
churches there are some of the noblest lights and ornaments
that adorn Christianity.'* 'Their zeal, devotion, and
efficiency fill me with admiration and joy.'f 'They are
knit together with me by a union not imaginary, but most
sweet and dear and imperishable, against which the gates
of hell shall not prevail. I delight to feel myself one with
them, one in spirit, one in aim, one in "a good hope
through grace," one in Christ, one in a fellowship of soul
with soul, one in a spiritual communion, which neither
walls, nor mountains, nor oceans, nor ages, can separate.'^
No; they are not deceived. ' I cherish for them, as the
people of Grod, the sincerest affection : we preach, pray, and
labor together; consult and co-operate for the spread of the
gospel; and take pleasure in being associated with them " in
every good word and work.'"§ Yes; they are as sincere
as I am. Though Christ is not with them in person as he
was with his disciples when he instituted the eucharist in
Jerusalem, he certainly is with them in his Spirit as really
as if he were present with them in person before my eyes. If
Christ is not here in his Spirit, then I know not that he is ever
present in the Baptist Church or anywhere else in the world
on sacramental occasions; and hence what avails the force
of the indispensable prerequisite which my church teaches ?
I see no advantage in it in this case. It is nothing in this
case. One thing to my mind is now certain: either these
Pedobaptist Christians have been properly baptized, or
baptism is not, as I supposed, an indispensable prerequisite
to the Lord's Supper. No matter which: I can doubt,
hesitate, no more. Though they are not of 'our faith and
* R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 238. f ^id. p. 246.
J Ibid. pp. 220, 221. § Howell on Communion, p. 23.
5
50 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OE BAPTISM
order,' Christ of a truth is with them. That is enough : I
will join them in the sacramental service, teach my church
as it may." Well done! that is consistent,—consistent
with the merits of the Pedobaptists and the concessions of
the Baptists. You may innocently hold to immersion if you
see proper; but you cannot on that account innocently repel
or refuse commune with those who before your eyes have
the presence of the Son of God in obeying his command,
"Do this in remembrance of me." If my sect required
otherwise, I would regard the requisition as wrong and the
ground of the requisition false. I must place Christ first,
all the way and all the time. My conduct, whole and
entire, must be shaped and governed by his clear and
undoubted indications, however " painful" it may be to me
to clash with the " faith and order" of my sect. I should
rather consider it "painful" to resist Him than to vary
from useless and inconsistent rules of my sect. I will not
consider myself dishonored, or as bringing a reproach upon
his church, or as condemnable in the sight of God, by being
found with Christ anywhere, on any "occasion, in any
service, or with any people, however poor, obscure, and
despised by the world. No human authority shall hold me
responsible to dishonor Christ, or his people, or his cause,
under any pretence or assumptions whatever; and, if others
venture to do otherwise, the final settlement is with God,
who superintends his cause and his people.
" If it still be contended that the two cases are so parallel
that the proceeding of the apostles in this particular is bind¬
ing as a law, we would once more ask such as adopt this
plea whether they themselves form the same judgment of
the present Pedobaptists as the apostles would have enter¬
tained of such as continued unbaptized in their day? If
they reply in the affirmative, they must consider them as
insincere, hypocritical professors. If they answer in the
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION.
51
negative, since, by tbeir own confession, they look upon the
persons whom they exclude in a different light from that in
which the party excluded by the apostles was considered,
what becomes of the identity of the two cases ? and what
greater right have they to think differently of the state of
the unbaptized from what the apostles thought than we
have for treating them differently?"* Were the apostles
present, and should they inform pious Pedobaptists that
they are in error on the subject of baptism and that the
Baptists are right on that subject, they would correct their
error; but, if they are in error, they have at present no
means of information beyond what they have already faith¬
fully and conscientiously used, with all the lights the Bap¬
tists have so sedulously furnished. Imagine a similar case
before the apostles in their days. Mr. Hall proposes the
case :—" Many whom you exclude from your communion
as unbaptized you acknowledge as Christians, and, without
hesitation, express your confidence of meeting them in glory.
Did the apostles entertain the same judgment respecting
such in their day? Were they prepared to recognise them
as brethren, and to congratulate them on their eternal pros¬
pects, while they repelled them from communion If
it be affirmed that the case of pious Pedobaptists never
occurred in the times of the apostles, then the Baptists
cannot plead apostolic precedent for excluding pious Pedo¬
baptists from communion ? Or, if it be admitted that the
apostles would not have excluded such a case from com¬
munion, then the Baptists stand self-convicted of opposition
to apostolic principles. Or, if it be assumed that the
apostles would have excluded pious Pedobaptists from com¬
munion, then it behooves the Baptists to show on what
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 410.
f Ibid. p. 411.
52 involuntary neglect op baptism
ground the apostles would have regarded genuine Christians
as unworthy of communion.
We close this chapter with a quotation from Mr. Hall:—
" Say, did the apostles refuse the communion of good men ?
Did they set the example of dividing them into two classes,
—a qualified and a disqualified class,—and, while they
acknowledged the latter were objects of the divine favor
equally with themselves, enjoin on their converts the duty
of disowning them at the Lord's table ? Are any traces to
be discovered in the New Testament of a society of Purists,
who, under the pretence of superior illumination on one
subject, kept themselves aloof from the Christian world,
excluding from their communion myriads of those whom
they believed to be heirs of salvation ?"*
CHAPTER IY.
involuntary neglect op baptism no bar to sacra¬
mental communion, (continued.)
We continue the subject of the preceding chapter.
If baptism is indispensably prerequisite to the Lord's
Supper, then, we repeat, it remains to be proved that Pedo-
baptists are not baptized before they can be excluded from
the observance of that ordinance. But, waiving in this
treatise all discussion on this topic, we will admit that the
Pedobaptists are not baptized, and then assume that their
involuntary neglect of baptism is not a just ground of
exclusion from the Lord's table.
The amount of the offending of the excluded pious
* HaP's Works, vol. ii. p. 222.
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 53
churches is this :—They do not believe as the Bajptists do
in regard to baptism. They differ from the Baptists only
with respect to the mere mode of baptism. What they do
they do in the spirit of sincere obedience and love,' as their
lives and labors abundantly prove. If they believed that
immersion is indispensable to baptism, they would practise
it; or that infant baptism is an evil, or that it is not sus¬
tained by the Bible, they would abandon it. They cannot
conscientiously embrace immersion as the only mode of bap¬
tism. If in error on the subject of baptism, they have
involuntarily committed the error; and that such a mistake
or misconception of duty is not a sufficient ground for
exclusion from sacramental communion, we appeal to the
Scriptures.
1. "Let not him who eateth despise him who eateth not;
and let not him who eateth not judge him who eateth; for
God hath received him. To his own master he standeth or
falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up; for God is able to make
him stand. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ
hath received us to the glory of the Father." (Bom. xiv.
3-4, xv. 7.) This is the law of mutual toleration among
Christians' and Christian churches who may differ on account
of religious scruples, prejudices, and errors that do not
involve any thing essential to salvation. " God is able to
make" all such " stand," so that they shall not essentially
err, and so may be continued and recognised as members of
his church. " God hath received him; God is able to make
him stand;" and therefore he should be " received" by
his brethren " to the glory of the Father," because it is
honoring God to receive those whom he receives.
Mr. Fuller replies:—" Christian churches are to receive all
whom God has received, who are conscientious, and whose
•peculiarities are not subversive of any existing divine law.
But what then 1 Does this rule enjoin the reception of
54 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OF BAPTISM
pious Pedobaptists ? Let us examine. Has God received
them ? He has. Are they conscientious ? They are. Is
their peculiarity subversive of any existing divine law ? In
the opinion of every Baptist, it is. Consequently, their re¬
ception into Baptist churches would be, on the part of the
receiving members, a deviation from the principle/'* But
it is impossible for God to "receive" and hold up any
" whose peculiarities are subversive of" any " existing divine
law" essential to salvation; for this would be saving man
in opposition to the divine government. But " God has
received," and "is able to make," pious Pedobaptists
" stand,"—Mr. Fuller being judge. Therefore "the pecu¬
liarities" of the Pedobaptists are not "subversive of any
existing divine law" essential to salvation. Besides, the
reception of pious Pedobaptists to sacramental communion
in the Baptist churches would not be subversive of any
existing law essential to salvation in the Baptist Church; for
the Baptists do not hold that immersion is essential to
salvation, since they admit that God does "receive" and
" is able" to save pious Pedobaptists without immersion.
And, further, they might receive pious Pedobaptists to sacra¬
mental communion without subverting any existing law in the
Baptist Church, since they might still maintain and practise
immersion among themselves as a favorite and non-essential
peculiarity; for favorite indeed it is, and that it is not es¬
sential to salvation they admit. In this argument we have
proceeded upon the admission that pious Pedobaptists are
the weak in faith "whom God has received" and whom he
" is able to save;" but this is the ground the Baptists as¬
sume, and which we have admitted only to prove from it
the right of pious Pedobaptists to sacramental communion
in Baptist churches. It is not maintained that pious Pedo-
* Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 267,
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 55
baptists have a right to the conventional privileges of the
Baptist Church, but only to those privileges which are com¬
mon to all Christians without distinction of name or party.
The Baptists make that a term of admission to the Lord's
table which they admit is not essential to admission into
heaven. They render access to the Lord's table more diffi¬
cult than access to the Lord himself, and association with
" the general assembly of the church of the first-born and
spirits of just men made perfect." They surround the
Lord's table with an enclosure impassable to those whom
God will welcome to his presence. Pious Pedobaptists,
then, have the sanction, favor, and pledge of God: that is
enough.
" Receive him to the glory of God." On this injunction
Bunyan comments :—" To the glory of God is put on pur¬
pose to show what dishonor they bring to God who despise
to have communion with them who yet they know have
communion with God. For how doth this man or that
church glorify God, or count the wisdom and holiness of
heaven beyond them, when they refuse communion with
them concerning whom they are by the word convinced
that they have communion with God ?"*
2. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature; and as
many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and
mercy, and upon the Israel of God."- (Gal. vi. 15.) The
argument of the apostle is this: Under the gospel system
no outward observance avails any thing with God, but a new
creature; and he who is a new creature is entitled to the
peace and mercy of God. This is the rule; and, where this
rule is conformed to, involuntary error respecting baptism,
consequently, can be no barrier to the peace and mercy of
* Bunyan's Complete "Works: Reasons for Practice in Worship, p. 218.
56 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OP BAPTISM
God; and so the want of baptism in this case can he no
barrier to sacramental communion.
3. " Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God."
(Rom. xiv. 22.) That this admits of difference in opinion,
and does not exclude from sacramental communion, is evi¬
dent from the following considerations. No one that has
this faith is bound to bring others who have the same faith
over to his opinions in order to their communing with him
or his communing with them. If this were so, then those of
this opinion might form one church, and those of that
opinion might form another church, and each claim to he
the one church to the exclusion of the other,—-which is ab¬
surd : each claiming to be in " the unity of the Spirit,"
and yet one saying, We will not commune with you, and the
other saying, We will not commune with you, and yet we
will live in "peace,"—which is absurd, since Christ's church
cannot have two spirits, nor his body two Heads. Further:
a new opinion is started, and becomes the foundation of a
new division, and so on, till presently the one church must
be dissolved into as many churches as there are individuals
in the church,—for no two men on earth are of the same
mind in all things. No force can prevent an endless variety
of opinions in erring and speculative man; and, if the prin¬
ciple of strict communion be admitted, endless strifes and
janglings must arise, and "altar be set up against altar"
without end. A church so divided would be an easy con¬
quest to the enemy, and where it tends to this state it is
tending to dissolution. A house so divided cannot stand;
and churches so related, though they now practise ordinary
Christian intercourse, will in time renounce even that; for
emulations and bitter zeal will soon result in an entire sepa¬
ration. The sure defence against all these evils is the
one saving faith, that admits of reciprocal communion in¬
dependent of difference in opinion. If men agree in faith,
NO BAR TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION. 57
are united in faith, have all this saving faith, in a small or
larger degree, no matter for variety of opinions, they are
all equally entitled to sacramental communion. This ar¬
gument is rendered the stronger by the consideration that
the opinions, in themselves, which are made the ground of
divisions, are harmless, compared with the evils of mutual
renunciation and opposition. " Hast thou faith ? Have it
to thyself before God." Leave opinions in themselves not
fundamental, and hence not fatal to those who have faith
in God, to others, and, on faith as a common ground, en¬
gage in sacramental communion with them. Sacramental
communion cannot impair the faith of either party, but must
promote it, especially when there is no difference of opinion
as to the nature and design of that ordinance, the Lord's
Supper,—both parties, all parties, meeting and harmonizing
in faith and opinion in the observance of that ordinance.
It may be observed that those churches which impose the
fewest and simplest terms of communion besides what are
fundamental come nearest the prescription of the apostle,
and those which impose no terms of communion but what
are fundamental conform fully to his prescription. In the
latter case the command of the apostle may be fulfilled by
every believer on earth,—not excluding the weakest believer
in the church. Schism is then at an end. Those involun¬
tarily in error may then learn better in time, andj if
opinions are not rectified, it will be of no great conse¬
quence, since errors in themselves not fundamental can
finally hurt no one who involuntarily and sincerely embraces
them. But if I am required to embrace an opinion which
I do not believe to be true, or I must be excluded from the
communion, then to be admitted to the communion is to
affirm what I conscientiously believe to be a falsehood, and,
though it may be true, I am guilty of hypocrisy in the
sight of God. An opinion which may be believed by
58 INVOLUNTARY NEGLECT OP BAPTISM, ETC.
others, and in itself may be true, I may believe to be false;
and unless my belief in that opinion, as preliminary to
sacramental communion, be waived, it is easy to see that
schisms without end may become necessary; and the
responsibility for the consequences lies upon those churches
in whose constitutions the severe exactions are made, because
the reception of one to the communion whose opinion was
not fundamental would not have necessarily made any
schism in the church; and the smaller the difference in
opinion the greater the sin and tbe shame, for the less is
the reason for separate communions. And where agreement
in the great fundamentals of religion is complete, or nearly
so, and Christian fellowship actually, or at least confessedly,
extends to every particular, except in the observance of a
solitary observance, and a difference—and that but a slight
difference—respecting the mere mode of observing a duty
is made by one church the ground of exclusion from
sacramental communion, no justification in reason or in
Scripture can be found for the requisition; and that church
is justly chargeable with the consequences of excluding from
communion the rest of the Christian world.
4. " Do this in remembrance of me." Is it conceivable
how Christ calls by his Spirit and blesses with his grace
those whom he repels from his table? Does he not invite
to his table those whom he calls by his Spirit ? Does he
command those to partake sacramentally of his supper whose
faith he has accepted and whose nature he has regenerated ?
Does he command this as a duty, and yet forbid it as a
privilege? Does he grant unto any the blessings of his
sacrificial death, and yet prohibit their sacramental cele¬
bration of his death? Is a grateful remembrance of his
death essential to the new and spiritual nature of believers,
and yet are they to be prohibited a grateful and formal
observance of the ordinance that symbolizes that death?
concessions of the baptists.
59
How can gratitude be essential to religion and yet the
exercise of that noble grace be interdicted at the Lord's
table ? Christ has bidden all mankind to come to him for
life, and he bids those who have come to him to come also to
his table; and, if any have involuntarily erred on the subject
of baptism, he does not regard this as annulling his invita¬
tion to his table,—since, as the Baptists concede, they are
yet accepted of God, and what does not divest them of
salvation does not disqualify them for the Lord's table.
Other passages of Scripture equally in point might be
adduced; but we will conclude with a single one :—"Blessed
are they which are called to the marriage-supjper of the
Lamb and we run no hazard in saying, the number
already there who have never been immersed is greater
beyond all calculation than those who have been immersed.
CHAPTER Y.
concessions of the baptists.
If baptism be an indispensable prerequisite to sacramental
communion, the concessions of the Baptists are inconsistent
with such a doctrine. Indeed, it will be found in this
chapter that the concessions of the Baptists, when fairly
interpreted, not only prove the doctrine to be false, but
utterly refute the dogma of exclusive immersion on which
it is founded.
If it be true that, according to the gospel, baptism is
indispensably prerequisite to sacramental communion, and
immersion only is baptism, then pious Pedobaptists have no
right to sacramental communion among themselves, for they
have not been immersed. But the Baptists concede, " They
60 CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
do right in partaking of the Lord's Supper; though in our
opinion unbaptized;"* and "There is no reason why we
should breathe a murmur against them because they take
the Lord's Supper in their own churches.""}" Thus, in the-
first place, baptism is not indispensable to sacramental com¬
munion ; and, in the second place, immersion is not essential
to baptism : and thus the concessions of the Baptists sub¬
vert the very foundation of the Baptist Church. For, if it
is "right" for the Pedobaptists to partake of the Lord's
Supper without immersion, there is no reason why the
Baptist Church should require immersion of her own mem¬
bers as indispensably prerequisite to sacramental communion
within her own fold. And consequently the following dog¬
matic asseverations amount to nothing:—" That there is a
connection between the two positive institutions of the New
Testament is manifest from the word of God; and that one
of them must be prior to the other in the order of adminis¬
tration is evident from the nature of things." J " Baptism is
an indispensable prerequisite to the communion." § " Bap¬
tism is a prerequisite to the supper; and we cannot admit
to the supper those whom we regard as unbaptized."|| " If
God requires baptism before the supper, who will dare to
dispense with it " God orders that the baptized only
shall communicate: who will dare to abrogate this order?"**
" The apostles constantly required baptism as a preparation
for the communion.""}"}" Baptism is one of the " divinely-
ordained and unchangeable terms of sacramental com-
* J. G. Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. con. iii.
f Curtis on Communion, p. 190.
J Booth's Vindication of the Baptists, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 48.
§ J. G. Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 238.
|| K. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, 2d ed., p. 236.
f Ibid. p. 242. ** Ibid. p. 243.
■ff Howell on Communion, p. 45.
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
61
munion"Turn and twist" the concessions of the Bap¬
tists as you will, these asseverations must go for nothing:
the aqua-fortis of the concessions consumes the whole force
of the asseverations and pretensions of the Baptists on the
subject of close communion. For, in admitting that pious
Pedobaptists " have a right to partake of the Lord's Supper,
though unbaptized," and that " there is no reason why we
[the Baptists] should breathe a murmur against them for
doing it," the Baptists virtually abolish the doctrine of
baptism as they maintain it,—that is, immersion as essential
to baptism. In their asseverations they say it is God's
will and commandment that none but the Baptists shall
commemorate the Lord's death; in their concessions it is
no violation of God's will and commandment for pious Pedo¬
baptists " to partake of the Lord's Supper." In the one
case they establish the Pedobaptist churches upon an
immovable basis; in the other they overturn the Baptist
Church. It is impossible to reconcile extravagant pre¬
tensions and honest concessions. The concession that pious
Pedobaptists have a " right" to celebrate the Lord's Supper
in their own churches is a death-seal both to exclusive
immersion and close communion; for it declares that such
persons are qualified to receive the communion in the Bap¬
tist Church : and this seal is affixed by the Baptists them¬
selves. " To do this"—that is, admit the unbaptized to the
Lord's Supper—" would be to declare such persons qualified
for membership in our churches; which would be to admit
members without baptism; which would he to abolish bap¬
tism, altogether."f And this abolition the Baptists as
effectually accomplish by admitting "the right" of the
unbaptized to sacramental communion in their own
* Howell on Communion, p. 50..
f R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, 2d ed., p. 23?.
6
62
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
churches as if they admitted them to the Lord's table in
the Baptist Church. That the pretensions and concessions
of the Baptists involve them in inextricable difficulties is
incontestable. The claim of exclusive immersion, so long
and sharply contested, is at length quietly and hopelessly
surrendered. Baptism as a necessary qualification and
indispensable prerequisite to sacramental communion is
voluntarily abandoned. Betreat is universal, and the whole
field with its spoils is left in the possession of the Pedo-
baptists. But one thing remains; and that is, that the
Baptists leave the walls which they can no longer hold and
open the portals which they can no longer guard without
violating "the rights" which they concede to their Pedo-
baptist brethren. Roger Williams, Bunyan, Hall, Foster,
the Haldanes, Carson, Noel, and other noble spirits, have
done much within to shake the walls and open the portals;
and Mr. Whitney, with a giant arm, hurls a well-directed
bolt against the tottering edifice. " It seems to me neither
more nor less than a downright tampering with the mind
of God to regard baptism as a divinely-required preliminary
to communion, and yet allow that persons do right to com¬
mune without it and that there is no reason why wo should
breathe a murmur against them for so doing. But if, as
you say, they are undoubtedly entitled to it, and even do
right in partaking of it, then you admit, in their case at
least, that Christian baptism is not a necessary qualification,
and, of course, not in itself a divinely-constituted qualifi¬
cation."*
But, admitting the doctrine of the Baptists to be true,—
which we do not,—then the Pedobaptists have a right to
sacramental communion; for they believe that they have
been properly baptized. This is conceded by Mr. Fuller:
* Whitney on Communion, pp. 47, 48.
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
63
"It may be their [Pedobaptists'] duty to partake of the
Lord's Supper, since they believe they have attended to
' the prior obligation,' every man being required to act on
his own principles."* What! right to obey God in Pedo-
baptist churches, and yet wrong to obey him, in the very
same thing, in a Baptist church? The sin of non-com¬
munion with the Baptists is not chargeable, then, upon the
Pedobaptists,—the Baptists themselves being judges. If
we already do our "duty," though not immersed, then im¬
mersion is not indispensable to' the discharge of duty in this
particular; and the Baptists, though immersed, do no more
than their duty in this particular; and therefore the Pedo¬
baptists have as good a right to sacramental communion in
the Baptist churches as the Baptists themselves have,—Mr.
Fuller being judge; and he is high authority with the
Baptists.
"It is frequently'urged that, by our course, we at least
unchurch all other denominations. But this is a complete
error. We do not unchurch them. We will not deny the
claims of any body of evangelical Christians, organized for
maintaining social worship, to be considered a Christian
church."f Says Kinghorn,(quoted by Robert Hall,) "The
New Testament does not forbid the unbaptized from re¬
ceiving the Lord's Supper."J The reader will be surprised
at the following concession of Dr. Howell, the author of
the "Evils of Infant Baptism." "Does a Pedobaptist
honestly believe, after an impartial examination of the best
evidences to which he can gain access on the subject, that
he has received Christian baptism, and that he has truly
* Fuller on Communion, Bap. Library, vol. i. p. 243.
j- Prof. Curtis on Communion, pp. 144,190,264,280. Also Christian
Review, vol. xiv. pp. 224, 225. Quoted by Whitney on Open Communion,
p, 35. J Quoted by Whitney.
64
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
entered the congregation of Christ in the way of divine
appointment ? Let him prosecute the course he has adopted.
All the Lord's children have an undoubted right to his
table, because whatever is his is theirs."* Again: "Yes; it
is the Lord's table. All his children have an undoubted
right to it, because whatever is his is theirs. We are not
permitted to preclude them. We make no such preten-
sions."f "There is no reason why we should breathe a
murmur against them because they take the Lord's Supper
in their own churches."J
The Baptists seem to have overlooked altogether the
legitimate consequence involved in these concessions. If
"Pedobaptists have a right to the Lord's Supper, and do
right in partaking of it in their own churches," then either
baptism is not indispensably prerequisite to sacramental
communion, or the Baptists give too much importance to
immersion. But if Pedobaptists have a right to the Lord's
Supper, if they do right in partaking of it in their own
churches, and if they are not baptized, then baptism is not
an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord's Supper; for that
cannot be right when that which is indispensable to it is
wanting. But with the Baptists immersion is baptism. How
then ? Pedobaptism is right, or they have no right to the
Lord's Supper. But if Pedobaptism is right, then im¬
mersion is not essential to baptism; for Pedobaptists gene¬
rally are not immersed. Thus, in conceding that Pedo¬
baptists have a right to sacramental communion and do
right in observing it in their churches, the Baptists divest
immersion of its imaginary importance, and so surrender a
claim vital to their existence as a distinct sect of Chris¬
tianity.
* Howell on Communion, p. 99. j- Ibid, p. 107.
X Curtis on Communion, p. 190.
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
65
If it be right—as it is conceded—for Pedobaptists to obey
a command in observing a Christian ordinance, bow can it
be wrong for the Baptists to engage with them in obeying
the same command ? or, if it be wrong for the Baptists to
engage with the Pedobaptists in sacramental communion,
why is it not still more wrong for the Pedobaptists them¬
selves to engage in that sacred service ? " When an action
allowed in itself to be innocent or commendable becomes
improper as performed in conjunction with another, that
impropriety must result solely from the moral incompetency
to that action of the party associated. Thus, in the instance
before us, it must be assumed that Pedobaptists are morally
culpable in approaching the sacred symbols, or the attempt
to criminate us [mixed-communion Baptists] for sanctioning
them in that practice would be ridiculous."*
This suggests another remark. While the Baptists assume
that it would be wrong for them to engage with pious Pedo¬
baptists in sacramental communion, they never represent
the Pedobaptists as incurring any guilt in celebrating the
Lord's Supper. Innumerable and severe are the charges
of criminality alleged by the Baptists against the Pedobap¬
tists; but the offence of sacramental communion among
themselves is never incorporated in the bill. Why do the
Baptists allow this high crime to pass without a word of
animadversion or a whisper of condemnation? The Bap¬
tist Yatican "lightens and thunders" throughout Christen¬
dom against the heretical and destructive opinions of the
Pedobaptists on the subject of baptism; but a profound
and inexplicable silence is observed respecting the profane
abuse of the Lord's Supper by unbaptized Christians.
Either this silence is culpable to the extent of the depend¬
ence of the eucharist on baptism, or the right to the eu-
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 342.
6*
66
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
charist does not depend on the communication of baptism.
Let therefore the Baptists censure the Pedobaptists for
celebrating the Lord's Supper among themselves, or engage
with them also in receiving the sacred symbols. It is not
enough for the Baptists to attempt to justify themselves for
declining sacramental communion with the Pedobaptists:
they must demonstrate that sacramental communion by the
Pedobaptists is wrong; and, until this be done, every argu¬
ment adduced for restricted communion must be utterly
futile. But the Baptists never recall our attention to this
sin; and when a Pedobaptist is converted to their opinions
they never demand of him compunction or repentance for
having profaned the Lord's table. It is surprising that
this internal conviction of the propriety of sacramental
communion among Pedobaptists should not have led the
Baptists to engage with them in that solemnity. What the
Baptists cannot presume to condemn they ought not to
decline to observe.
The Baptists admit—what cannot be denied—that all
believers have a spiritual fellowship with each other, as
living members of the one spiritual church of Christ, and
thus that one church may spiritually commune with another.
The evidences of spirituality in other churches are too
many and weighty to admit of denial. This conclusion is
forced upon the most obstinate resistance. All believers,
then, are already in spiritual communion with the Baptists
themselves. But what! a communion with the whole church,
—a communion real, lawful, and sanctioned by God him¬
self,—a communion the basis of external and visible com¬
munion,—not to be exemplified,—forbidden to be visibly
expressed in ordinances instituted by Christ himself? Well,
if this be so, then banish all external ordinances and forms—
ministry, sacraments, and all else—from the church. Carry
the doctrine through; obliterate the visible church from
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
67
the face of the earth; turn Quakers everywhere; have done
forever with the subject of sacramental communion and
visible Christian fellowship,—for fellowship in the Spirit
will answer every end of the gospel of Christ! The Baptists
cannot escape from the dilemma of either denying the
spirituality of other churches, or convicting themselves of
maintaining a practice subversive in effect of the visible
church among men. What they deny to others—namely,
sacramental communion—they might dispense with alto¬
gether themselves, since they and others are already in
spiritual communion.
Nor is this all. The Baptists admit—what cannot be
denied—that all believers have spiritual fellowship with
Christ. Then certain is it that they cannot be lost, any
more than believers among the Baptists can be. Then the
Baptists cannot escape from the dilemma of either denying
the spirituality of other churches, or convicting themselves
of requiring of others what is not essential to salvation.
Nor is this all. The Baptists admit—what cannot be
denied—that all believers have spiritual fellowship with
Christ. Assuredly, then, they should obey every plain and
positive command of Christ. Then the Baptists cannot
escape from the dilemma of either denying the spirituality
of other churches, or convicting themselves of sin in deny¬
ing sacramental communion to other believers; for "Do
this in remembrance of me" is a plain and positive com¬
mand to every believer.
Nor is this all. The Baptists require immersion as
essentially prerequisite to obeying Christ in sacramental
communion. But they admit—what cannot be denied—
that many, many believers have lived and died who were
never immersed. Yerily, then, the Baptists cannot escape
from the dilemma of either denying that many believers
have lived and died who were never immersed, or convicting
68
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
themselves of requiring what is not essentially prerequisite
to obeying Christ in sacramental communion.
Nor is this all. The Baptists admit—what cannot be
denied—that all believers have spiritual fellowship with
Christ. Then other believers have as good a right to sacra¬
mental communion as the Baptists have. But as, above,
immersion is not essential to sacramental communion,
certain is it that the Baptists cannot escape from the
dilemma of either denying the spirituality of other churches,
or convicting themselves of having no right to sacramental
communion.
The ground we maintain is, that all who give satisfactory
evidence that they are united to the invisible spiritual
church of Christ have, by virtue of that fact, a right to
sacramental communion with the church. All We want is
the evidence that they have been regenerated by the Holy
Spirit; and, giving this, they have a right to commemorate
with us in sacramental communion the sacrificial death of
Christ on which his church is founded. This position is
substantially admitted by the Baptists themselves. The
reader will be surprised at the following admissions of some
of the most eminent Baptist authorities :—
" The design of the great Institutor was that it [the
Lord's Supper] should be a memorial of God's love to us
and of Immanuel's death for us. To give real evidence
of that heavenly affection, [brotherly love,] there must be
the exercise of such tempers and the performance of such
actions as require much self-denial, &c. The reader, there¬
fore, will do well to remember that the true test of love to
the disciples of Christ is not a submission to any particular
ordinance of public worship,—for that is rather an evidence
of love to God and reverence for his authority,—but sympa¬
thizing with them in their afflictions, feeding the hungry,
clothing the naked, and taking pleasure in doing them good,
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
69
whatever their necessities may he."* It is undeniable that
this " true test" is furnished by all evangelical churches;
and therefore they have a right to the sacrament, which is
"a memorial of God's love to them and Immanuel's death
for them." Again: " Do they [the Baptists] affirm that
the kingdom of Christ is confined to them? that they only
have the true religion among them ? and that unless men
are of their party they will not he saved? Do they wish
success to none that are employed in the vineyard but
themselves ? or say of others, engaged in the same common
cause, Master, forbid them, because they follow not with
us? On the contrary, do they not profess a warm esteem
and affection for all those, of whatsoever communion, who
love the Lord Jesus Christ and aim to promote his cause in
the world? and do they not give proof of this by holding a
friendly correspondence with them as opportunities offer,
and by cordially joining with them in occasional exercises
of public worship ? It is not the distinguishing tenet of
baptism—how much soever they wish it to prevail—that is
the main bond that knits them in affection to one another:
it is the infinitely-nobler consideration of the relation they
stand in to Christ as his disciples. They hope, therefore,
to be believed when they declare that they most cordially
embrace in the arms of Christian love the friends of Jesus
who differ from them in this point." f What! " the kingdom
of Christ not confined" to the Baptists,—"the true religion"
existing in other churches,—"profess a warm esteem and
affection for all, of whatsoever communion, who love the
Lord Jesus and aim to promote his cause in the world,"—
* Booth's Vindication of the Baptists, Ac.: Baptist Library, vol. i.
p. 46.
f Dr. Stennett's Answer to Mr. Addington, part ii. pp. 284, 285, as
quoted by Booth in his Vindication of the Baptists, Baptist Library,
vol. i. p. 46.
70
concessions of the baptists.
"hold a friendly correspondence" with all such, and "engage
with them in exercises of public worship,"—admit that
" baptism is not the main bond that knits them in affection
to one another," but that this bond is 11 the relation" other
Christians " stand in to Christ and his disciples,"—and
"declare that they most cordially embrace in the
arms of Christian loye the friends of Jesus who
differ from them in this point," and yet deny their
right to the table of the -Lord,—refuse to go further, and
"cordially welcome them to sacramental communion,—
reverse the whole admission by failing to recognise the
main bond, the true spiritual relation of all Christians
to each other,—and thus acknowledge and repudiate a
sacred right in the same breath ! Can the gospel of truth,
justice, and consistency reconcile such a contradiction as
this, or harmonize the cordial admissions and affectionate
professions of the Baptists with their uncompromising
exclusiveness ?
But Christ is one in the churches. How, then, can the
churches be two, or many, except in outward form ? or how
can outward form destroy the unity of those that are one in
Christ ? Where outward forms vary, there is difference in
outward form only, if the unity be not disturbed. But the
Baptists admit that pious Pedobaptist churches are " true
Christian churches;" and hence their difference in outward
form does not disturb their unity with the church of Christ,
for Christ is one in his churches. The church is "the
bride of Christ." Christ has not two brides. Christ is
" the vine." Individuals and individual churches are " the
branches," and they all partake of the same sap. Fruitless
branches are cut off, and foreign branches are not admitted.
The Baptists concede that pious Pedobaptist churches are
fruitful and native branches: how then can one branch
disown another branch when both proceed from the same
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
71
vine and are nourished by the same sap ? Christ is " the
head," and individuals and individual churches are the
"members," and "members one of another," But the
Baptists concede that pious Pedobaptist churches are true
members of Christ, the head. How then can they cut off
from communion with themselves so many members, as they
do, who have communion with Christ as well as themselves ?
Christ is the "door," and all true believers have entered
that door. But the Baptists admit that all pious Pedo¬
baptist churches have entered that door. How then can
they refuse communion with those who have passed the
same threshold with themselves? Christ is "the way,"
and all true believers have found that way. But the Bap¬
tists concede that all pious Pedobaptists have found that
way. How then can they decline communion with those
who are travelling in the same blessed way with them¬
selves ? Christ is the " true light," and all true believers
have found that light. But the Baptists admit that all
pious Pedobaptists have found that light. How then can
they deny communion to those who are travelling to heaven
in the same blessed light with themselves ? Christ is the
" true bread," and all true believers partake of that bread.
The Baptists concede that all pious Pedobaptists have par¬
taken, and still partake, of that bread. How then can they
repel from the table where the gift of that bread is com¬
memorated those who have partaken of and are sustained
by the same bread with themselves ? Christ is the " water
of life," and all true believers drink of that water. But
the Baptists admit that all pious Pedobaptists have found
and drink of that water. How then can they refuse to
drink of that water at the Lord's table with those who have
quaffed, and still quaff, at the same fountain with them¬
selves? Christ is "the Captain" of the Christian army,
and all true believers are his soldiers. The Baptists con-
72
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
cede that all pious Pedohaptists are his soldiers. How then
can they decline to take the oath of allegiance at the Lord's
table with those who are led to battle and conquest by the
same Captain with themselves ? Christ is " the King/' and
all true believers are the subjects of his spiritual kingdom.
The Baptists admit that all pious Pedohaptists are subjects
of his spiritual kingdom. How then can they refuse to sit
down at the table of the King with those who are the sub¬
jects of the same spiritual kingdom with themselves? All
members of the same great spiritual family, on earth and in
heaven, " we are brethren,"—and admitted to be brethren,
and called and loved as brethren,—and yet not permitted
to sit down together at the sacred table of our common
Father, Redeemer, and Comforter! Let the Baptists with¬
draw all these concessions, or abandon their practice. The
concessions are wrong, or their practice is wrong, or Christ
is divided: which? Not the first and last; and, therefore,
the practice of the Baptists is inconsistent both with the
Bible and their own concessions.
It is a remarkable fact that whenever the Baptists frame
a rule in vindication of close communion they either exclude
the Pedohaptists from salvation altogether, or make con¬
cessions that set aside the rule altogether. The evidence
which the Pedohaptists give of faith, and consequently of
their right to the communion, is a difficulty to strict com¬
munion with which the Baptists have never been able
successfully to grapple. Even the acute, profound, and
logical Way land has been driven to the necessity of making
a discrimination to protect the practice of the strict Bap¬
tists. " That which qualifies a man," says he, " essentially
for admission to the Christian church is real discipleship to
Christ, or a temper of heart to obey him in every thing
that he has revealed. This makes him a member of the
holy catholic church. But, besides this, there are various
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
73
points of practical obedience in respect to which real dis¬
ciples may differ; and this difference, though it do not
designate a different temper of heart, yet may nevertheless
render it suitable and proper that those who think alike
should associate more especially with each other. One man
believes that Christ commands him to administer baptism
to infants; another believes this to be the command and
doctrine of men. Both may be equally willing to obey
Christ in whatever they suppose Christ to have com¬
manded; both maybe equally his disciples; yet it is evi¬
dent that both could not unite together in the same church,
for they could not practically obey the same commands.
Hence arises the division of the church into different sects.
It is the natural and healthy result of that freedom of
opinion which springs from Protestantism."* It never yet
has been questioned by a candid Baptist that pious Pedo-
baptists exhibit "a temper of heartrto obey Christ in every
thing that he has revealed;" and Dr. Way land admits that
such«are real disciples of Christ, are "members of the holy
catholic church," and are "qualified for admission to the
Christian church." The distinction which he makes in
opinions which result in " the division of the church into
different sects" cannot justify the exclusion of any from the
Lord's Supper who " are equally his disciples." Difference
in human opinions that do not affect " the essential qualifi¬
cation for admission to the Christian church" may be the
ground of different ecclesiastical organizations, but cannot
render it suitable and proper for one sect to exclude other
sects from a participation in that which is the common
property of all the sects.
Dr. Wayland makes this fatal concession more specifically
in another passage of the same work:—"It may, however,
* Wayland's Human Responsibility, pp. 130,131.
7
74
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
be asked, What then is the bond which unites these differ¬
ent voluntary associations together? I answer, charity,
which is the perfect bond. They are united to each other
by the common bond of union to the same head, of love to
the same Savior; they believe the same doctrines; they
are cheered by the same hopes; they share in the same
sympathies; they feel the same obligations; they encounter
the same enemies, and are enlisted under the banner of the
same Captain of their salvation; they are members of the
same body,—are animated by the same spirit; they ail
breathe the same breath of spiritual life; and hence, all
being in the same manner affected by the same moral
agencies, all their actions are, from the nature of the case,
in harmony."* Where so many elements of spiritual
" harmony" combine, what rule or law can be conceived,
by the strictest Baptist, which can justify exclusion from
sacramental communion ? What contrariety can neutralize
the force of such a compound ? What besides these can
the Baptists claim that is not of imaginary importance or
that may not be justly regarded merely as the discriminating
characteristic of a sect ? Dr. Howell, who professes to have
" copied the sentiments of Dr. Wayland,"f by a strange
infatuation turns the whole force of his eminent author's
sentiments against the intolerance of the Baptist Church.
"If," says he, "by sordid selfishness I show myself desti¬
tute of love to G-od and the souls of men, the church ought
to withdraw from me her fellowship. But to do so because
I choose to exercise my discretion as to the mode of mani¬
festing my Christian spirit, while I evince that I do possess
the required temper of heart, is to dispense with the laws
of Christ and to assume the right to institute other terms
* Wayland's Human Responsibility, p. 142.
■f Howell on Communion, p. 130.
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
75
communion than those which he has appointed,—a
usurpation of authority and a violation of the divine injunc¬
tions against which it is the duty of every sincere Christian
to enter his immediate and most solemn protest."* Most
true; and every word recoils with the force of self-evidence
upon the practice of the strict Baptists. The doctor must
either deny that pious Pedobaptists fail "to manifest a
Christian spirit," and so, in his judgment, exclude them
from salvation altogether, or admit that, in withdrawing
from sacramental fellowship with them, the strict Baptists
" dispense with the laws of Christ," institute new terms of
communion, usurp authority, and violate the injunctions
of Christ, against which it is his duty, as a sincere Christian,
" to enter his immediate and most solemn protest."
In a circular of the Hudson River Association, New
York, written by Dr. Cone, it is asserted, "If the primitive
churches received only such as professed to be born of God
and gave evidence that they were begotten again unto a
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we should
imitate their example; and, if there come unto us any and
bring not this doctrine, we are commanded not to receive
them into our houses, neither to bid them God-speed; for
he that biddeth them God-speed is partaker of their evil
deeds: and how can we more fully do this than to receive
them to our communion ? All candidates, therefore, for
communion or membership must give evidence that they
are born again. This is the first scriptural term of com¬
munion ;" and Dr. Howell adds, " And the second is, that
they shall have entered the church by baptism"f Do not
pious Pedobaptists give the most satisfactory "evidence
that they are born again" ? The Baptists admit that they
do. They have, then, "the first scriptural term of com-
* Howell on Communion, p. 33. f Ibid. p. 36.
76
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
munion." But they have not, it is supposed, "the second,"
which is "baptism;" and therefore they are not to he
received into the houses of the Baptists nor have the en¬
couragement of a God-speed from the Baptists, but are to be
regarded as evil-doers, who would involve the Baptists in
their evil deeds by communing with them. They must be not
only turned out of the doors of Baptist houses, but from the
covenant of God, and consigned to the doom of evil-doers.
This is justified under the pretence o'f "imitating the
example of the primitive churches." These are that repro¬
bate class who " give evidence that they are begotten again
to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead," who, in the judgment of Dr. Wayland, "are
members of "the same body, are animated by the same spirit,
breathe the same breath of..spiritual life, believe the same
doctrines, are cheered by the same hopes, share in the same
sympathies, feel the same obligations, encounter the same
enemies, are enlisted under the banner of the same Captain,
are-united by the same bond of union to the same Head, are
affected in the same manner by the same moral agencies,
and all whose actions, from the nature of the case, are in
harmony" with those who repel and denounce them as evil¬
doers ; and for whom, " as the people of God," Dr. Howell
" cherishes the sincerest regard;" and with whom, he says,
the Baptists "preach, pray, labor, consult, and co-operate
for the spread of the gospel, and take pleasure in being
associated ' in every good word and work.'" These are
the evil-doers who are to be scrupulously excluded from the
sanctities of social and sacramental intercourse! I leave
the reader to judge which has a better right to the com¬
munion,—he who exalts a peculiar opinion into a command
of God that excludes His people from salvation, or he who,
with these concessions in his favor made by the excluding
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS. 77
party, is chargeable with an involuntary mistake,—if it be
a mistake!
But we proceed a step further. The concessions of the
Baptists essentially involve the conclusion that exclusive
immersion—the distinguishing characteristic and foundation
of the Baptist Church—is not in harmony with the precepts
and spirit of the gospel, and consequently untenable. This
is a serious position; and, bold as it may, appear, the con¬
cessions of the Baptists establish it. The precepts of the
gospel are always in harmony with the Spirit; that is, what
the Holy Spirit enjoins is always in harmony- with his
operations. Consequently, nothing is enjoined in the gos¬
pel as a matter of duty on Christians which clashes with
the operations of the Spirit in believers. The precepts of
Christ as contained in the gospel, and the Spirit of Christ
as contained in the operations of the Spirit in believers,
never propel the believer in opposite directions. If we are
doubtful as to the import of the precepts of Christ, but are
clear and satisfied as respects the Spirit of Christ, and our
interpretation of the precepts palpably comes in conflict
with the Spirit of Christ, we have certain evidence that
our interpretation of the precepts is wrong and should be
abandoned or modified to harmonize with the Spirit. The
same may be said with regard to what the Baptists call
"apostolic precedents." If the import we give to these
precedents comes in conflict with the clear and indubitable
spirit of the New Testament, we have the most satisfactory
evidence that the import we have given to the precedents
is wrong and should be abandoned or modified, as just now
affirmed. Now, pious Pedobaptists display in heart and life
the Spirit of Christ to the extent the Baptists do, to say no
more; and this the Baptists admit. But the exclusiveness
of the Baptists directly clashes with this genuine evangelical
spirit of the Pedobaptists. Hence, the Baptists must either
78 CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
abandon their exclusiveness or deny the genuineness and
purity of the spirit of the Pedobaptists. The most violent
Baptist does not pretend to do the latter; and hence the
Baptists should abandon or modify the import which they
give to the precepts of Christ and the "precedents" of the
apostles respecting baptism, and the dependence of the
eucharist upon it. They must either assume that Pedo¬
baptists have not received, and do not display, the Spirit
of Christ to the extent they have received and display it,
or admit that the very foundation of the Baptist Church,
exclusive immersion, with its concomitant, close communion,
is unsupported by the precepts of Christ and the "pre¬
cedents" of the apostles, and so is a mere human invention,
or fiction of the imagination. This much is undeniable,—
that Pedobaptists evince the spirit of the precepts of Christ
and precedents of the apostles in a most eminent degree;
and the evidence is yet wanting that they have miscon¬
strued, in any essential particular, the external import of
those precepts and precedents, and time enough has
elapsed to justify the assertion that they run no hazard of
ever being convinced of the contrary; and surely the Bap¬
tists have evidence sufficient to convince them that they
have incorrectly construed and improperly applied the pre-
(fepts and precedents on the subject of baptism.
If the Baptists reply that, under their construction and
application of these precepts and precedents, they have
flourished as a church of Christ, we observe, this avails
nothing; for the Pedobaptists can employ the same argu¬
ment in proof of the correctness of their construction and
application of the same precepts and precedents; and then
the conclusion is, that outward forms are unessential so they
do not clash with the spirit and efficiency of the gospel;
and therefore the Baptists should not raise a barrier to
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
79
sacramental communion where none really is justified or
required by the spirit of the gospel.
Again: participation in the communion is a recognition
of believers as actual partakers by faith of the spiritual
blessings of the sacrificial death of Christ. In the language
of Robert Hall, " In its secondary import, it is intended as
a solemn recognition of each other as members of Christ,
and consequently, in the language of St. Paul, 'as one
body and one bread.' Now, we either acknowledge Pedo-
baptists to be Christians, or we do not. If not, let us speak
out without reserve, and justify their exclusion at once,
upon a broad and consistent basis."* But the Baptists
acknowledge that the Pedobaptists, in spirit and life, are
Christians in the highest sense. Therefore the "exclusion"
is inconsistent both with the import of the eucharist and
concessions of the Baptists; and so the basis of the Bap¬
tists' exclusiveness and restriction is imaginary.
Mr. Booth makes an attempt to explain away these
palpable inconsistencies. "But is there no difference be¬
tween occasionally admitting Pedobaptist ministers into our
pulpits, and receiving them, or others of the same persua¬
sion, into our communion,"—that is, to the Lord's table ?
"Were we," he answers, "to receive Pedobaptists into our
fellowship, we should practically allow what we consider a
human invention to supersede a divine institution. Not so
when we admit ministers of that persuasion into our pul¬
pits. In this case there is no divine institution superseded,
no human invention in the worship of God encouraged.
Again : when we admit Pedobaptist ministers into our pul¬
pits, it is in expectation that they will preach the gospel,—
that very gospel which we believe and love, and about
which there is no difference between them and us. But to
* Hall's "Works, vol. i. p. 324.
80
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
receive Pedobaptists into communion would be openly to
connive at an error,—an error both in judgment and prac¬
tice; an error of that kind wbich the Scripture calls 'will-
worship and the traditions of men."'* Here is a plain
recognition of the authority of Pedobaptist ministers to
preach: and have "men a divine authority to preach, and
yet no right to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ? a right
to occupy the pulpits of Christ, and no right to the table
of Christ? a right to break tbe bread of life to the Bap¬
tists, and no right to break the sacramental bread with the
Baptists at the table of Christ ? a right to call sinners to
repentance, faith, and salvation, and crowd the communion¬
table in the Baptist churches with young converts, seals to
their ministry, and yet no right to partake with them in
the sacramental feast? The ministry is a divine institution;
and Pedobaptists are invested with it; and their baptism, a
"human invention," is not regarded as a bar to their
preaching: why should it be considered an insurmountable
barrier to the Lord's table ? If their baptism in one case
is "superseded" by their authority to preach, why should
their baptism, or want of baptism, stand in their way to the
Lord's table. If "the worship of God is encouraged" by
admitting Pedobaptist ministers into the pulpit, why may
it not be encouraged by admitting them to the Lord's table?
Would it be "openly to connive at error to receive Pedo¬
baptists into communion," and is it not openly to connive
at the same error to receive them into the pulpit ? "An
error of that kind which the Scripture calls 'will-worship
and traditions of men,'"—why, for these very things per¬
sons were not admitted into the apostolic churches, much
less into the pulpit; and yet the Baptists openly connive
at this kind of error in Pedobaptist ministers, by receiving
* Vindication of the Baptists, Baptist Library, vol. i. p. 66.
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
81
them into their pulpits, and yet not openly connive at the
same thing by receiving them at the Lord's table! And
what aggravates the inconsistency is, these Pedobaptist
ministers preach "that very gospel which the Baptists
believe and love, and about which there is no difference
between them and the Pedobaptists." What right has
any man to preach who has not been baptized ?—who has
neglected the positive institution of baptism ?—or who en¬
cumbers himself with " a human invention" in its place ?
The Baptists will not admit to the Lord's Supper—which is
an ordinance of the gospel—any who have not been im¬
mersed : why do they allow or recognise the right of any
who have not been immersed to preach the gospel itself?
There is no escape from the dilemma, either to deny the
divine authority, of Pedobaptists to preach the gospel, or
admit their right to sacramental communion.
This inconsistency of the Baptists is aggravated still more
by another consideration, founded on " Baptist principles,"
as they are pleased to call them, and which for the present
we will admit to be sound. The order with them when
arguing from the Scriptures is, first, faith and conversion,
then baptism, then the Lord's Supper. This with them
must be the invariable order. Granted: but a man must
be converted before he can have a divine authority to
preach; and the ministry is the noblest, most solemn, and
most exalted institution of Christianity. But Pedobaptist
ministers have divine authority to preach,—that is, are
invested with the highest office committed by Christ to
men. Then they have believed and are converted. But
they have never been baptized,—the Baptists being judges.
What! converted, and straightway, without baptism, enter
upon the work of the highest office in the church ? What
becomes of " Baptist principles" here ? The very first duty
after faith and conversion has been neglected. The Baptists
82
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
"connive" at the violation of their own principles,—the
want of an essential link in an invariable order,—become a
party to the offence, receive into the pulpit the usurpers,
"set aside a divinely-appointed prerequisite" (baptism) to
admission into the church,—much more, into the holy office
of the ministry,—and yet consider the offence sufficient
for exclusion from the sacramental table! Unbaptized men
are authorized to preach, but they have no right to the Lord's
table, though the Lord himself converted, called, and author¬
ized them to preach,—the Baptists themselves being judges !
It is not surprising that Mr. Booth should feel annoyed
by this inconsistency, and so he attempts to defend the
practice of the Baptists upon scriptural grounds; but the
very attempt yields the whole ground to the Pedobaptists.
"We find in that inspired volume [the Bible] a sufficient
warrant for uniting with those that believe, in affection and
walk, so far as agreed, notwithstanding their ignorance of
some part of the counsel of God, to which a conscientious
obedience is indispensably required from all those by whom
it is known. Yes; the New Testament not only permits as
lawful, but enjoins as an indispensable duty, that we should
love them that love the Lord, and that we should manifest
this holy affection in every way that is not inconsistent with
a revelation of the divine will in some other respect."*
And he refers us to Phil. iii. 15,16. Here is the passage :
—"Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded;
and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall
reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereunto we have
already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind
the same thing." This is Mr. Booth's vindication of the Bap¬
tists for receiving Pedobaptist ministers into their pulpits.
Philippi was the first city in Europe in which Paul
* Vindication of the Baptists, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 66.
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
83
preached the gospel; and the Epistle to the Philippians was
written by him. The church in Philippi was remarkable
for its purity and piety, and was the apostle's favorite
church. Prom the whole tone and letter of the epistle, no
apostolic church enjoyed greater freedom from false doc¬
trine, or was more firmly settled in the fundamental prin¬
ciples of the gospel, than this church; and so we may
conclude, if any church conformed fully to the gospel-
standard, this church did. - They were all then baptized,
and all enjoyed the privilege of sacramental fellowship. If
the passage quoted by Mr. Booth in defence of receiving
Pedobaptist ministers into Baptist pulpits, therefore, has
any force in it, the Baptists should also extend sacramental
communion to Pedobaptist ministers and other Christians;
for those among the Philippians who were not " perfect,"
or were " otherwise minded," were admitted to this privi¬
lege. " As far as they were agreed," or though they had
not all attained to the same perfection in spiritual knowledge
and moral perfection, they were all admitted to the Lord's
table. This is undeniable. If those who had not attained
to this perfection were admitted to the Lord's table, then
the analogy of Mr. Booth fails. If such were not admitted
to the Lord's table, then many already in the church were
excluded because they had not been baptized; and the
apostle himself also had no right to the Lord's table, for he
acknowledges that he had not " already attained, either were
already perfect." (v. 12.) And so, if Paul, with this con¬
fession, were now to appear on earth, the Baptists would
not admit him to their pulpits, and would repel him from
the Lord's table, though they publish him to the world as
divine authority for their " principles and practice" ! The
"inspired volume is a sufficient warrant for uniting with
those that believe, in affection and walk, as far as agreed;"
but defect or disagreement in the Philippian church in fact
84: CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
did not exclude any from the Lord's table. Therefore, the
Philippians being the standard, the Baptists and Pedo-
baptists are sufficiently agreed to unite in sacramental
fellowship.
But Mr. Booth develops a " lawful" practice and " an
indispensable duty" from the Philippian analogy. " Yes;
the New Testament not only permits as lawful, but enjoins
as an indispensable duty, that we should love them that love
the Lord, and that we should manifest this holy affection in
every way that is not inconsistent with a revelation of the
divine will in some other respect." But imperfect Christians
in the Philippian church were not excluded from the Lord's
table. Therefore, the practice of the Philippian church
being the standard, it would not only be " lawful" in the
Baptists to admit Pedobaptist ministers and other Christians
to the Lord's table, but it is their " indispensable duty"
to do it. The whole argument here proceeds upon the
supposition that Pedobaptist ministers and other Christians
are imperfect Christians, and that the Baptists are "perfect"
Christians. No matter: the result in the argument is the
same as if all were perfect alike, as all have an equal right
to the Lord's table. But we are not willing to concede the
superior excellence of the Baptists as a church; nor do we
underrate them among the churches of Christ. "We claim
right to the Lord's table upon equal ground with them,—
no more. Only we are surprised that they should yield us
in-some things more than sacramental communion, and yet
deny us that.
But J. G-. Fuller, a learned and liberal Baptist of Eng¬
land, in his strictures upon Kobert Hall's unanswerable
arguments in favor of open communion, carries the matter
of concession through, in admitting that it is right for
Pedobaptists to receive the communion in their own
churches. The concession of Mr. Fuller is the more
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
85
important as he admits that Mr. Hall is " the most powerful
advocate" of open communion, and the Baptists regard Mr.
Fuller's reply as the best that has been made or can be
made. Mr. Fuller's reply is presented in the form of
" Conversations between two Laymen on Strict and Mixed
Communion."
The "layman" for open communion observes, "Mr.
Hall contends that sincere and conscientious Pedobaptists,
whose mistake is involuntary, are entitled to a participation
of the privileges of church-fellowship." Mr. Fuller con¬
cedes, "They who honestly believe, after an impartial
investigation of the best evidence, that they have received
Christian baptism, that they have entered the visible church
in the way of divine appointment, are undoubtedly entitled
to its peculiar privileges. They act on their own belief
and on their own responsibility: consequently, on their own
principles, they do right in partaking of the Lord's Supper,
though in our opinion unbapfized,—their conviction and not
ours being the proper directory."* We will let Mr. F.
conscientiously entertain the " opinion" that pedobaptism is
no baptism, and yet accept his concession that conscientious
Pedobaptists " do right in partaking of the Lord's Supper."
If we do right, we have the sanction and blessing of God;
and what more could the Baptists require to justify a cordial
reciprocation in sacramental communion ?
Again: "We assert not only that the possession of the
thing signified entitles its possessor to the sign, but also
that, being so qualified, he is under an obligation to receive
it."f That is, in the judgment of Mr. Fuller, Pedobaptists,
being Christians, as he admits them to be, are entitled to
* Conversations on Strict and Mixed Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i.
p. 224.
f Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 250.
8 •
86
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
immersion, and they are " under obligation to receive it."
But they have not been immersed: therefore they have
violated their obligation to receive " the sign." But they
have "the thing signified" though they have violated the
obligation to receive "the sign." At best, then, it is
obvious that the Baptists' idea of the sign is of no mate¬
rial importance; and hence the absence of their "sign,"
immersion, should not be made a bar to sacramental com¬
munion. It should rather remind the Baptists that after
all they are greatly in error about " the sign," and that the
Pedobaptists have violated no obligation in the matter.
Again: "'He who is sanctified and redeemed is not only
entitled to the symbols,—sanctification and redemption,—
but is under a sacred obligation to be baptized and celebrate
the Lord's Supper,"* But Pedobaptist Christians are both
" sanctified and redeemed," though they have never been
immersed. The Baptists, then, attach too much import¬
ance to immersion; and they consequently prevent the
Pedobaptists from discharging " a sacred obligation" when
they prohibit them to "celebrate the Lord's Supper" in
Baptist churches.
* Fuller on Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. i, p. 250.
concessions op the baptists.
87
CHAPTER YI.
concessions op the baptists, (continued.)
We continue the concessions of the Baptists.
"The spiritual 'body of Christ' is indeed a 'glorious
church.' This is the catholic or universal church. To
this belong none but the truly regenerate: they are the
members of this society, knit together by a union not
imaginary, but most sweet and dear and imperishable.
Against this church the gates of hell shall never prevail.
We rejoice in the hope that in all the visible churches of
different denominations there are those who are united with
us in this spiritual church. We delight to feel ourselves one
with them,—one in spirit, one in aim, one in ' a good hope
through grace;' in short, one in Christ. The communion
of this body, however, is not in material emblems, as bread
and wine : it is spiritual; it is the fellowship of soul with
soul; nor can walls, nor mountains, nor oceans, nor ages,
separate those who are thus cemented."* How then can
the wall of close communion separate them? It should do
it, if "spiritual union" is " imaginary." Again : "I know,
I rejoice to know, that in Pedobaptist churches there are
some of the noblest lights and ornaments of Christianity.
With these we esteem it a privilege to enjoy the closest
spiritual communion, and we only lament that they con¬
tinue unbaptized."f "We gladly admit that, so far as the
spiritual qualifications are concerned, there are evangelical
* R. Puller on Baptism and Communion, pp. 220, 221.
t Ibid. p. 238.
88
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
churches whose care in receiving none hut the converted is
at the present time generally as great as our own, on the
whole." (Curtis's Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 407.)
Again: " So far as our Presbyterian, Congregational, and
Methodist brethren are concerned, as a whole, we believe
that membership of any of their churches now would be in
general as credible an evidence of personal piety as we could
desire." (p. 407.) Immersion, then, would not enhance
the evidence, and hence give no better title to communion
than they now possess.
"In this country [America] it seems to be generally
admitted as a truth that, without loving each other less, all
Christians can act more efficiently by resolving themselves
into churches constituted on their own views in regard to
those divine ordinances which it is part of the duty of those
organizations as such to uphold."* Again: " To each of
these it belongs to celebrate it as one family. The mem¬
bers of that particular church are to be tarried for, and it
is to be a symbol of their relations as members to each
other. Other things are no doubt signified, but this none
the less. In all ordinary cases it should be partaken of by
each Christian in the particular church of which he is a
member." f Again: " Each church is a living body, to
which the Savior has given in charge both the oracles and
ordinances. All agree that it is a duty of visible churches
as such to uphold baptism to the best of their knowledge
and power, although not uniting as to the nature and sub¬
jects of baptism."| Again : "Another mistake often made
is, that we are supposed at least to ' unchurch' all other
denominations, or say in effect that we do not consider them
true visible churches of Christ."§ We are glad to see this
* Curtis's Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 291. f Ibid. p. 807.
J Ibid. p. 309. | Ibid, p. 404.
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
89
mistake corrected. If Professor Curtis can prove that a
true visible church of Christ is not entitled to sacramental
communion with the Baptist Church, he can prove any¬
thing.
Mr. Remington, in his "Farewell Letter to his late
[Methodist] Charge," observes, " I am soon to take up my
lot and inheritance with another tribe of our common Israel;
and the recollection that we belong to the same common
family will always afford me no small degree of pleasure."
But all the tribes of ancient Israel, without distinction, had
an equal right to the Passover, whicli has been substituted
by the Lord's Supper. What "pleasure" can the "recol¬
lection that we belong to the same common family" afford
him who shuts other members of the family out of doors ?
Why should Mr. Remington leave one tribe for another, or
refuse the Lord's Supper to those who he acknowledges
" belong" with him "to the same common family" ? This
concession of Mr. Remington virtually cancels his renuncia¬
tion of the Methodists. But he goes further, much further,
and avows the warmest attachment of a spiritual child for
the Methodist Church. Says he, "I love the Methodist
Church. I love her for her simplicity, for her zeal, for her
unity of evangelical faith, for her experimental and prac¬
tical piety, for her revival-spirit, for her zeal in the mission¬
ary cause, for her activity in every religious and benevolent
enterprise, for her institutions by which to fan up the flame
of vital godliness in the church and to keep her membership
alive to Cod. Why should I not love her? She has been a
mother to me. She took me in youth and inexperience, and
bore with my ignorance and mistakes. She has carried me in
her arms, and always treated me with the utmost kindness
and tenderness. Under Cod, I owe much to her instruction,
forbearance, and fostering care. I leave her communion
with deep emotion. I leave her ministry with feelings
s*
90
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
unutterable; for there are hundreds iu her self-sacrificing
ministry to whom my heart has been wedded by many a
'tie that binds our hearts in Christian love/ I leave a
flourishing church to go to another equally so : and remem¬
ber, this is my last prayer while within the walls of the
Methodist Episcopal Church:—' Peace be within thy walls,
and prosperity within thy palaces !' "* One would think,
from reading these "farewell" sentences, that Mr. Remington
had wellnigh finished his earthly pilgrimage, and was pre¬
pared to go home to heaven, had he not told us that he
was going to join the Baptist Church. At least he was, it
seems, in a fair way to be saved, and in a church itself
doing great good; and it is not likely that he would have
run greater jeopardy of being finally lost by continuing in
the Methodist Church till death than he now does in the
Baptist Church. How any man, with so many excellent
reasons to continue in, could retire from, the Methodist
Church, has never yet been made sufficiently plain in argu¬
ment; or why he should decline sacramental communion
with his own spiritual mother and brethren and sisters,
and perhaps spiritual children, can never be reasonably
vindicated.
Mr. Kinghorn, and all other close communion Baptists,
affirm that " the church of Christ, acting upon the rule he
has laid down, cannot recognise any person as his disciple
who is not baptized in his name."f And yet Mr. Kinghorn
often expresses his confidence in the piety of the Pedobap-
tists, and acknowledges that he does not exclude them from
communion because of "suspicions attaching to their Chris¬
tian character."! And so Baptist writers generally con-
* Remington's Reasons for Becoming a Baptist, pp. 62, 63.
■f Kinghorn's Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 140.
X Ibid. p. 67.
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
91
cede. On this palpable inconsistency Mr. Hall remarks,
t( While the advocates of strict communion are shocked at
the idea of suspecting the piety of their Pedobaptist
brethren, they contend it would be criminal to recognise it
in the church. What mysterious place is this, in which
we are forbidden to acknowledge a truth proclaimed with¬
out scruple everywhere else?—which possesses the property
of darkening every object enclosed within its limits, and
of rendering Christians invisible and impalpable to each
other? In the broad daylight of the world, notwithstanding
their minor differences, they are recognised with facility;
but the moment we enter the sombrous gloom of a Baptist
church we are lost from each others' view, and, like those
who visited the cave of Trophonius, return pale, dejected,
and bewildered. Of such societies we might be almost
tempted to exclaim, ' My soul, come not thou into their
secret, and to their assembly be not thou united!' Shocked
as we are at such illiberality, we suppress the emotions
which naturally arise on the occasion, remembering (strange
as it may seem) how often it is associated with talents the
most respectable and piety the most fervent."*
The entertainment of an opinion admitted not to be in
opposition to salvation nor pernicious in practice cannot
justify exclusion from sacramental communion. It is ad¬
mitted that pious Pedobaptists are in a state of salvation,
and that they will be finally saved. That their opinions
are not pernicious in practice therefore follows; for what is
pernicious in practice is in opposition to salvation. Pious
Pedobaptists, therefore, should not be excluded from sacra¬
mental fellowship; that is, until it can be shown that the
opinions and practice of pious Pedobaptists are in opposi¬
tion to salvation, they cannot be justly excluded from the
* Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 422.
92
concessions op the baptists.
Lord's table. In other words; a general rule made and
enforced in indication of the purity and efficiency of the
gospel, but which excludes from sacramental fellowship
those who are acknowledged, to be among the purest and
most efficient witnesses of the gospel, cannot be obligatory,
and should be annulled, since it deprives of a privilege to
which such witnesses are entitled by the gospel itself.
Such a rule is not susceptible of any proof, either by the
principles of Scripture or by any reasoning whatever.
"Instead of losing ourselves in a labyrinth of metaphysical
subtleties, our only safe guide is an appeal to facts; and
here we find from experience that the sentiments of the
Pedobaptist may consist with the highest attainments of
piety exhibited in modern times, with the most varied and
elevated forms of moral grandeur, without impairing the
zeal of missionaries, without impeding the march of con¬
fessors to their prisons or of martyrs to the flames."*
CHAPTER VII.
concessions op the baptists, (continued.)
The reply of the Baptists to the argument drawn from
spiritual communion enjoyed by the Pedobaptists at the
Lord's table is amusing; and we give Dr. Howell's reasoning
as an example :—"But a moment's thought," says he, "is
necessary to show that all this, and much more of the same
character, is the merest verbal nonsense. Do they mean ta
say that Jesus Christ comes literally to their table, and
actually eats bread and drinks wine with them, when they
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 349.
CONCESSIONS or THE BAPTISTS.
93
celebrate tbe sacrament of tbe Lord's Supper ? How then
does he commune with them on earth ? By sympathy with
them, by bestowing his favor on them, and by the blessings
of his holy Spirit."* We reply, Do the Baptists mean
to say that Christ comes literally to their table, and actually
eats bread and drinks wine with them, when they celebrate
his sacramental supper ? Not at all. How then does he
commune with them ? By sympathy with them, by bestow¬
ing his favor on them, and by the blessings of his Spirit in
the proper observance of the eucharist. Pious Pedobaptists
claim no more for themselves; and hence they have as good
an evidence of the spiritual presence of Christ in their
hearts and of his sanction in celebrating the sacrament of
his Supper as the Baptists have. In what other sense does
Christ commune with the Baptists in the sacramental
observance ? Do they mean that Christ is literally present
in the bread and wine, or that he is spiritually present in
those symbols? If the former, then they are Roman
Catholics; if the latter, then they have adopted the error
of Luther on the subject of the eucharist. If they mean
neither, then the doctor's reply is " the merest verbal non¬
sense," since pious Pedobaptists mean just what the Bap¬
tists mean when they say that Christ communes with them
in the celebration of his supper. I leave the reader to
determine which have the better right to the eucharist, as
Christ "bestows his favor and the blessings of his Spirit" on
both equally and without distinction.
The reply of the Baptists to the argument drawn from
the heavenly communion is not even a plausible sophism,
but a palpable absurdity. It is, "We do not know on
what laws the communion of saints will proceed." The
fact of the heavenly communion is all that is material to
* Terms of Communion, p. 113.
94
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
the argument; and this is conceded. The manner of the
heavenly communion is immaterial; but, whatever the
manner may be, we know, from the Scriptures, that it will
be spiritual, and this we know from experience is the nature
of the communion of saints on earth. This is one point
of identity. The heavenly communion will be universal;
spiritual communion on earth is universal; and this is
another feature of identity. The heavenly communion will
be founded upon a holy nature; spiritual communion on
earth is founded upon a holy nature; and this is another
feature of identity. The heavenly communion will proceed
upon the immutable principles of the divine nature;
spiritual communion on earth proceeds upon the same prin¬
ciples; and this is another feature of identity. The
heavenly communion will be an advance upon the spiritual
communion of the saints on earth, taking up in it all the
preceding stages of spiritual progress on earth, as the
matured fruit is but the perfection and consummation of the
entire antecedent process of development, and holds the
relation that a part does to a whole or the incipiency does
to the end. What is open and free in a retributive state
should not be embarrassed or restricted in a probationary
state, since the latter state is preparatory to the former;
and, therefore, restricted communion, being opposed to
spiritual communion, places the two states of the church in
opposition. What is not right on earth cannot be ratified
in heaven; and what is right in heaven cannot be wrong on
earth. But all Christians do commune with each other in
heaven: therefore all Christians should commune with each
other on earth. No church has authority to impose on its
members what will not be ratified in heaven; and only what
is imposed consistently with the gospel will be ratified in
heaven. But open communion is practised by all the saints
in heaven; and, therefore, what the Baptist Church in this
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
95
particular "binds on earth will be loosed in heaven/' and
so what will be " loosed" in heaven surely never should be
" bound" or practised on earth, for the Supreme Legislator
never will ratify the abuse of his laws, nor sanction a prac¬
tice of his church on earth which clashes with the practice
of his church in heaven; and the church, if possible, should
correct on earth what will be corrected in heaven. Saints
will commune with angels in heaven: certainly saints are
worthy of communion with each other on earth. The sup¬
position that the manner of spiritual communion in heaven
will be different from sacramental communion on earth is
admissible; but the difference supposed does not prevent
the external communion of all the saints in heaven,—for the
internal spiritual communion entitles to the external com¬
munion, whatever it is. That is, whatever are the outward
forms and privileges of the heavenly communion, all the
saints are admitted to them, and they have no better title
to these than they have to the outward forms and privileges
of church-worship on earth: indeed, because they have a title
to the former they have, a title to the latter; or, rather,
because they have a title to the latter they have a title to
the former; for no one has a right to the privileges and
blessings of the church in heaven who has not a right to
the blessings and privileges of the church on earth. Set
aside the right of any one to the privileges of the church in
heaven, and you have set aside his right to the privileges
of the church on earth,—and not before. Admit the right
of any one to the privileges of the church in heaven, and
you have admitted his right to the privileges of the church
on earth; and no argument can set aside this right. Heaven
is a place inconceivably happy,- holy, and glorious; and why
a title to this place, with all its privileges, does not neces¬
sarily involve a title to a seat at the Lord's table on earth,
can never be made out. Communion with Giod is the
96
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
highest communion of which holy men and angels are
capable; and why a right to this communion in the highest
heaven is not enough to entitle saints to sacramental com¬
munion on earth can never be shown. I see not how God
Can any more condemn his church for admitting his children
to his table on earth than he can condemn himself for
admitting his children to his presence in heaven; that is,
how God can any more condemn his church for admitting
to his table on earth those of his children whom she believes
to be in error than he can condemn himself for admitting to
his presence in heaven those of his children whom he knows
to be involuntarily in error,—admitting that they are in
error. What higher or safer standard can the church have
for its conduct than the conduct of God himself ? or what
better plea can the church offer for its course in so plain a
case than the course of God himself? Surely that zeal for
God must be extravagant which transcends the bounds God
has fixed for himself. In such a case I say to God he must
modify his course and harmonize it with mine to protect
his government and laws; and so I exalt myself above God,
and subject my conscience, and aim to subject the consciences
of others, to the authority of a law unknown in the entire
system of obligations. From the very nature and tendency
of such a lofty position ought I not to suspect that I have
committed a serious error of some sort? In settling the
principles of my conduct, I cannot do right when I deviate
from the conduct of God. Whatever may be my convictions
and impressions, derived from habit, education, and religious
associations, or however the success and permanence of my
peculiar tenets and practices may be involved in the con¬
tinuance of my present course, I must alter or abandon it,
in whole or in part, as the case may be, and at once, if it
clash, and as far as it clashes, with the conduct of God: as
though God commanded me out of heaven in an audible
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
97
voice to obey, I must obey, though my sect, as a separate
sect, in the instant of obedience vanish from the world.
Whether such would be the fate of the Baptist Church upon
the abandonment of strict communion is not the question;
but the conclusive vindication of pious Pedobaptists to sacra¬
mental communion, and the utter refutation of the claims
of the Baptists to restricted communion, are contained in
the concessions of the Baptists in regard to the heavenly
communion; for the principles, rights, and privileges
involved in it, and the conduct of God deducible from it,
form a sure and solid basis on which open communion is
established and strict communion overturned.
Dr. Howell's reply to the argument from the anticipated
communion in heaven is equally amusing with the pre¬
ceding. "We shall commune, say they, [Pedobaptists,] in
heaven. Why not, therefore, commune together on earth ?
Is it true that we shall actually sit down at the communion¬
table in heaven and literally eat bread and drink wine in a
sacramental sense? No one, I imagine, supposes that such
will be the case. If not,—if we happily reach 1 the better
land,'—our communion will be wholly spiritual. We shall,
therefore, assuredlyj never commune with Pedobaptists in
any manner in heaven in which we do not now commune
with them on earth."* That is, as the communion of saints
in heaven will not be in eating literal bread and wine, but
wholly spiritual, therefore we shall never commune with
Baptists in heaven otherwise than as we now commune with
them on earth. This is a conclusion false in fact, for the
Baptists do not on earth commune with Pedobaptists at all
in a sacramental sense,—which is undeniably a manner of
communion not observed in heaven. Besides, if the absence
of literal sacramental communion will open the way for
* Terms of Communion, pp. 113, 114.
9
98
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
spiritual communion in heaven, why should the presence
of the former prevent the latter on earth ? If in heaven
—where there is no sacramental communion—all saints
enjoy spiritual communion, why should not all saints enjoy
sacramental communion on earth ? If all saints shall enjoy
spiritual communion with each other in heaven,—where, so
far as we know, there is no sort of sacramental communion,
—why should they not all enjoy spiritual communion with
each other in the sacramental observance on earth ? Why
raise a barrier to spiritual communion on earth which can
have no place in heaven ? Further: we shall not pray
together in heaven : why do Baptists pray with Pedobaptists
on earth? Nor shall we preach in heaven, and conse¬
quently cannot exchange pulpits there: why do Baptists
exchange pulpits with Pedobaptists on earth ? Finally: if
the eucharist is the symbol of Christ's sacrificial death and
the pledge of the bestowment of spiritual communion in
heaven,—and consequently, when the pledge is redeemed
and the design of the symbol consummated, the eucharist
will no longer be of any service,—why then repel the saints
from the eucharist while as a symbol and a pledge it is of
service ?
The concession that pious Pedobaptist churches do right
in observing the Lord's Supper involves more than the
Baptists seem to imagine. The Baptists consider the irre¬
sistible evidences which pious Pedobaptists give of Christian
character, and they are compelled to acknowledge that they
have an incontestable right to the Lord's Supper in their
own churches; but the question of open communion is
another matter, involving, as they indeed needlessly sup¬
pose, the abandonment of exclusive immersion and the
suspension of opposition to infant baptism. These are the
real difficulties j and so they cut the gordian knots by setting
up a separate communion. But it does not follow that,
CONCESSIONS OF THE BAPTISTS.
99
while Pedobaptists do right in observing the eucharist in
their churches, that the Baptists do right in declining to
commune with them. One thing is most obvious: the
Baptists encounter the piety of those whom they regard as
unbaptized; and a real apprehension exists lest, if com¬
munion with pious Pedobaptists be allowed, the Baptist
Church will ultimately be absorbed in the Pedobaptist
churches. This is the opinion of Baptist writers generally,
and Professor Curtis may answer for the rest.
In referring to the history of mixed communion in the
Baptist Church in England, he says, "By degrees the
practice Robert Hall recommended became exceedingly
current in the Baptist churches in that country. To such
lengths were matters carried that many openly declared
themselves not Baptist churches in any sense of the word,
or attached to any particular denomination, but simply
Christian. Sprinkling and immersion were performed in
the same house of worship, as they are in some of these
places to this day. Pedobaptist ministers were called and
settled as pastors when the numbers of persons of that
persuasion became the majority,—as they must frequently
become in a country where the proportion of Baptists is so
exceedingly small. They were sometimes preferred as able
and willing to accommodate all parties, which Baptists could
not. The result of this was found to be that Bajptist
churches lost their distinctive character and influence : the
Pedobaptist churches lost none of theirs. And thus the
question naturally evolved itself, whether it was the duty—
whether it was right, in fact—in those who conscientiously
believed in Baptist sentiments to give up so powerful a
source of influence in their favor as that of church-organiza¬
tion.Self-preservation, then, is at the foundation of strict
* Progress of Baptist Principles, pp. 288, 289.
100
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
communion. It is demonstrative of the weakness of a cause
when it cannot survive the test of piety and Christian
fellowship. The Baptists reiterate from the pulpit and the
press that the Pedohaptists want light, or will not submit
to the guidance of the light, in so plain a case as that of
immersion ; and yet, when they consent to sit together with
them at the Lord's table, they " lose their distinctive cha¬
racter and influence as Baptists," while the Pedohaptists
are changed in no respect. But why should the Baptists
be so apprehensive of the Pedohaptists? In order to open
communion there is no necessity of the abandonment of
distinctive features and principles, or of blending outward
institutions, or of breaking down the institutions of each
other, or of perfect unanimity of opinion in all things,
especially in things not essential to salvation and touching
outward institutes. There is no necessity of one church
being absorbed in another, or of engaging with each other
in church-government, but simply to commune with each
Other, as the open-communion Baptists and Pedohaptists
now do in England. The unity of the visible church does
not consist in subjection to one temporal head, as is claimed
by the Papist; nor does it consist in subjection to one
universal form of church-government and ecclesiastical laws
as administered by men, for these may vary in different
churches without touching the unity of the church; nor
does it consist in a universal subordination to one invariable
form of the ministry. It consists in subjection to Christ as
the only Head of the visible church, in the one faith which
unites every believer to that Head, in the one baptism of the
Spirit which unites the whole body of believers in one
invisible church, and in professing at least to observe the
sacraments of the gospel. He that has these qualifications,
to say nothing of him who conscientiously omits the sacra-
CONCESSIONS OE THE BAPTISTS.
101
ments, has a right to sacramental communion with the
visible church.
The ground taken by the Baptists is wrong, or their con¬
cessions are wrong. They must either abandon their ground
or withdraw their concessions. There is no help: one or
the other must be done. Let us see.
We have already considered their concessions at length,
and we argue. They admit that Pedobaptists are " Christians
and Christian churches," though not "regularly-formed
Christian churches." They admit that they already belong
to " the invisible church, the household of faith;" they
exchange pulpits, &e.; they concede that they have the
sanction and blessing of God on themselves and their works;
in a word, that all they lack to constitute them out-and-out
Christian churches is immersion,—that is, baptism in the
Baptist sense. Now, we reply that the Bible furnishes no
ground whatever for the kind of church which they suppose
the Pedobaptist churches are. The Bible furnishes no
ground on which they may recognise Pedobaptist churches
to the extent they do and yet exclude them from church-
fellowship or sacramental communion. Not one word>
precept, or example can be found in the Bible for this sort
of recognition or half-ground. The Bible knows no middle
ground. The Pedobaptist churches are true churches, or
no churches. They cannot be churches and not churches
at the same time. They may not be perfect churches, for
no churches on earth are perfect, and never will be till the
millennium. If perfection be indispensable to sacramental
communion, then the Baptist Church has no right to it; for
it is not a perfect church, admitting—which we do not—
that it approaches nearer perfection than any other church.
The Bible makes allowances for imperfections,—not for
deliberate or habitual or inveterate sins. If a body of
Christians may be recognised as a Christian church not-
9*
102
CONCESSIONS OP THE BAPTISTS.
withstanding its imperfections, it cannot be excluded from
church-fellowship or sacramental communion, for there is
no ground on which this can be done. A church main¬
taining heresy in doctrine, practising profligacy in life, and
observing corruptions in worship cannot be recognised as
a Christian church in any sense; for such a body is " a
stranger to the household of faith and an alien from the
commonwealth of Israel/' and so must be excluded from
sacramental communion. But a church that does not
deviate so far in rites, ceremonies, and forms of worship
from the gospel as to divest it of the nature, efficiency, and
evidence of a Christian church cannot be excluded from
church-fellowship or sacramental communion. The moment
such a church is admitted to be a Christian church its
imperfections cannot justify its exclusion from church-
fellowship or sacramental communion: otherwise, the
exclusion sets aside the admission ; and there is no ground
in reason or the Bible on which this can be done. Thus,
the ground assumed by the Baptists is wrong, or their con¬
cessions are wrong; and consequently they must withdraw
their concessions, or admit pious Pedobaptist churches to
sacramental communion. Until they withdraw their con¬
cessions, we shall consider them as sufficient reasons why
they should commune sacramentally with pious Pedobaptist
churches, and as a complete refutation of the ground on
which they exclude the latter from the Lord's table.
Unchurch us utterly, or admit us to the Lord's table.
A system inconsistent with itself cannot be true; because
truth is necessarily consistent. No air of sincerity, no
protestations of affection, no concessions and compromises
of policy, no ornaments of eloquence, no vigilance of art,
can invest error with the harmony absolutely essential to
truth, or prevent it from being detected and exposed when
compared with truth. A system connected with so many
unfairness of the baptists.
103
and such concessions and consequences cannot be true.
The concessions of the Baptists contain inevitable self-
contradictions which are fatal to them. If the concessions
be true,—and they are true,—the pretensions of the Baptist
Church in regard to exclusive immersion and close com¬
munion are groundless and nugatory. Which should the
reader believe ?—those who speak absurdly and contradict
themselves, or those who speak rationally and act con¬
sistently? In turning the concessions of the Baptists
against their distinctive peculiarities, we have endeavored
to do as Benaiah did, who "plucked the spear out of a
goodly Egyptian's hand and slew him with it;" and in
the close communion of the Baptists we are reminded of
Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, who blew a
trumpet, and said, "We have no part in David, neither
have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his
tents, 0 Israel! So every man of Israel went up from
David and followed Sheba, the son of Bichri; but the men
of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even to Jeru¬
salem." (2 Sam. xx. 1-2.)
CHAPTER VIII.
unfairness of the baptists.
In this chapter we call attention to one of the most
favorite and successful sophisms employed by the Baptists
in support of close communion. It is that baptism has been
held in all ages and by all denominations as indispensably
prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. This is analogous to
the sophism they employ in proof of exclusive immersion,
.—namely, that all denominations believe immersion is valid
104 UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
baptism. In both instances they endeavor to overawe their
readers by the weight of Pedobaptist authorities. Almost
every Baptist writer on communion, from Abraham Booth
down to Mr. Remington, parades before his reader a column
of venerable and eminent Pedobaptist authorities in favor
of baptism as indispensably prerequisite to sacramental
communion. We shall not stop here to burden our pages
with this august array, but proceed at once to expose the
sophism, after having stated it in the language of its
authors.*
"Nor is this a new opinion or a novel practice; for such
has been the sentiment and such the conduct of the Chris¬
tian church in every age. Before the grand Romish apos¬
tasy, in the very dejpth of that apostasy, and since the
Reformation, both at home and abroad, the general practice
has been to receive none but baptized persons to communion
at the Lord'.s table :"f and here follows a list of learned
* I have lying before me three Baptist works in support of restricted
communion. The first is that of Mr. Booth, of England, in " Vindi¬
cation of the Baptists," republished in this country in the Baptist
Library, vol. i. The second is " Terms of Communion," by Dr. Howell.
And the third is a small pamphlet, entitled "A Defence of Restricted
Communion," by Rev. S. Remington. It is a remarkable fact that these
three writers refer to identically the same authorities. It is obvious
that Dr. Howell has borrowed from Mr. Booth, and Mr. Remington
from Dr. Howell. Mr. Booth, then, is the source of material for the
other two. Mr. B. in some instances has given us the Latin, and in all
cases cited his authorities. Dr. H. abridges the Latin, and gives the
very same citations, though he abridges these too. Mr. R. gives us the
very same quotations without the Latin and without authority. Besides,
in other particulars, Dr. H. borrows from Mr. B., and Mr. R. from Dr.
H.; and Mr. B. gets no credit from Dr. H., and Dr. H. gets none from
Mr. R. "Whether Mr. B. deserved any from Dr. H. is uncertain; that Dr.
H. deserved none from Mr. R. is certain. This is the game these writer*
play on their readers.
f Booth's Vindication of the Baptists, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 43.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
105
Pedobaptist authorities. Dr. Howelftakes the same ground:
—" Baptism has been held in all ages and by all denomi¬
nations to be a divinely-prescribed preliminary to the Lord's
Supper and here follows the very same learned list, and
in the same order, adduced by Mr. Booth. Mr. Kemington
comes next. After quoting several passages of Scripture in
proof " that it was the invariable practice of the apostles to
baptize all believers before they were admitted to the Lord's
table," he observes, " These passages set forth baptism as a
divinely-appointed preliminary to the Lord's Supper, which
has been so held in all ages since the days of Christ and
his apostles by all orthodox denominations." In the next
sentence he quotes Mr. Booth:—" Mr. Booth says, ' Before
the grand Romish apostasy, in the very depth of that apos¬
tasy, and since the Reformation, both at home and abroad,
the general practice has been to receive none but baptized
persons to communion at the Lord's table,"' and then
observes, " This declaration of Mr. B. can be proved by an
abundance of historical data, which sets the question under
consideration beyond the powerof successful contradiction.''^
And then straightway Mr. Remington proves Mr. Booth's
" declaration" with Mr. Booth's " data," for he adduces
Mr. Booth's list of Pedobaptist authorities,—the very same
list and in the very same order which Dr. Howell had bor¬
rowed from Mr. Booth before him.J Mr. Booth is the
substance, and Dr. Howell and Mr. Remington are his
shadows: if, then, we remove the substance, the shadows
must vanish.
The authorities—I give them in the very order in which
each of these writers quotes them—are "Justin Martyr,
* Howell on Communion, p. 51.
t Remington on Restricted Communion, p. 8.
X R. Fuller has the same list; but he honestly gives Mr. Booth credit
for it: Fuller on Baptism and Communion, 2d ed., pp. 234-236.
106
•UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
Jerome, Augustine, Bede, Theophylact, Bonaventure, F.
Spanheim, Lord-Chancellor King, Wall, Dr. Manton, Dr.
Doddridge, and Dr. Dwight."* But all these authorities,
without exception, were Pedobaptists, believed in infant
baptism, and probably were all baptized in infancy. Con¬
sequently they believed that there is no necessity for adult
baptism in order to sacramental communion,—which is pre¬
cisely the opinion of all evangelical Pedobaptists, and point-
blank against the Baptists. Take an example quoted by
Mr. Booth & Co. "Augustine, speaking of administering
the Lord's Supper to infants, remarks, ' Of which certainly
they cannot partake unless they are baptized.'" Of course,
then, Augustine was a Pedobaptist. So of the rest. And
so of Mr. Wesley, quoted also by Mr. Booth. Let then
the Baptists follow their Pedobaptist authorities through,
and admit that Pedobaptist believers have already the in¬
dispensable prerequisite to the Lord's table, and receive
them accordingly, or have done with this perversion and
abuse of authorities. Besides, these authorities did not
believe that immersion was essential to baptism,—which
removes them entirely out of the circle of Baptistical exclu-
siveness; for baptism by sprinkling or pouring is no baptism
at all with the Baptists 3 and the Baptists would repel the
authorities themselves, if they were alive, from the sacra¬
mental table.
It is admitted that many early and modern authorities
maintain that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to
sacramental communion. But then, in the first place, these
authorities believed in the exploded dogma of baptismal
regeneration ; and hence no wonder they fell into the error
* Booth's Vindication of the Baptists, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 44; Dr.
Howell's Terms of Communion, pp. 52-55; Remington on Communion,
pp. 9-10.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
107
that baptism is indispensably prerequisite to sacramental
communion, since no one has a right to the communion
who has not been regenerated. If persons are regenerated
in baptism, then these authorities were right. But the
Baptists do not maintain this doctrine; and therefore they
and their authorities do not agree in the main point at issue.
Secondly, these authorities believed in infant baptism; and
therefore, in their view, at the proper age and after a cer¬
tain course of instruction, infants had a right to the com¬
munion. In this the Baptists and their authorities do not
agree. Thirdly, these authorities did not believe in ex¬
clusive immersion, but in other modes also; and therefore
in this the Baptists and their authorities do not agree.
Fourthly, many of these authorities—the more modern—
positively, powerfully, and unanswerably opposed the pre¬
tensions of the Baptists. It is singular, then, that the
Baptists should refer to them as authorities. Thus, in every
material point the Baptists are not supported, hut opposed,
by their authorities. Had these authorities believed that
baptism is not required in order to regeneration, they would
not have considered it as indispensably prerequisite to com¬
munion. Modern authorities entertain sound views on the
subject, and to them only can we refer in the argument.
Now, do these modern authorities believe in exclusive im¬
mersion as baptism? Not at all. If they do, why do they
give the sacrament to persons baptized by sprinkling or
pouring ? They also believe infant baptism valid, and so,
upon repentance and faith in subsequent life, give the
sacrament to persons baptized in infancy. Let the propo¬
sition be stated as follows,—The Baptists believe immersion
indispensable to admission to the Lord's Supper, and emi¬
nent Pedobaptists believe the same,—and you will see the
glaring sophistry of the proposition in its evident untruth.
Make the proper distinction between baptism and immer-
108
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
sion, and the Pedobaptist authorities are all against the
Baptists.
We may reply to this favorite position of the Baptists in
the form of syllogism :—
The Baptists make baptism prerequisite to sacramental
communion; but the Pedobaptists believe that they are
already baptized: therefore the Pedobaptists have a right
to sacramental communion. But the Baptists regard im¬
mersion as essential to baptism; but the Pedobaptists do
not regard immersion as essential to baptism : therefore the
Baptists must first prove to the Pedobaptists that immersion
is essential to baptism, before the Pedobaptists can acknow¬
ledge that they have no right to sacramental communion.
This has never been done,—but quite the contrary has been
done; and therefore the Pedobaptists cannot waive their
right to the Lord's table.
The Baptists adduce certain authorities for baptism as
prerequisite to sacramental communion; but those authori¬
ties clash with the Baptists as to the nature and mode of
baptism: besides, they believed in infant baptism, which,
in the view of the Baptists, is no baptism at all; and there¬
fore they can be no authority for the exclusiveness of the
Baptists.
Many of the authorities adduced by the Baptists believed
that persons, though baptized in infancy, had no right to
the Lord's table before confirmation; but this dogma both
the Baptists and we reject; and therefore these authorities
must be rejected by the Baptists themselves. Besides,
these authorities, who were Pedobaptists, did not regard the
want of confirmation as a bar to sacramental communion
with other churches, though they required confirmation in
their own churches, and so admitted to the Lord's table
baptized members of other churches, though not confirmed;
and therefore these authorities are against the Baptists.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 109
Lastly, the Baptists assume that the Scriptures require
baptism as prerequisite to sacramental communion, and they
regard immersion as essential to baptism; but we think it
has been proved again and again that the Scriptures make
no such requisition; and therefore baptism should not be
made a prerequisite to sacramental communion.
Indeed, if it be admitted that before the origin of the
Baptist Church the Christian church unanimously con¬
curred in considering baptism as a necessary preliminary
to communion, a material fact is to be taken into con¬
sideration. The precise question now in controversy had
not at this time agitated the Christian church, since at this
time the Baptist Church did not exist; and consequently
conclusions from the opinions of the Christian church to
favor the peculiar views of the Baptist Church subse¬
quently formed must be gratuitous assumptions or deduc¬
tions founded in perversion. Not one authority in ancient
times, nor one authority outside the Baptist Church in
modern times, can be adduced for the dogma of the Baptist
Church on the subject of communion. Had such a dogma
arisen in early times, some historical account of it would
have been preserved; and, as neither party in this contro¬
versy appeals to any thing of the kind, it is incontestable
that the dogma is of modern date. As in corrupt early
ages the church taught that baptism was absolutely essential
to salvation, it is not surprising, we repeat, that it taught
also that baptism was indispensable to communion, which is
an inference deduced from erroneous premises,:—the Bap¬
tists themselves being judges. How, then, can the Baptists
deduce a legitimate conclusion from premises which they
would be the first to disclaim, or support their views by
premises which lie at the foundation of the Papal Church ?
Truth cannot be the product of error. If the Baptists—as
we do—reprobate the heresy of baptismal regeneration, let
10
110
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
them refrain in future from all attempts to overawe us, as
sometimes they vainly attempt to do, by the weight of au¬
thority by which that heresy is supported. "We cannot be
condemned for rejecting conclusions from premises which
the Baptists themselves would not admit as legitimate; and
they are barely excusable for their temerity in adopting
such an unfair expedient to maintain their peculiar opi¬
nions.
But, if we are to appeal to authority, it is wholly against
the Baptists. ' The invincible Robert Hall observes, " They
[close-communion Baptists] are the only persons in the
world of whom we have either heard or read who contend
for the exclusion of genuine Christians from the Lord's
table,—who ever attempted to distinguish them into two
classes, such as are entitled to commemorate their Savior's
death and such as are excluded from that privilege. In
what page of the voluminous records of the church is such
a distinction to be traced ? or what intimation shall we find
in Scripture of an intention to create such an invidious
disparity among the members of the same body? Did it
ever enter the conception of any but Baptists that a right
to the sign could be separated from the thing signified, or
that there could be a description of persons interested in all
the blessings of the Christian covenant and yet not entitled
to partake of its sacraments and seals ? The right of re¬
jecting those whom Christ has received, of refusing the
communion of eminently holy men on account of unessential
differences of opinion, is not the avowed tenet of any sect
or community in Christendom with the exception of the
majority of the Baptists, who, while they are at variance
with the whole world on a point of such magnitude, are
loud in accusing their brethren of singularity,—while their
singularity is replete with most alarming consequences,
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. Ill
destroys at once the unity and pronounces a sentence of ex¬
communication on the whole Christian world."*
What advantage the Baptists can hope to obtain from
the opinions of Pedobaptists which they are pleased to call
concessions it is impossible to conceive. If certain Pedo¬
baptists believe that immersion was an apostolic mode of
baptism, they at the same time maintain that other modes
were practised; and do not the Baptists see that these
Pedobaptists deem themselves as baptized and consider the
Baptists as intolerant and exclusive ? Again, if Pedobap¬
tists in general believe that none ought to come to the
Lord's table who are not baptized, are they not justly
offended with the Baptists for deeming them unbaptized ?
Pedobaptists never have conceded that they are unbaptized:
on what fundamental law of reasoning, therefore, can the
Baptists derive any advantage from a general principle ad¬
mitted by both parties ? or how can the Baptists exclude
the Pedobaptists from communion on the very ground on
which they consider themselves entitled to it ? Bo not the
Baptists perceive that their opinions have no influence on
the practice of the Pedobaptists ? The fact that the internal
regulation and practice of Pedobaptist churches are dif¬
ferent from those of the Baptist Church is conclusive proof
that the appeal to the opinions of Pedobaptists on the sub¬
ject under consideration is utterly groundless. So far as
the Pedobaptists are concerned, they have no interest in the
inquiry concerning the supposed connection between the
two sacraments, for they deem themselves already baptized.
Baptist writers possess a singular aptitude for using such
imposing and comprehensive expressions as these :—" In
the general truth of this proposition all denominations
agree" the pious and learned of all ages and denomina-
* Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 320-321.
112
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
tions fully concur with us;" " in which we have substan¬
tially the concurrence of most of the Pedobaptist world;"
"we have the concurrence of all Christians in every age
and country;" " we have the unanimous suffrage of all the
prevailing denominations;" leaving the reader to solve the
wonderful mystery why the pious and learned of all ages
and denominations are not Baptists. Not a single reference
to Pedobaptist authorities, when legitimately applied, sup¬
ports the peculiar pretensions of the Baptists, and in a
majority of instances they furnish the most conclusive
refutation of those pretensions,—a species of ordnance
which the Baptists are unskilful in using, and whose fatal
effect they seem not to have apprehended. For example :
in proof of the nature of positive law Dr. Howell quotes
Dr. Owen as saying, " That principle that the church hath
power to institute and appoint any thing, or ceremony,
belonging to the worship of God, either as to matter or to
manner, beyond the orderly observance of such observances
as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ himself has
instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition
and wars that have for so long a season spread themselves
over the face of the Christian world."* Dr. Owen as a
Pedobaptist was opposed to the exclusive use which the
Baptists make of both the positive institutes of Christianity;
and consequently this terrible sentence is made to turn di¬
rectly against the Baptist Church. Bishop Hoadley is
next adduced as saying, " There being no other foundation
for them [the sacraments] with regard to us but the will
of the Institutor, this will must of necessity be our sole
direction, both as to our understanding of their true intent,
and practising them accordingly; because we can have no
other sort of direction in this sort of duties, unless we will
* Howell on Communion, p. 25.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
113
have recourse to mere invention, which makes them our
own institutions, and not the institutions of those who first
appointed them."* Bishop Hoadlcy was a Pedobaptist; and
consequently that he believed that the Baptists, in the use
of the sacraments, had "recourse to mere invention, which
made them their own" there can he no doubt.
In proof that many of these very authorities believed in
baptismal regeneration, and so maintained the connection
of the two sacraments, Dr. Howell himself shall be ad¬
duced. Says he, "A superficial knowledge of ecclesiastical
history is sufficient to convince any one that but a few
centuries transpired after the apostles, before a melancholy
change was effected in the opinions of the Christian world
with regard to the design and efficacy of the sacraments of
the gospel. Their importance was magnified immeasurably,
and they were soon believed to be so intimately connected
with the vitality of religion that they could not in any
case be omitted without preventing the salvation of the
soul. In the third century and onwards, the Christian
fathers believed and taught that sins were only forgiven in
baptism, that infants, by this ordinance, were purged from
original pollution, and that all persons dying without it
were lost."f Dr. Howell had this " superficial acquaintance
with ecclesiastical history;" and hence he should have
honestly stated why his Pedobaptist authorities maintained
the necessary connection between the two sacraments. It
is easy to see that this is no support of the Baptist view,
which holds the connection on entirely different ground.
This pious fraud, and others like it, which Baptist writers
and preachers sometime practise upon their readers and
hearers, and to which doubtless may be mainly ascribed their
success, deserve particular notice; while such a method of
* Howell on Communion, p. 26. ■(■ Terms of Communion, p. 181.
10*
114 UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
maintaining their peculiar tenets and practices not only in
dieates the weakness of their claims, but is humiliating to
every man of sober reason and candor. We shall mention
a few examples of this captivating fraud, though a useful
volume might he written on this topic; and any one of
moderate reading, and having the leisure, who should write
a treatise entitled the "Unfairness of the Baptists," would
perform a useful service to the misrepresented and deeply-
injured Pedobaptist churches of Christ, as well as open the
eyes of the Baptist Church itself
Professor Curtis, in the very first sentence of his book en¬
titled " The Progress of Baptist Principles in the Las£ Hun¬
dred Years," recently published, makes this bold assump¬
tion :—" This volume might almost be called 1 Concessions
of Pedobaptists as to the Errors of Infant Baptism and the
Importance of Baptist Principles.'" We reply, from the
candid examination we have given his " volume," it may be
called, whole and entire, The Perversions of Pedobaptist
Authorities in Support of Baptist Principles. The state¬
ment of the pious fraud is most ingeniously made in the
following language :—"His aim has been to draw a wide dis¬
tinction between parties and opinions. Hence the object
of this volume is not to exhibit or defend the Baptists, but
their principles." Let this distinction be fairly made,—which
we propose to do,—and if it does not appear that the " prin¬
ciples" referred to are not peculiarly Baptist principles,
but sound Pedobaptist principles perverted to support Bap¬
tist opinions and practices, then, in our judgment, there is
no case of perversion in the annals of time. Professor Curtis,
whose book is now before me, states five of the fundamental
principles of the Baptist Church,—namely, "freedom of
conscience, and the entire separation of Church and State;
a converted church-membership; sacraments inoperative
without choice and faith; believers the only scriptural sub-
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 115
jects of baptism; and immersion always the baptism of tbe
New Testament/'* Any man of ordinary knowledge of the
evangelical Pedobaptist churches knows that they maintain
the first three of these principles; and it must have required
an extraordinary degree of presumption upon the ignorance
of Americans to claim these principles as the peculiar doc¬
trines of the Baptists. The last two they, and they only,
claim; and in the spirit of charity we say they are welcome
to them. But, wben tbey attempt to support these two
peculiar tenets by Pedobaptist concessions and principles,
we are compelled to resist the attempt and expose the
fraud. Indeed, this author himself admits, "Some of these
[the last two] they have held alone, and others [the first
three] frequently in common witb Christians of different
denominations/']* In common ! in what then is there dif¬
ference but in the last two? and to "defend the Baptists"
tbe last two must be defended, and no more; for the moment
the first tbree are claimed tbe Baptists enter upon Pedo¬
baptist ground, wbicb of course must support tbe Pedobap-
tists as well as tbe Baptists: only it is singular that Professor
Curtis should say, "it is impossible that opposite principles
should long survive among enlightened evangelical Chris¬
tians."]; That is, that tbe first tbree should long survive
in tbe progress of tbe last two; that is, that the progress
of tbe Baptist Church involves tbe destruction of "freedom
of conscience, entire separation of Church and State, a con¬
verted church-membership," &c.
To be more particular. This author asserts, " Many of
the points which were in dispute a hundred years ago, and
which were regarded as Baptist peculiarities, have become
established principles of the great unwritten creed, the
general religious sentiment, of the whole country,—the
• Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 15.
J Ibid. p. 15.
t Ibid. p. 13.
116
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
common law, so to speak, of American ChristianityA
sufficient rebuke to this pompons swelling is that American
Christianity has not recognised this "common law" as
identical with " Baptist peculiarities," nor has the " whole
country" ascribed " the general religious sentiment" to the
influence of the Baptist Church: only a small part com¬
paratively has been accessible to the influence of the Baptist
Church, and that influence (so far as it is sound and salu¬
tary) arising indeed from Pedobaptist principles adopted
and transferred by degrees into the Baptist Church. But
Professor Curtis specifies an instance as illustrative of the
influence of the Baptist Church,—"freedom of con-
science."f He mentions "Roger Williams as the first
Christian legislator who introduced perfect religious liberty
into the Constitution of any State." J But, in the first place,
Roger Williams brought with him from England the prin¬
ciples of religious freedom, and was a member of the Church
of England when he came to this country. Secondly, ha
remained in the Baptist Church but six months after he
was immersed. Thirdly, he advocated and practised open
communion while he remained in the Baptist Church and
after he left it. Thus, the great founder of the Baptist
Church in America neither derived his principles of
religious freedom from the Baptist Church nor supported
the Baptist Church after he founded it! Certain is it,
therefore, that religious freedom did not appear to Roger
Williams as "a necessary consequence of the distinctive
peculiarities of the Baptist Church," as is pretended by
this author.§ Besides, Lord Baltimore, the Proprietor of
Maryland, and "who recognised a general religious tole¬
ration," was a Roman Catholic; and William Penn, who
* Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 18. f Ibid. p. 18.
J Ibid. p. 19. I Ibid. p. 19.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
117
prepared his " frame of government" for Pennsylvania, was
a Quaker; and Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who
were members of no church, overturned religious intolerance
in Virginia,—indeed, the latter was a Deist; while the Pres¬
byterians on all hands are allowed to have taken " the lead"
in this great work; and Washington was an Episcopalian.
That the Baptists were borne along by the mighty forces on
all sides in favor of freedom of conscience in those times is
not surprising; but to ascribe freedom of conscience to the
influence of the peculiar tenets of the Baptist Church
(immersion and close communion) is effrontery surpassed
only by papal usurpation of authority over the conscience
itself; and when this author affirms that " the whole world
has been coming round to these great truths [the rights of
conscience] first embodied, vindicated, and maintained by
the Baptists,"* one is reminded of the ease with which
sectarian zeal can originate pious frauds, and to what a
height infatuation can soar. The zeal in this case is
rebuked, the pious fraud exposed, and aspiration checked,
by the single consideration that the American mind was
emancipated from the bondage of civil and religious tyranny
by the combined influence of Protestantism, admitted on all
hands to have operated on all sides, and not through the
instrumentality of any particular church,—indeed, in oppo¬
sition to the embarrassments and impediments necessarily
involved in "the distinctive peculiarities' of the Baptist
Church." As far as the Baptist Church has been truly
Protestant it has contributed to American republicanism,
but no farther; and now to claim as peculiar ground what
is common is as ridiculous as it is arrogant. Other evan¬
gelical churches, especially those that date farther back than
the Baptist Church, and on far better ground than she occu-
* Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 60.
118 UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
pied, might say the same thing of their principles, and then
argue that freedom of conscience was a necessary conse¬
quence of their distinctive peculiarities; and so all might
contend for the distinguished honor which the Baptist
Church claims, for they all contributed to the establishment
of American republicanism and American Christianity. It
is not too much to say that by as much as the other churches
have excelled the Baptist Church in modesty they have
surpassed her in merit in competition for the honor in
question.
The Baptists, in the history of their church from its
origin, overlook the easy and gradual transition of a church
from a state of corruption and error to a state of compara¬
tive purity and excellence,—a transition and improve¬
ment not ascribable legitimately to the practical influence
' of the principles and practices which she originally adopted,
but to the principles and practices of pure and spiritual
churches in contact with her and accompanying her in her
progress to fortune and fame. It is a fundamental fact in
the history of the Christian era that the progress of a pure
gospel improves man in every department of civilization.
Social and civil governments and laws are improved in
proportion to the practical development of the truths of the
gospel; and, as a concomitant result, corrupt and defective
sects of religion are purified in character and improved in
doctrine and practice. Civil governments are either
improved or overturned, the old governments either modi¬
fied or new governments set up in their place upon better
principles; and the same is true of corrupt and defective
churches. These remarks are applicable in a striking
manner to the history of the Baptist Church. It will be
found that little by little she has arisen from an obscure
and corrupt origin, and reached her present respectable and
noble position through influences extraneous to her primi-
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
119
tive constitution, though in several respects her regene¬
ration is not yet complete. It is a matter of surprise that
her historians and writers, declining to award the merit of
her improvement where it justly and properly belongs, have
confined the sources of her improvement and enlargement
within her own limits'; while it is matter of greater surprise
that she should ever have presumed to ascribe the purity,
excellence, and efficiency of other evangelical churches, and
the existence and prosperity of our republican civil govern¬
ment, to the influence of her peculiar tenets and practices.
And it is more surprising still, that, while from her contact
with churches pure and sound in doctrine she has bor¬
rowed from them many fundamental truths of the gospel
and incorporated them in her own creed, she should take
their admissions of the soundness of those doctrines as con¬
cessions to the truth of her "peculiaritiesholding to those
churches the relation of the borrower to the lender, and
yet, in opposition to all the dictates of truth and justice,
holding the lender under obligation to the borrower ! The
Baptist Church has not one fundamental truth or principle
of the gospel in her creed or practice that did not exist in
the creed and practice of other churches antecedently to her
origin. It is a reflection upon the intelligence and a pre¬
sumption upon the ignorance of men to assert or claim the
contrary. Why then appeal to admissions of this nature in
support of Baptist claims? The admissions support the
Baptists only so far as they support the churches that make
those admissions, and thus by a sort of necessity carry the
Baptist Church along with them in common with other
churches. In fact, this appeal to the concessions of the
Pedobaptist churches is a recognition of the purity and
orthodoxy of the Pedobaptist churches,—is a defence of the
Baptist Church behind the ramparts of the Pedobaptist
churches,—is a retreat into the walls of the Pedobaptist
120 UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
churches for security and protection. Abrogate, renounce
what of Pedobaptist orthodoxy is contained in the faith and
practice of the Baptist Church, and what remains to that
church but an exclusive mode of one of the sacraments of
Christianity and the concomitant restricted observance of
the other sacrament ? How long could the Baptist Church
exist in this state of mutilation ? Let the Baptists give
back to the Pedobaptist churches what she has borrowed from
them, and that moment she is bereft utterly of the means
of supporting her peculiar tenets, exclusive immersion and
close communion. Dissolve the bonds of Pedobaptist ortho¬
doxy that hold the Baptist Church together, and her pecu¬
liarities fall at once of themselves: in that instant she will be
rejected by an enlightened community and renounced by
all the evangelical churches in the world. It is Pedobaptist
doctrine, elemental in the Baptist Church, that is the only
sure basis of her existence and the only sure guarantee of her
perpetuity. Remove this, and she falls to ruin in a day.
Another example of the sophistical reasoning of the Bap¬
tists is the confounding the inherent tendency of the doc¬
trines and institutions of evangelical pedobaptism with the
adventitious circumstances with which they were formerly
implicated, and from which they have been extricated.
This popular and successful sophism is effectually exposed
by the consideration that the adventitious circumstances are
ascribable to the fault of human nature, to man's entire
depravity, and not to any inherent defect in the doctrines
and institutions themselves; and consequently a renovation
of the human heart is accompanied with the abrogation of
the adventitious circumstances and the restoration of evan¬
gelical doctrines and institutions to their original simplicity
and purity. Corruptions and innovations originate in
motives inseparable from inordinate self-love, and are fos¬
tered by worldly and political influences, as in the develop-
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 121
ment of the Papacy, and in the constitution of the great
church-establishments of Europe,—offices, originally simple
and humble, gradually elevated from one grade and title to
another still higher, till the apostolic office of elder or
bishop is filled by a monarch, who claims the homage of the
world, and institutions, originally simple signs and seals of
the covenant of salvation, become inscrutable mysteries
communicating ex op ere operatwm all the blessings of the
covenant to the recipient. The rise and prevalence of doc¬
trinal errors and corruptions in ceremony are in proportion
to the decay of intelligent and scriptural piety, and resist¬
ance to the former is in proportion to the revival and
extension of the latter. The wonder is that the combination
of the political and superstitious influences and amazing
power of wealth and learning employed in erecting the
splendid structure of Papacy did not sweep a pure Chris¬
tianity from the face of the earth; and this it would have
done if the Bible and religious feeling in man had not been
indestructible. And now that that religious feeling has
been roused and guided by the light of the Bible and the
Spirit, and the gorgeous and meretricious drapery thrown
around the offices and institutions of the gospel has been
removed by the deft skill and courage of holy men, to
ascribe the baleful influences of unregenerate and aspiring
human nature to the inherent tendency of those offices and
institutions is a chimera surpassed only by the claim to
papal infallibility and supremacy. No; the tendency to
corruption and the augmentation of political and eccle¬
siastical power is not inherent in evangelical pedobaptism.
Evangelical pedobaptism is linked with the development
and maturity of human destiny. The Pedobaptist Reforma¬
tion of Luther has stamped upon human nature impres¬
sions which centuries of Pedobaptist triumphs have deep¬
ened, and which it seems, we run no hazard in saying, will
11
122
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
be perpetuated from age to age in moulding the world's
character and achieving the world's redemption.
But what is there in evangelical pedobaptism against
which the Baptist Vatican "lightens" so fiercely and "thun¬
ders" so loudly ? In it is no penance for the neglecter of
baptism, nor missal for the worshipper of the sacramental
elements, nor use of the confessional, nor recognition of
human merits, nor prayer for the dead, nor mass for patients
in purgatory, nor supplication to the Virgin, nor invocation
of the saints, nor a vaticum for the Christian " in extremis,"
nor a paean to celibacy, nor an anthem to virginity, nor a
shrine for holy relics, nor a receptacle for an image, nor a
trace of idolatry, nor a ceremony of worldly pomp, nor a
service for inspiring superstitious awe, nor a rite of priestly
policy, nor a precept or regulation of papal import or
authority; but, simple and impressive in order, sound and
scriptural in doctrine, pure and spiritual in experience,
consistent and noble in character, energetic and efficient in
action, it has gone forth " clear as the sun, fair as the moon,
and terrible as an army with banners;" while human society,
under its influence, on every hand, has ever been tending
to a higher and purer state of civilization, refinement, and
religion.
What church—to say nothing of other evangelical
churches—has given better evidence that He who instituted
the sacramental supper is with her than the Methodist
Church ? Like a mighty army her sons have joyfully
rushed forward, stormed, and carried by assault the citadels
of the enemy on every hand. It may almost be said of
them, " the kingdom of God is preached, and every man
presseth unto it." What battles have they not fought, what
dangers have they not encountered, what difficulties have
they not surmounted, what enemies have they not overcome,
what sufferings have they not endured, what labors have
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
123
they not performed, what activity have they not displayed,
what energy have they not exerted, what proof of fealty to
God and love to man have they not given in a thousand
forms? As a living, impetuous, irresistible torrent,
Methodism has swept away the opposition of Scribe and
Pharisee, and her bold, vigorous, and undaunted leaders
have led her forward to spiritual victory. God has sanc¬
tioned the holy invasion; and surely he gives the invaders
a title to the kingdom won, and seals with his approbation
every repetition of their sacramental oath at his table. No
church since the days of the apostles has ever exercised
more charity toward other Christian communities than the
Methodist Church does toward those who differ from her in
opinion and church-government. No church has been more
independent of aid from other churches in its labors and
success. No church has been gathered so entirely from the
world without robbing other churches. No church has
contributed more to the prosperity of other churches. No
church since apostolic times has flourished so rapidly and
done so much good in so short a time as the Methodist
Church has done. We might enlarge, and heaven and
earth would respond. We only add, it would be no dese¬
cration of the Lord's table, nor dishonor to the Baptists, for
them to engage with the Methodists or any other Christians
in sacramental communion.
Professor Curtis observes, "This controversy'has of late
years been conducted in a far more Christian spirit, and the
points of difference have been greatly narrowed down."*
What points of difference ? The points of difference referred
to are the abuses and absurdities which the Baptists formerly
connected with baptism, and which, having been refuted by
Pedobaptist facts and arguments, they have abandoned, so
* Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 16.
124
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
that now the points of difference are exclusive immersion
and close communion, which are as tenaciously maintained
and as firmly opposed by the parties as ever. But, the
points of difference being less now than formerly, there is
good reason why the parties should be more friendly now than
formerly. The prejudices of the Baptists have "evapor¬
ated" with their errors.
" Other churches, of late," says another Baptist writer,
" have become more friendly toward the Baptists." This
is true; and the reason asserted for this is that other
churches are yielding gradually -to the influence and
approximating to the tenets and practices of the Baptist
Church. But the reverse is the reason of the friendly
bearing of evangelical churches toward the Baptist Church.
The gradual approximation of the Baptist Church to the
doctrines and practices of the evangelical churches is the
true explanation of this gratifying change. The'.Baptist
Church from its origin has gradually and by almost insen¬
sible degrees taken up into its creed so much of the doctrine
and adopted so much of the practice of other churches, and
thus has so narrowed down the causes of difference and
repulsion between her and other churches, that it is but
a natural and necessary consequence that they should be
more friendly toward her now than formerly. In this case
they could not hold her at a distance, or treat her with
indifference, without condemning what she had borrowed
from themselves and retained and practised themselves;
and with every advance of the Baptist Church to the sound
and evangelical views of other churches will be their recog¬
nition of her claims to their friendship, confidence, and
regards. For example:—In England, in 1535, (to go no
further back, and not to mention the heresies maintained
by many if not all the sects from which the Baptists claim
descent,) they denied that "Christ was both God and
UNFAIRNESS OP THE BAPTISTS.
125
man:"* how then could evangelical churches be friendly
toward them as sound in the faith until they renounced this
heresy and adopted the orthodox view of Christ,—which they
have since done? Again : no further hack than the period
in which Wall wrote (1705) many of the Baptists " believed
none to be Christians but themselves, because they believed
none to be baptized but themselves; and many of them were
so peremptory in this, that if they were in the chamber
of a sick man, and any Pedobaptist, minister or other,
came to pray with him, they went out of the room; and, if
they were invited to the funeral of any Pedobaptist, they
went to the house and accompanied the corpse with the rest
of the people to the church-door; but there they retreated:
they called it the steeple-house."'f But a very great change
has come to pass since then, and the Baptists now engage
with other churches in every particular of Christian fellow¬
ship but sacramental communion; so that it is not surprising
that other churches should be more friendly toward them
than formerly.
The Baptists—for example, Dr. Howell and Mr. Reming¬
ton—often attempt to prove close communion upon other
churches. What then ? In this either the Pedobaptists
are right or they are wrong. If they are wrong, then a
similar practice among the Baptists is not right. If they
are right, then the Baptists have no right to complain.
But the Pedobaptists do not practise restricted communion,
as all the world knows. Therefore the Baptists cannot
appeal to the Pedobaptists for the propriety of their prac¬
tice. This were a sufficient answer to much that the Bap¬
tists have written in vindication of close communion. But
Mr. Whitney, a Baptist, in his work on Open Communion,
shall answer this side-issue. " The question is not whether
* Wall, vol. ii. p. 310.
11*
-f- Ibid. p. 326.
126
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
we are as free or not in our communion as others are. Some,
indeed, like Mr. Remington, seem to think that this is the
whole question. Even if it were true that Baptists were
more free and liberal in their administrations of the Lord's
Supper than other denominations,—which, however, is
about as capable of being proved as that a barred and
bolted house is easier of access than one with open doors
whose inmates stand to welcome you in,—what would this
have to do with justifying the practice of close communion ?
The question is, Are we as free as God's word and the
genius of the ennobling religion of Christ require us to be ?
It is a weak cause indeed that is sustained, by such a course,
and a bad one alone that needs it. And yet this is the
mode in which hundreds are made confirmed restricted-
communionists. When all other arguments fail, this, in
nine cases out of ten, is sure to be plied, if not to effect the
end desired/'* We agree with Mr. Whitney, that, where
a man's reasoning is bad, ordinarily his motive is not
good.
We know no work, except Br. Howell's treatise on
" Terms of Sacramental Communion" and certain Romish
publications, that contains crowded in it more pious frauds
of the character under consideration than Mr. Remington's
little pamphlet on Communion. It is a singular little pam¬
phlet,—singular in its authorship : Mr. Remington was for
"twenty-five years a member," and for "nearly twenty
years" a minister, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and
during that time a member of three annual Conferences,
and at last settled in the Baptist Church. Singular in its
popularity: it has already (1852) reached the twenty-second
thousand. And singular in its puerile sophisms : and this
may explain its popularity. Almost every page is replete
* Whitney on Open Communion, pp. 38, 39.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
127
with sophisms. For example:—To refute the charge that
the "Baptists rob the children of God of their privilege,"
he inquires, " How often do the different denominations of
Pedobaptists commune with each other?" and replies that
"for more than twenty-five years he was a member of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and never for once during all
that time enjoyed the privilege of communing with any
other denomination;" and that "a few weeks ago, in con¬
versation with a preacher of the Methodist Episcopal
Church," the preacher acknowledged to him that for
"twelve years he had not communed once with other
denominations."* And why not? Because they were
denied the privilege of communing with other churches ?
No; but because they voluntarily declined the privilege.
The fault, then, was not with " other denominations," but
with themselves. But the Baptists deny others this privi¬
lege ; and therefore the fault is with the Baptists. Again:
he repeats a dialogue he had while a Methodist preacher
with a " young convert" who applied to him for baptism
by " immersion," and whom he refused to immerse because
she believed immersion was the only valid mode, saying to
her, "Well, madam, if this is your opinion I cannot baptize
you, because you are not a Methodist, but a Baptist;" and
so she "goes to the Baptists."f We reply that he acted
unjustly both to the "young convert" and the Methodist
Church, for the Methodist Church makes no such requi¬
sition of candidates for private membership in her fold. J
* Remington on Communion, pp. 13,11. f Ibid. pp. 19, 21.
J The Methodists do not believe immersion either essential to baptism
or a bar to communion. It is a sufficient refutation to this sophism to
say that the Methodists would not repel pious Baptists themselves from
the Lord's table, though they believe, as Mr. Remington's "young
convert" did, in exclusive immersion. Yea, the Baptist Remington
himself would not be excluded j and I hesitate not to express the belief
128 UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
About tbe time of tbis dialogue it is presumable Mr.
Remington was not far from tbe " liquid grave" himself.
Again: he cites instances of persecution and intolerance
by the Pedobaptists "in New England in 1636, 1639,1643,
1644, 1651, 1680, and 1770,"* from which he argues the
existence of the spirit of persecution and intolerance in
Pedobaptist churches in America in the present day. But
look at these dates. They are all before the Declaration of
Independence, civil and religious, which occurred in 1776,
when America threw off the yoke of English control. His
charge, then, lies against English persecution and intole¬
rance, and not the Pedobaptist churches of the United States.
But his humiliating inference from English persecution and
intolerance, above cited, is most appropriate to the Baptist
Church from its origin to the present time :—" Any system
of religion, therefore, which in its practical influence would
lead us to persecute those who are of a different opinion
with ourselves, or would preclude Christian fellowship with
those who are right in the fundamentals of religion, and
have passed from death unto life and become the children
of God by faith in Jesus Christ, just because they differ
from us in some things not absolutely necessary to salvation,
must be wrong, radically wrong.'f Then the Baptist
"system" of religion is "wrong, radically wrong," for it
does "preclude Christian fellowship", with pious Pedobaptists
who differ from the Baptists in nothing " absolutely neces¬
sary to salvation,"—the Baptists themselves being judges,
and Mr. Remington in particular. "We rejoice to believe,"
says he, " that there are genuine Christians in all the evan-
that many of his old Methodist brethren in the ministry and member¬
ship would gladly meet with him in the old familiar and sacred service
at the Lord's table, in the Methodist Church, so long as he maintains a
Christian integrity in the Baptist ministry.
» Remington on Communion, pp. 23, 24. f Ibid. p. 25.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
129
gelical churches, for whom we not only entertain the highest
respect but sincere Christian affection and fellowship."*
How just is the claim to the meed of praise in the following
sentence the reader can judge:—"One thing which is
worthy of praise must be allowed us, [Baptists,] and that is
CONSISTENCY." j"
Again:—"Let the Pedobaptist churches enforce their
respective disciplines, and require their members to invari¬
ably sanction infant baptism, and there would be such a fire
kindled among them that nothing but immersion would
quench it. They would drive their members off to Baptist
churches by hundreds, if not by thousands."! Here is
another mistake of the Methodist Remington. The Method¬
ist Discipline makes no such requisition under the sanction
of exclusion. It is obvious Mr. Remington was imperfectly
acquainted with the letter and spirit of the Methodist Dis¬
cipline, at least in this particular. Besides, water is a novel
means to "quench" the fires of religious contention, and by
this time the Baptists must have become expert in its use.
Again:—" Again, I know of many ministers of the gospel
who, notwithstanding the avowed principles of the Pedo¬
baptist churches that baptism is an essential prerequisite to
the communion, will immerse such as have been sprinkled
in infancy, and even adult years, rather than let them go to
the Baptists. Is this consistent ?"§ This inconsistency is
chargeable upon the individual ministers that do it; but
the church unqualifiedly disapprobates the abuse, as Mr.
Remington himself acknowledges :—" I acknowledge that
this is not in accordance with established usage in Pedo¬
baptist churches ;"|| and again:—"To determine what are
the doctrines or discipline of any church, we must not
* Remington on Communion, p. 5. f Ibid. p. 27.
J Ibid. p. 28. § Ibid. p. .28. || Ibid. p. 29.
130
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
relj upon the mere statements or practice of isolated indi¬
viduals."*
Again : he charges close communion upon other churches,
for example:—" With close-communion laws, I ask, how can
the Protestant Episcopal Church be open-communion V'f
But private members in the Methodist Church do commune
with the Episcopalians; and this Mr. Remington himself
acknowledges:—" The Methodist Episcopal Church do not
deem it wrong to go and eat and drink with them, [Episco¬
palians,] though they will never return the courtesy." |
How then can the Episcopalians be "close-communion"?
Besides, the Episcopalians, as is well known, do often
"return the courtesy" in the Southern country, however
they may decline to do it in Mr. Remington's neighbor¬
hood.
Again : he introduces an applicant for communion in the
Methodist Church, and represents him as rejected because
he does not " believe, preach, and dress just like the
Methodists." § Mr. Remington is fanciful.
Again: he forms a sophism from the Methodistie rule
respecting " class-meetings,"|| which is refuted by the fact
that the Methodists do admit to communion members of
other churches who have not the institution of class-
meetings.
We shall close our notice of Mr. Remington with a con¬
cession that refutes his whole treatise :—" Pedobaptists who
are united in a congregation may be regarded as a church,
and a Christian church, though they have never been bap¬
tized according to Christ's example and command; but they
cannot be fellowshipped as a regular gospel church. We
may extend to them the hand of Christian fellowship, but
* Remington on Communion, p. 30. f Ibid. p. 40.
t Ibid. p. 47. § Ibid. p. 49. || Ibid. pp. 50-53.
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
131
not the hand of cA^rcA-fellowship."* Then " a congre¬
gation" may he " a Christian church" and not " a Christian
church" at the same time,—which is absurd. The moment
it is admitted that we are Christian churches, it follows that
we are founded upon the gospel. Moreover, a "Christian
church" is entitled to " cfomA-fellowship," or it is not a
Christian church. The Baptists, then, must deny that we are
Christian churches, or extend to us " the hand of church-
fellowship." But Mr. Remington admits that we are
Christian churches: therefore he and his brethren should
extend to us " the hand of cAwcA-fellowship."
Mr. Remington's little work has nothing new in it except
his sophisms against the Methodists; and from twenty-five
years' association with them he learned enough of them to
misrepresent them; and we would have given his popular
pamphlet but little notice did we not believe that its popu¬
larity depended upon its sophisms and misrepresentations.
And now what is the amount of the concessions contained
in preceding chapters and of the pious frauds exposed in
.this chapter? Cold and inanimate are the concessions,
—though they are sufficient to establish all the verities
essential to pious and evangelical pedobaptism. They are
made in a frigid apathy. The imagination of Baptist
writers seems dead to the moral dignity and efficiency of
the Pedobaptists, and admiration is expressed with reluc¬
tance, reservations, and exceptions. Their blameless purity
and moral triumphs are enveloped in a mass of ecclesiastical
fictions and corruptions, and their majesty and beauty dis¬
paraged or neutralized by expressions prophetic of dark and
degenerate periods. Fair room is allowed for the exhibition
of Baptist martyrs to the truth; but other witnesses, as
genuine and nobler in character, are left to repose in the
* Remington on Communion, p. 71.
132
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
silence and obscurity of the past. This want of candor
evinces the want of charity and the presence of an undue
love of party; or it may be that the want of charity explains
the absence of candor. The estimate of an argument
depends in a very great degree upon the habits and feelings
of the reader; and hence, when prejudices are already exist¬
ing in favor of one party and a friendly disposition indulged
toward the other party in controversy, it is almost impossible
to draw the line between unfairness and intentional mis¬
representation ; and the path of the reader is indeed perilous
when he is unable to detect in his author unfairness on the
one hand and a secret and deliberate violation of truth and
justice on the other. A deliberate suppression of facts
material to a just and rational conclusion evinces not only
the spirit of bigotry in its most artful attire, but of the
most insidious hostility to the misrepresented sects of
Christianity. Whether disguised or not, the real issue is
involved in shadow, and doubt and suspicion are cast back
upon the primitive history and present existence of other
evangelical denominations. It is a wily manoeuvre to tar¬
nish their native purity and destroy their claims to con¬
fidence and support. It is a dexterous attempt to confound
the limits of sophism with sober reasoning, and to palm
upon the public a pious fraud in the place of unquestionable
merit and plain truth. It is a method of debate which
may be crowned with a limited success, but which must be
ultimately abandoned with shame and defeat. It is an
assumption prodigally ornamented with imposing quotations
from Pedobaptist authors, transmuted into concessions,
which, when interpreted in their proper connection, turn
out to be invincible arguments against the assumption,
leaving it destitute of all reason and moral dignity, and
convicting its supporters of the affectation of severe impar¬
tiality. Men of this class seem to be governed by the
UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS.
133
influence of inextricable bias; and tbeir only reward can be
a transitory triumph,—such only as a narrow sectarianism
and unholy ambition can achieve. The want of candor on
any subject is humiliating; but in a matter of such serious
concern as that before us it deserves the severest repre¬
hension ; and this will be timely administered, since ordi¬
narily dissembled piety is corrective of its insinuating
sophisms and too superficial to prevent the exposure of its
deep-laid fraud. The mildest judgment we can express of
this mode of upholding a cause is that it is the sport of
sectarian caprice, the fruitless conjecture of prejudice, and
the pure invention of the advocates of favorite opinions.
That testimonies so explicitly and harmoniously in oppo¬
sition to the peculiarities of the Baptist Church should ever
have been employed in support of those peculiarities is one
of the boldest and most desperate adventures of contro¬
versialists upon record : I had almost said that the adven¬
ture itself is one of the peculiarities of the Baptist Church.
Never had the philosophical remark respecting a certain
class of writers, who "know a little, presume a great deal,
and so jump to a conclusion," a more perfect illustration
than in this case. All that can be truly said of the unfair¬
ness of the Baptists is, that in their positions the true and
the false are adroitly intermingled; and, in extricating the
former from the latter, the positions are found to contain
inevitable self-contradictions that are utterly fatal to them.
But it is time to dismiss from the attention of the reader
the unpleasant topic of this chapter; and this we shall do
with a single general remark. Let the reader, who has
neither the leisure nor the means to consult the Pedobaptist
authorities, adduced by Baptists in proof of exclusive im¬
mersion and close communion, take it for granted, once for
all, that a pious fraud lurks in every attempt. No plainer case
is conceivable, than that if conscientious Pedobaptists (and
12
134 restricted communion
Baptists admit that the authorities they quote are conscien¬
tious) maintained Baptist principles they would have been
Baptists. In every case of quotation from Pedobaptist
authorities I have referred to the original authority, when¬
ever accessible to me, and found, without an exception,
that the Baptists are guilty of the most manifest injus¬
tice, distortion, and perversion in the citation or quotation.
There is nothing like this unfairness on record except the
pious frauds and sophisms in Bomanism and Puseyism:
indeed, though not so learned or so skilful as the latter, the
Baptists have been bolder and more successful in the use
of this dishonorable method,—both exhibiting irretrievably
the inherent weakness of their peculiar tenets and practices.
CHAPTER IX.
restricted communion A modern invention.
The ground taken by the Baptists, which they regard as
the invulnerable and inaccessible rampart of their peculiar
claims, is that " their church is distinguished by two promi¬
nent traits: that she immerses exclusively in baptism, and
admits to the ordinance none but believers."* This position is
taken in all their writings, and is the beginning, continuation,
and end of all their argumentation. Adhering with inflexible
tenacity to this fundamental ground on which all their hopes
are based and built, they institute the inquiry "whether
the church at present known as Baptist has existed in all
ages since the days of Christ,"f and endeavor to trace back
a line of successive sects to the days of the apostles as em-
* Howell on Terms of Communion, p. 251. f Ibid. p. 251.
A MODERN INVENTION.
135
tracing Baptist principles and adopting Baptist practices,
affirming that "in more modern times the Baptists were
known in Italy as the followers of Gundulphus,—in Franee
under the name of Berengarians,—of Paterines in the
Duchy of Milan,—of the Petrobrussians and Henricians in
Languedoc and Provence,—and of the followers in Brescia
of Arnold."5" Exclusive immersion to none but believers is
their rock; and whatever sect they find in their researches
occupying this rock they claim as a Baptist sect, whatever
other opinions were embraced by that sect. And so they
conclude that "the Baptists are not Protestants, nor Dis¬
senters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers,
but what we have been in all ages,—the Church of our Lord
Jesus Christ."f
We shall take up the principal of these sects in order,
and examine briefly but sufficiently into their opinions and
practices respectively, and then compare them with the
doctrines and practices of the present Baptist Church, to
see wherein they differ and wherein they are identical,
showing that the differences are so great that what of iden¬
tity remains is insufficient to justify the belief that they
were what are now called Baptists. And in our investiga¬
tion we shall find that restricted communion, as it is prac¬
tised by the Baptists, is of more recent origin than their
opposition to infant baptism.
1. Let us run our eye along the chain of opposition to
infant baptism from its origin, and see if we can find the
doctrine of close communion anywhere in its whole course.
Opposition to infant baptism originated with Peter de Bruish
in the twelfth century, who publicly preached that infants
ought not to be baptized, because they cannot believe, and
therefore cannot be saved. Next arose the Anabaptists, in the
* Howell on Terms of Communion, p. 257. f Ibid. p. 251.
136
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
early part of tlie sixteenth century, and of these, Benedict, the
famous Baptist historian, says, " Under this head—the Ger¬
man Anabaptists or Mennonites—I shall include the whole
family of this people as described by Mosheim, who will
be my principal guide in their history from the remote
depths of antiquity."* And thus he quotes Mosheim:—
"The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of
Anabaptists by administering the rite of baptism to those
who came over to their communion, and derived that of
Mennonites from the famous man to whom they owe the
greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the remote
depth of antiquity, and is of consequence extremely difficult
to be* ascertained. This uncertainty will not appear sur¬
prising when it is considered that this sect started up all
of a sudden in several countries at the same time, &c.
Their progress was rapid; for in a short space of time their
discourses, visions, and predictions excited commotions in
a great part of Europe, and drew into their communion a
prodigious multitude, whose ignorance rendered them easy
victims to the illusions of enthusiasm. Some of them
maintained, among others, the following points of doctrine:
that baptism of infants was an invention of the devil; that
every Christian was invested with the power to preach the
gospel, and consequently that the church stood in no need
of ministers and pastors; that in the kingdom of Christ
civil magistrates were absolutely useless; and that God still
continued to reveal his will to chosen persons by dreams
and visions."f Such were the early opposers of infant
baptism, and fathers of the Baptist Church! Respecting
Menno, the founder of the Mennonites, Mosheim, Bene¬
dict's guide, says, "he expressed his abhorrence of the
licentious tenets which several Anabaptists held in relation
* Benedict's History of the Baptists, p. 44. f Ibid. pp. 45, 46.
A MODERN INVENTION.
137
to the baptism of infants, the millennium, &c.: he explained
and modified them in such a manner as made them re¬
semble the religious tenets which were universally received
in the Protestant churches?'*
Some Baptist "writers claim descent for the Baptist
Church from the Waldenses, a body of Christians inhabiting
the valleys of the Alps and brought to light in the twelfth
century. They were generally a pious and exemplary
people,—advocated many of the doctrines of the Reforma¬
tion, and opposed the false pretensions and superstitious
additions of the Church of Rome. But they did not oppose
infant baptism.f When certain Romish priests accused
them of refusing baptism to their children, they denied the
charge, but acknowledged that in certain instances they had
delayed baptism because their own pastors or barbs were
abroad in other parts of the work of the church, and that
hereby the baptism of their children was often delayed longer
than they desired. J Wall gives the following account:—
"The present Waldenses, or Yaudois, in Piedmont, who are
the posterity of those of old, do practise infant baptism;
and they were also found in the practice of it when the
Protestants of Luther's reformation sent to know their state
and doctrine and to confer with them; and they themselves
do say that their fathers never practised otherwise. And
they give proof of it from an old book of theirs, called the
Spiritual Almanack, where infant baptism is owned."§ In
the 17th article of the rule of faith and practice adopted by
all the Waldenses assembled at Angrogne, September 12,
1535, they state their doctrine of the sacraments as follows:—
" Art. XVIII. As to the sacraments, it has been determined
by the Holy Scriptures that we have but two sacramental
* Mosheim, vol. ii. cent. 16, part ii. c. 3. f Wall, vol. ii. p. 301.
J Perrin's History of the Waldenses. § Wall, vol. ii. p. 240.
12 *
138
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
signs or symbols, -which Jesus Christ has left to us: the
one is baptism, the other the eucharist or Lord's Supper,
-which we receive to demonstrate our perseverance in the
faith, according to the promise we made in our baptism in
our infancy" Professor Curtis admits that the Waldenses
practised infant baptism. "To what extent they [the
Waldenses] rejected infant baptism has long been a matter
of dispute. That many of them did so is beyond question.
And, on the other hand, that some of the sects who went
under this general name continued to practise it, we do not
doubt" (Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 26.) There is
other testimony, which we omit, to notice but one fact more.
"Soon after the opening of the Reformation by Luther,
they sought intercourse with the Reformed churches of
Geneva and France, held communion with them, and
appeared eager to testify their respect and affection for
them as brethren in the Lord,—the churches of G-eneva and
France at this time being in the habitual use of infant
baptism. This single fact is sufficient to prove that the
Waldenses were Pedobaptists."*
The descent of the Baptist Church is sometimes traced
from the Cathari of Germany, the Paterines in Italy, and the
Paulicians in Greece. But the following are well-authenti¬
cated facts in church-history:—" All these sects were semi-
manicheans. The Paulicians denied that this inferior and
visible world is the production of the Supreme Being, and
distinguish between the Creator of the world and of the
human body from the Most High who dwells in heaven;
and some have been led to conceive that they were a branch
of the Gnostics rather than of the Manichees: they ref used
to celebrate the institution of the Lord's Supper; they
rejected the books of the Old Testament and the two epis-
* Dr. Samuel Miller on Baptism.
A MODERN INVENTION.
139
ties of St. Peter; instead of confessing the human nature
and substantial sufferings of Christ, they amused their fancy
with a celestial body and with a fantastic crucifixion that
eluded the impotent malice of the Jews; they believe in
the eternity of matter/'* &c. However heretical they were,
no evidence of a satisfactory nature has ever been adduced
that they opposed infant baptism.
The Baptists pretend to trace their descent from the
jDonatists, a schismatic sect which arose in the year 311
and derives its name from Donatus, its founder. They
made no alteration in ecclesiastical government, none in
doctrine, and continued the practice of infant baptism as
they had done before their separation. " The doctrine of
the Donatists was conformable to that of the church, as
even their adversaries confess."*}" "Among all the reasons
that the Donatists gave why the baptism of the Catholics
was null, there is none that lays any blame on their giving
it in infancy. But, on the contrary, St. Austin does often
make use of the instance of infant baptism, as granted by
them, to overthrow some of their errors that they had about
baptism." J Optatus, Bishop of Milvium, in persuading the
Donatists to union with the church, reminds them that "the
ecclesiastical organization is one and the same with us and
you. Though men's minds are at variance, the sacraments
are at none. And we may say we believe alike, and are
sealed with one and the same seal,—not otherwise baptized
than you, nor otherwise ordained than you."§ And Cres-
conius, a Donatist, settles the dispute:—" There is between
us and you one religion, the same sacraments, nothing in
Christian ceremonies dieeerent. It is a schism that
* Waddington; Wall; Buck, p. 329; Mosheim, vol. ii. 233; Milner,
vol. i. 572; Ruter, p. 154.
f Mosheim, vol. i. 123. J Wall, vol. ii. 130. $ Ibid. vol. i. 161.
140
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
is between us, not a heresy."* Donatists, therefore, were
Pedobaptists. Professor Curtis, evidently a man of some
reading and a degree of candor, concedes this much,—that
" at first there is little distinction recorded between the
Catholics and Donatists in regard to this point, [infant
baptism :] it is even probable that individual cases of infant
baptism may have existed among the earlier Donatists." f
The Baptists attempt to trace descent also from the
Novations, a sect of dissenters that arose in the year 250
and takes its name from Novatian, who separated from the
church, not on account of doctrine, but mere points of dis¬
cipline. "They were distinguished merely by their disci¬
pline, for their religious and doctrinal tenets do not appear
to be at all different from those of the church.The
origin of this sect is given by Neander:—" This dissension
arose from a contest about the election of a bishop, and from
a contention of opinions on the subject of church-penance;"§
and Novatian himself, "being in danger of death, on his
sich-bed received the rite of baptism by sprinkling, as his
condition required."|| Mr. Benedict concedes the whole
issue here. Says he, "As this [the Novatian] is the first
party of importance who were acknowledged to be sound in
doctrine which withdrew from the established church, it
is proper to give a full account of the reasons which led to
the separation and infant baptism is not mentioned as
one of those reasons.
We might have given a more extended examination of
this topic, and adduced many other authorities; but Mr.
Benedict saves us any further trouble in the following con-
* "Wall, vol. i. 161. f Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 23.
•j; Watson's Theological Dictionary, p. 708.
§ Neander's Church History, p. 142. |] Milner, vol. i. 180.
Benedict's History of the Baptists, p. 4.
A MODERN INVENTION.
141
cession: "1 shall not attempt/' says he, " to trace a con¬
tinuous line of churches, as we can for a few centuries past
in Europe and America. This is a Tcind of succession to
which we never laid claim; and, of course, we malce no
effort to prove it. We place no reliance on this sort of
testimony to establish the soundness of our faith or the
validity of our administrationsWell said, Benedict!
thou art properly named Benedict; and never let the
Baptists question again "the soundness of the faith or the
validity of the administrations" of their Pedobaptist breth¬
ren by an appeal to the history of the Christian church.
We are at the end of the chain. We have seen that the
testimony of a thousand years from the birth of Christ is
undisturbed by a single instance of opposition to the apos¬
tolic practice of infant baptism.-}- Further: there was no
opposition to infant baptism for twelve hundred years, except
from Tertullian and Peter de Bruis, both of whom founded
their opposition to it upon grounds that would overturn the
Baptist Church. Further: for more than fifteen hundred
years of the Christian era there was not a single church on
earth that opposed infant baptism upon ground occupied by
the modern Baptist Church. Thus, the Baptist Church
must date its origin with the Anabaptists in Germany, in
the sixteenth century. The beginning of opposition to infant
baptism, upon the principles maintained by the Baptist
Church, is coeval with the beginning of the Baptist Church;
and no opposition of this kind is recorded in any authentic
church-history further back than the sixteenth century.
From the sixteenth century to the times of the apostles, so
far from discovering any evidence of the restricted com-
* History of the Baptists, p. 51.
f The opposition of Tertullian is of no importance, for he admitted the
universal prevalence of infant baptism in his day.
142
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
munion of the modern Baptist Church, we find no founda¬
tion on which that church itself'could properly be located.
2. But the origin of close communion in the Baptist
Church is more recent than the origin of the Baptist
Church itself.
Admit—which we do not—that the Baptist Church
commenced with Tertullian, who, on certain grounds,
opposed infant baptism but yet admitted its universal
prevalence: did he separate from the church ? Not at all,
but yet communed with the church. Without doubt Ter¬
tullian was an open-communionist. This the Baptists cannot
deny. . Consequently it is reasonable to suppose that, from
the time of Tertullian, all who embraced his opinions on the
subject of infant baptism practised mixed communion also
for many centuries afterward; or, if any practised close com¬
munion, they did not do it from opposition to infant bap¬
tism. We have seen that the particular sects through
which the Baptists claim descent till the time of Peter de
Bruis, if they practised close communion at all, did not do
it from opposition to infant baptism, for several of them
practised infant baptism. Not one of these was a Baptist
sect; no historian calls them Baptist sects : they were known
and called by other and appropriate names. If Baptists
existed at all till the time when the Anabaptists arose, they
existed in Pedobaptist churches, and so practised mixed
communion. In a word: we find no evidence that the
Baptists ever organized themselves anywhere as a distinct
and separate sect, under the authority and necessity of bap¬
tism as a term of communion, till the seventeenth century.
Of this the following is the proof:—The ufirst Baptist
Church" in England was formed in 1602,* and " the first
* Backus's Church History, p. 19. Benedict gives the date 1607 or
1608.
A MODERN INVENTION.
143
in America" in 1639.* "Crosby, in bis History of tbe
English Baptists, says tbat they began to form themselves
into separate societies in 1633, five years after the birth of
John Bunyan, and hardly three years before the banish¬
ment of Boger Williams in this country. Up to that time
they had been intermixed in churches with other non¬
conformists, though during nearly the whole of the pre¬
ceding reign they had contended more or less strenuously
for their principles as Baptists. Eleven years after this the
whole number of Baptist churches in England was fifty-four,
seven of which were in London) and, when John Bunyan
became pastor of the church at Bedford, the number was
still greater. Most of these churches, in consequence of the
opposition which they received from others, refused to com¬
mune with them altogether. To some, however, among
whom were John Humphrey and John Bunyan, this course
appeared uncalled-for and unchristian, and they contended
for the continuance of that free intercourse at the Lord's
table which had been steadily maintained between Bap¬
tists and Christians of other persuasions from the first.
Restricted communion, therefore, appears evidently as a
modern invention. It was a thing only of recent date
when Humphrey wrote his ' Free Admission to the Sacra¬
ment,' and Bunyan, some ten years after, his ' Differences
about Water Baptism no Bar to Communion.' And now
it has scarcely the sanction of two hundred years, and that
from only a portion of the denomination at any time.'f
Dr. Howell adduces Wall in proof tbat the "Parliament
assembled upon the restoration of Charles II. expressed the
Benedict's History of the Baptists, pp. 441-459 j Prof. Knowles's
Memoir of Roger Williams; Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge,
p. 190.
f Whitney on Open Communion, pp. 149-151.
144
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
dislike the nation had conceived against these men,"—that
is, " the Baptists,"—and that an act was passed in favor of,
all except those who "had committed the unpardonable
crime of embracing Baptist principles." Dr. Howell also
quotes from Wall "the language of Judge Hale" com¬
mendatory of the Baptists "who pretended so highly to
liberty of conscience."* And Dr. Howell, in a note, says,
" The Anabaptists of that day, on all hands, are confessed
to he the Baptists of our times.""j" Very well: let us then
refer to Wall, whose work referred to is before me. I refer
to the very places, and in connection with the places, cited
by Dr. Howell; and let us see how the matter will turn out.
Says Wall, "In the year 1533, 25th of Henry the VIII.,
John Frith (who was martyred that year) wrote a short
tract, which he calls a Declaration of Baptism: in it he
takes notice of the antipedobaptist opinion, as then lately
risen in the world, (it was about eleven years' standing in
Germany, and was but lately got into Holland, for this
was a year before the outrage and dispersion at Munster.')
What he says of it is this:—'Now is there an opinion risen
among certain, which affirm that children may not be bap¬
tized until they come unto a perfect age; and that because
they have no faith/ But after a short discourse, he breaks
off from that point thus:—'But this matter will I pass over;
for I trust the English (unto whom I write this) have no
such opinions' "J And Wall adds, "At what time it
[Anabaptism, that is, according to Dr. Howell, "modern
Baptist principles"] began to be embraced by any English
I do not find it easy to discover. But it is plain that no
very considerable number in England were of this persua¬
sion till about sixty years ago,"%—from the time Wall wrote.
* Howell on Terms of Communion, p. 123. t Ibid. p. 122.
% Wall, toI. ii. pp. 306-307. \ Ibid. p. 315.
A MODERN INVENTION.
145
And Wall continues : "It is to be noted"—and Dr. Howell
carefully omits tbis wbole paragraph—"that when tbis
opinion began first to increase tbey did not all of tbem
proceed to separation from tbe established church: they
held it sufficient to declare their sentiment against infant
baptism, to reserve their own children to adult baptism, and
to be baptized with it themselves, without renouncing com¬
munion in prayers, and in the other sacrament, with the
?edobaptists. In the year 1645, when Marshall had in a
sermon objected to the Antipedobaptists the sin of separa¬
tion, Toombes—a Baptist—answers that this Was practised
only by some; that it was the fault of the persons, not of
the principle of antipedohaptism ; that he himself abhorred
it: and he quotes, as concurring with him, 'the Confession
of Faith in the name of seven churches of Antipedobaptists
in London.' But these that continued in communion were
not for Oliver's turn. There was great care taken to instil
into them principles of total separation; which proved too
effectual: and within a while they did all, or almost all,
renounce the settled congregations, and became great enemies
to them. In which separation they do still almost all
contimie."* Thus, the true origin of close communion in
the Baptist Church, according to Wall, Dr. Howell's Pedo-
baptist witness, is to be dated in the times of Oliver Crom¬
well, and ascribed to his political policy.
Wall, in another part of his great work, observes, "To
speak of the case of England in particular. Tbey [the
Baptists of his times] know themselves that it is a separa¬
tion begun less than eighty years ago. Any very aged man
may remember when there were no Englishmen, or at least
no society or church of them, of that persuasion. They at
first held the opinion without separating for it. Their
* Wall, vol. ii. p. 322.
13
146
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
eldest separate churches are not yet of the age of a man,—
viz.: seventy years. I mean the aged men of reading among
them know this : the young and vulgar, who will talk right
or wrong for a side, do not own it; but the others own it,
and they justify it by pleading that their opinion is the
truest."* Wall then gives the facts. "There are several
good books," says he, "written purposely on this subject,
and directed to the Antipedobaptists, to show that, sup¬
posing their opinion to be true, yet their schism [separation^
is a sin j and that by men of both the opinions. Mr. Toombes,
who continued an Antipedobaptist to his dying day, as I am
told, wrote against separation for it; and for communion
with the parish churches. I have not seen that book ; but
this I have seen, where he defends his opinion against Mar¬
shal, and where Marshal had said, 'The teachers of this
opinion, wherever they prevail, take their proselytes wholly
off from the ministry of the word, and sacraments, and all
other acts of Christian communion both public and private,
from any but those that are of their own opinion.' To this
Toombes answers, 'This is indeed a wicked practice, justly
to be abhorred : the making of sects upon difference of
opinion, reviling, separating, from their teachers and
brethren otherwise faithful, because there is not the same
opinion in disputable points or in clear truths not funda¬
mental, is a thing too frequent in all sorts of dogmatists, &c.
I look upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity.
You shall have me join with you in showing my detestation
of it. Nevertheless, first it is to be considered that this
is not the evil of antipedobaptism, and therefore must be
charged on the persons, not on the assertion itself.' And
accordingly Mr. Toombes himself continued in communion
with the church till he died."f "Mr. Stennett," (a Bap-
* Wall, vol. il. p. 55T.
f Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 558-560.
A MODERN INVENTION.
147
tist,) Wall continues, "in a book come out tbe other day,
says, 'If he [Mr. Russen] mean they [the Antipedobaptists]
cannot look upon those that differ from them as Christians,
the contrary is well known.' "* Wall then quotes from
their confessions. " But it is best to quote from their con¬
fessions. In the first year of King William, one party of
the Antipedobaptists published a confession of their faith:
they say it is the same for substance with that published
1643, in the name of seven churches, which I suppose
were the first in England. Now they say they are con¬
cerned for ' above a hundred.' They declare in the preface
the design both of that and this confession to be ' to mani¬
fest their consent with both [the Presbyterians and Inde¬
pendents] in all the fundamental articles of the Christian
religion;' and, as they add afterwards, with other Pro¬
testants. It is plain, then, that they count not the age or
manner of receiving baptism to be fundamental."']' Bap¬
tist principles, then, in their origin, did not involve separate
or strict c'ommunion; and this opinion was not one of the
"principles" embraced by the Baptists in more recent
times.
But Dr. Howell endeavors to make the impression that
Baptists have suffered martyrdom for the principles which
the present Baptist Church embraces. "Wall, whose
language," says he, "in substance I adopt, affirms that it
was but a short time ere lfour Baptists—three men and
one woman—were condemned to bear fagots at Paul's Cross,
and that three days after a man and woman were burnt at
Smithfield.' Ten other Baptists were, in a few weeks more,
put to death; and some months subsequently fourteen more
suffered the same fate."! firsfc place, Dr. Howell
omits an important testimony of his historian, namely,
* Wall, vol. ii. p. 551. f ^id. vo1- P- 552*
J Terms of Communion, p. 125.
148
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
" This year the name of this sect [Anabaptist] first appears
in our English Chronicle^."* And, secondly, he omits the
true reasons for which they suffered death, which Wall
gives. " The Bishop of Salisbury (History of the Reforma¬
tion, part 1, book 3, p. 195) mentions these men, but not
under the name of Anabaptists. He says that in May
this year (1535) nineteen Hollanders were accused of some
heretical opinions,—' denying Christ to be both God and
Man; or that he took flesh and blood of the virgin Mary;
or that the sacraments had any effect on those that received
them : in which opinions fourteen of them remained obsti¬
nate, and were burnt by pairs in several- places.' Here is
nothing peculiarly about infa.nt baptism. But the circum¬
stance of time, May, 1535, leads one to think that they
were some of them that were to have made a part in the
insurrection at Amsterdam. For the author of an English
pamphlet, written 1647, called A Short History of the Ana¬
baptists, (who has made a good collection out of Sleiden,
Hortentius, &c.,) says that many Dutchmen from several
parts, who had been appointed to assist John Geles in the
surprise of Amsterdam before mentioned, hearing the ill
Success, fled to England in two ships. Now, this insurrec¬
tion was in this very month. And that author reckons
those two ship-loads to be the first seminary of Dutch
Antipedobaptists in England."j"
From this investigation we are led to the following con¬
clusions. First, that antipedobaptism in England is of
modern date. Secondly, that strict communion is more
modern still. Thirdly, that Dr. Howell has no just ground
on which to boast of his English Baptist ancestry, and it
would seem that he should be the last to admit that "the
Anabaptists of that day are on all hands confessed to be
the Baptists of our times."
Wall, vol. ii. p. 310.
f Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 310-311.
A MODERN INVENTION. 149
Dr. Howell vehemently exults,—" We glory in our whole
spiritual ancestry, among whom we number the apostles of
Christ and the saints and martyrs of all ages."* Would the
doctor's apostolic ancestry have excluded from communion
those whom they acknowledged to be Christians ? and were
not thousands of the saints and martyrs of all ages Pedo-
baptists ? Have not nearly the entire multitude of saints
since the days of Christ, embracing thousands of those whom
the Baptists associate with their spiritual ancestry, been Pedo-
baptists ? Is not nearly the whole body of them in the pre¬
sent day Pedobaptists ? Of the " whole spiritual ancestry"
which the doctor claims, I challenge him to name a single case,
except an occasional one in very recent times, who suffered
martyrdom for opposition to infant baptism; and he is wel¬
come to the glory of descent from this sort of ancestry.
While we are unwilling to admit the ancestral fame to
which he aspires, we certainly feel no hesitation in allowing
that in the art of boasting he is entitled to the laurel.
Robert Hall places the Baptists in the following alter¬
native :—" What became of that portion of the ancient
church [on the supposition that the ancient church was
Baptist] which refused to adopt the baptism of infants?
Did they separate from their brethren in order to form dis¬
tinct and exclusive societies ? Of this not the faintest trace
or vestige is to be found in ecclesiastical history; and the
supposition is completely refuted by the concurrent testi¬
mony of ancient writers to the universal incorporation of
orthodox Christians into one grand community. We chal¬
lenge our opponents to produce the shadow of evidence in
favor of the existence during that long tract of time of a
single society of which adult baptism was the distinguishing
characteristic. We well know that in the latter part of his
* Sacramental Communion, p. 18,
13*
150
RESTRICTED COMMUNION
life Tertullian did secede from the orthodox Catholic church,
hut we are equally certaiu that he was moved to this
measure, not by his disapprobation of infant baptism, but
solely by his attachment to the Montanists. We therefore
offer our opponents the alternative either of affirming that
the transition from the primitive to the modern usage was
sudden and instantaneous, in opposition to all that obser¬
vation suggests respecting the operations of mind, or of
acknowledging that for two centuries the predecessors of
the present Baptists unanimously approved and practised
a mixed communion,—a communion in which Baptists
and JPedohaptists united in the same societies."*
The extreme presumption of the Baptists must involve
them in inextricable difficulties on every hand. They
assume that the apostolic churches, and the churches for a
century after the days of the apostles, were Baptist churches,
and that subsequently infant baptism "was introduced, and
became "the main pillar of Popery" and principal source
of the evils and corruptions of Popery. Yery well: with
all the important and comprehensive concessions of Baptist
writers to the piety and efficiency of the evangelical Pedo-
baptists of modern times before us, and supposing that the
first Pedobaptists were as eminent for piety and usefulness
as those of our times, we ask, in the first place, for the least
proof that any Baptists at all existed in those times; or,
secondly, if they existed, that they expressed the same
friendly regard for their pious Pedobaptist brethren in those
times as the Baptists do now, and separated from them only
on account of infant baptism. Tertullian, we have seen,
though he entertained singular views of baptism, remained
in the communion of the church, and was not expelled the
communion till he became a Montanist. On these two
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 482.
A MODERN INVENTION.
151
points history is silent; and the conclusion, founded upon
the concessions, is as plain as open day that infant baptism
was not the cause of the early divisions in the church
which the Baptists ascribe to "Baptist principles," nor
made the occasion of a separate communion, as in the case
of the modern Baptist Church.
We close this chapter with the following reflections :—
1. Opposition to infant baptism is of comparatively recent
date.
2. The origin of the present Baptist Church is more
recent still.
3. Close communion in the Baptist Church is still more
recent than the origin of the Baptist Church.
4. Several of the sects through which the Baptists claim
descent did not separate from the church on account of
infant baptism, for they practised infant baptism after their
separation.
5. One of these sects particularly—the Waldenses, who
practised infant baptism—did commune with the "Reformed
churches in France and Geneva," which is opposed to the
modern requisition of membership in the Baptist Church,
or in churches of "like faith and order."
6. The modern Baptist Church itself, which was scat¬
tered among the Pedobaptist churches, practised mixed
communion with them, and, at its commencement as a
separate and organized sect, practised open communion.
152
COMMUNION CONFINED TO
CHAPTER X.
COMMUNION CONFINED TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAPTIST
CHURCH.
The heading of this chapter may startle the reader; but
such is the fact; and in the fact we have a convincing and,
melancholy proof of the spirit and inconsistency of strict
Baptists. If baptism be an indispensable prerequisite to
sacramental communion, and immersion only is baptism,
then immersed members in Pedobaptist churches have a
right to communion in the Baptist Church. They have
as good a right to communion in the Baptist Church as the
Baptists themselves have, for in every other particular the
Baptists concede that the Pedobaptists are qualified for the
communion, and only want immersion to give them a title
to it.
A few quotations on this point will suffice:—" Let them
[the Pedobaptists] return to the baptism of the Bible, and
all separation will cease."* " A believer as the candidate,
and immersion as baptism, all confess to be legitimate. To
this intelligent Pedobaptists can with a good conscience
confine themselves. Beyond this We cannot, dare not, go.
Thus far all perfectly harmonize."f "If we understand
the case aright, they [Pedobaptists] could all be immersed
without any violation of conscience. By so doing they
remove the only barrier to our church-communion."J " It
* R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 248.
f Howell on Communion, p. 264.
| Remington on Restricted Communion, p. 236.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAPTIST CHURCH. 153
is the Lord's table; and this is the very reason why we do
not admit those who have not the prerequisite [immersion]
which the Lord requires."*
This is the language of authorities in the Baptist Church
in England and America.
But we shall show that the want of immersion is not the
true reason why Pedobaptists are excluded from the Lord's
table in the Baptist Church. We shall show, in the lan¬
guage of Mr. Whitney, himself a Baptist, that the Lord's
Supper with the Baptists is " a denominational affair alto¬
gether that it is a rule of the Baptist Church to exclude
all from the communion who are not "members of some
church of like faith and order,"—that is, the Baptist
Church. This is the real ground of the close commu¬
nion of the Baptist Church, notwithstanding the specious
endeavors to lay the whole burden of blame upon Pedo-
baptist churches. It is well known that immersed members
of pious Pedobaptist churches, all over the land, are excluded
from communion in the Baptist Church, except in cases
acknowledged to be violations of her restrictive rules. Mr.
Whitney says of himself, " It was simply because I ques¬
tioned the propriety of this course that the Council which
met in the autumn of 1851 to recognise me as pastor of the
church at Westport refused to do it. They had examined
me on all the various points on which it is customary to
examine on such occasions,—experimental religion, call to
the ministry, doctrinal views, church-polity, and baptism.
Apparently only one question more remained to be asked.
It was this :—' In administering the Lord's Supper, would
you invite to it any credible Christians who are bajptized,
or would you restrict your invitations to such as are mem-
* R. Puller on Baptism and Communion, p. 243; Howell on Com¬
munion, p. 107; Cone on Terms of Communion, Bap. Lib., vol. iii.
p. 412.
154
COMMUNION CONFINED TO
bers of Baptist churches ?' My reply was, ' I would invite
any who are baptized and leading consistent Christian lives.'
But for this reply, and because I was unable after all that
was said to see the impropriety of it, the Council refused to
install me."* Mr. Whitney quotes a dialogue from Mr.
Remington's "Defence of Restricted Communion" to the
same purpose; and, as this " Defence" is before me, I give
it in the language of Mr. Remington. Mr. C., a Baptist
minister, is about to administer the communion. Mr. R.,
a Methodist minister and member of the New England
Conference, is present, and says, " My name is ,R. I am a
member of the Christian church and a minister of the
gospel. Will you permit me to sit down with you and your
church at the Lord's table?" C. "Are you a Baptist?"
R. " No, sir j I am a Methodist and a member of the New
England Conference of ministers; and I should like, if
agreeable, to commemorate the sufferings and death of our
Lord Jesus Christ with you." C. " But, my brother, you
must be baptized before you come with us to the Lord's
table: and you know our principles,—that we consider
no baptism valid but immersion." R. "True; but I have
been immersed." C. " Let me inquire, then, my brother,
do you, both by precept and example, sanction immersion
as the only gospel baptism ?" R. " Oh, no, sir. I believe
that a valid gospel baptism may be performed by either
sprinkling or pouring." C. "I thought so; and you cer¬
tainly know that with such views and practice we should
make ourselves very inconsistent to admit you to the com¬
munion with us."f Mr. Remington's "Defence" is endorsed
by the "American Baptist Publication Society," and hence
it contains the "views" on which the Baptist Church acts
* Whitney on Communion, pp. 95, 96.
f Remington on Restricted Communion, pp. 15, 16.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAPTIST CHURCH. 155
in the United States. " Even the members of Free-Will
Baptist churches are never invited, and never would be
communed with if it could be avoided. But it is not for
the want of repentance, faith, and baptism; for the moment
a Free-Will Baptist joins a close-communion church he is no
longer unqualified. Nor are members of Calvinistic open
Baptist churches—persons like Alexander Carson, Baptist
W. Noel, and a large share of the Baptists in England and
Canada—regarded by 'regular* Baptists as proper fellow-
communicants."* That the Lord's Supper is perverted to
a denominational ordinance is conceded by Professor Curtis,
quoted by Mr. Whitney:—" All that our course in declining
to celebrate with members of other denominations exhibits,
is that such persons do not belong to churches of our order.
We do not own them as Baptists."j"
Thus, after all this ado about "repentance, faith, and
baptism, as indispensable prerequisites"! to sacramental
communion, they are not sufficient in an immersed Pedo-
baptist, nor in a Free-Will Baptist, nor in an open-communion
Baptist, to entitle to the Lord's Supper in the close-com¬
munion Baptist Church! "Return to the baptism of the
Bible," that is, be immersed, "and all separation will
cease." It is done; and the separation continues! "Thus
far all perfectly harmonizeand yet there is no harmony!
"By being immersed, the only barrier to our church-com¬
munion is removed." It is done; and Christians areas
far removed from communion with the Baptists as if they
had not been immersed! "It is the Lord's table; yes, it
is the Lord's table; and that is the very reason why we do
not admit those who have not the prerequisite [immersion]
which the Lord requires." And those who have this pre-
# Whitney on Open Communion, pp. 97, 98. f Ibid. p. 101.
J Howell on Communion.
156
COMMUNION CONFINED TO
requisite are repelled from the Lord's table ! They do not
belong to " churches of our order! They are not Bap¬
tists !" This, then, is the upshot of the whole matter, a
doubling back of the ingenuity of the Baptist Church into
a denial of its own terms of communion, a settling down
around the Lord's table as belonging to the Baptists alone,
a prescription of membership in the Baptist Church as the
only condition of admission to the Lord's table, a perversion
of the Lord's Supper to a mere denominational observance!
I must be a Baptist; that is not enough: I must be a
"regular" close-communion Baptist, or I cannot be ad¬
mitted to the Lord's table in the Baptist Church! Gospel
of Heaven! is this thy law ? Son of God, is this thy gospel ?
No, no! But if a divine requisition is indeed laid upon all
Christians to join the Baptist Ghurch, then let us hear no
more about "repentance, faith, and immersion as being the
divinely-ordained and. unchangeable terms of sacramental
communion." Have done forever with the pretence that
"we cannot commune with the Pedobaptists, because they
are not immersed," whilst the true reason declared is be¬
cause " they are not of churches of our order." Proclaim
this through the land, and be honest. Retract the conces¬
sion that " Pedobaptists have a right to the Lord's Supper
and do right in partaking of it." Say that we usurp the
sacred privilege of the Baptist Church. Efface the seal
of endorsation from the sentences of Dr. Howell:—"Repent¬
ance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
and baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, are incon-
trovertibly THE terms of communion, appointed by the
King of Zion, and from which we are forbidden, by the
most sacred obligations, at any time, for any purpose, or
under any circumstances, to depart."* "We are prohibited
"3 Howell on Communion, p. 102.
membership in the baptist church. 157
from adopting any terms of communion otlier than those
ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ, and that to these we
are at all times, and in all circumstances, under obligations
to adhere, individually and collectively, without addition,
diminution, or change"* "Repentance toward Giod, and
faith in our Lord Jesurs Christ, and baptism in the name
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are indispensable terms
of approach to the Lord's table, and to which those who
have observed these preliminaries cannot afterward be
debarred of access but in consequence of a forfeiture of
Christian character by immorality or heresy "f Let the
"American Baptist Publication Society" expunge these
sentences, or receive pious Pedobaptists who have been im-
mersed, or prove that immersed Pedobaptists have "forfeited
Christian character by immorality or heresy." And let the
Society add, or cause to be added, to the terms as stated
by Br. Howell, "the great American champion of their
System," that "membership in the Baptist Church is in¬
dispensable to communion in the Baptist Church." If
Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Owen, Baxter, Doddridge,
Edwards, Wesley, Whitefield, Brainard, Payson, were now to
appear, though they might submit to immersion, they could
not be admitted to communion with the Baptists unless
they joined the Baptist Church; and Bunyan, Hall, Carson,
Noel, and Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist
Church in America,—all Baptists,—if now alive, must like¬
wise be excluded, because not members of "like faith and
order that is, not "regular" Baptists!
The advice of Mr. Whitney is capital:—"Why not deny
at once the sacramental table to be the Lord's, and honestly
and avowedly contend for its being a denominational table ?
If it be true, as the practice of restricted communion from
* Howell on Communion, p. 265.
14
f Ibid, p. 266.
158
COMMUNION CONFINED TO
one end of the land to the other says, that the qualification
for communion is not repentance, faith, and baptism merely,
hut simply a place in the Baptist denomination, then let us
hear no more about not communing with others on the
ground of their not being baptized. For the truth's sake
let us have consistency' and honesty. Let it be frankly
and fearlessly asserted that the communion-table is not the
Lord's, nor for his people, but a denominational table for
those only who are of our denomination. If the system is
justifiable, there is nothing to gain by urging false pleas in
its behalf and cloaking its deformities under falsehoods,
nor any thing to be feared by placing it on its true basis
and attempting to defend it as it is. Should it fall when
placed there and left to stand without the fictitious props
which now support it, let it fall. It is unworthy to stand;
and the sooner it falls the better, as well for those who
practise it as for the church at large, and for the general
advancement among men of the pure and ennobling prin¬
ciples of the gospel of the Son of God."*
The restriction of communion to membership in the
11 Baptist Church order" is an act of ecclesiastical proscrip¬
tion surpassed only by papal usurpation. This single re¬
quisition of the- Baptist Church is repellent of the other
churches of Christendom to the extent that circumstances
and power will allow. It is intolerant to the utmost
bounds of civil freedom; it is a wholesale abuse of religious
liberty. It is a law which civil authority and religion at
present restrain, but which, should occasion offer, would
jeopardize the existence of both civil authority and religion.
The apostolic church contained no such law; and yet it de¬
generated into papal tyranny. It retrenches the word of
God. It is the defence of a favorite cause at all hazards,
* Whitney on Open Communion, pp. 110, 111.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAPTIST CHURCH. 159
"which in the end must fetter its supporters in the chains
of their own forging. It is the full scope of arbitrary as¬
sumptions. It has not an element, not even the appearance,
of truth in it. It has no intrinsic worth, no salutary ten¬
dency. It is not capable of any sort of vindication. It is
unworthy of a church claiming to he fairer and purer than
the rest of God's people and boasting of being the only
organization constructed conformably to the apostolic model.
It is a bold abuse of Pedobaptist authorities adduced in
proof that "baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to
sacramental communion;" for these authorities never con¬
fined sacramental communion to churches of "the same
faith and order," but sanctioned and encouraged it in
churches of different organizations — Romish and other;
heresies excepted—from the apostolic times till the present.
It is a deadly polemical thrust at evangelical Pedobaptism
in all its sects, and in their ultimate overthrow would reap
the spoils of their splendid fortunes. In tendency it over¬
turns the foundations of the common faith and renders all
mutual forbearance and approximation impossible. It di¬
vides the Baptists and Pedobaptists into two great parties
as mutually inaccessible and mutually hostile as were the
Jews and Samaritans. It is a deep-laid systematic scheme,
that parsimoniously monopolizes the most precious treasures
of divine wisdom and love. This the testimony of the
weightiest witness for God ! the expenditure of the talents
of the most trustworthy disciples and friends of Jesus!
This the weapon which the only "regularly" organized
gospel corps wields in strenuous opposition to the primitive
church supposed to be degenerated into pious pedobaptism !
This the distinguishing characteristic of those who are
" elected" to guide the heirs of the covenant by the living
word, and bear the warnings and threatenings of the law
to the wicked and impenitent! This the method by which
160
COMMUNION CONFINED TO
the age is to be animated with a higher degree of spiritual
life, and be made a season of celestial efflorescence for all
future time! This the guardianship of the truth, whole
and entire! This the wall " against which the gates of hell
shall not prevail" ! But enough. In reason it is wholly
defective; of Biblical authority it is wholly destitute; and
the New Testament is directly opposed to it.
But this is not all. The Baptists will not admit to the
communion Pedobaptists who in immersion obtained the
manifest u sanction" of God himself. Bead the following :
" It happened," says Mr. Bemington, in his " Farewell
Letter to his Late [Methodist] Charge," " a little more than
two months ago, that several persons belonging to my con¬
gregation desired to be immersed. I could not refuse them,
though I resolved not to immerse them myself. Accord¬
ingly, I engaged a brother in the ministry to officiate for me.
To confess the whole truth, I felt rather vexed than pleased.
The weather was cold, and I thought it presumptuous to go
into the water under such circumstances. There were eight
candidates, all females, one of whom was rather feeble in
health; and I was requested to reserve her for the last,—
which request I readily complied with. Suffice it to say,
they went down into the water one by one, and came
straightway up out of the water, while I stood upon the
shore a silent spectator. Soon, however, the scene began
to melt my heart, and something seemed to kindly whisper,
This is the way to follow Jesus. I felt that Jesus was
present to own and sanction his ordinance. That Spirit
that descended upon him at his baptism in the river Jordan
appeared to be hovering over us and to change the whole
aspect of the occasion in my mind to one of the most intense
interest and delight. At length the last subject came; that
feeble young woman went down into the water, and, to my
surprise, she came up out of the water praising God, &c.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAPTIST CHURCH. 161
My heart was humbled, and I felt to mingle my tears of
gratitude with hers. The impression made upon my heart
that morning I trust will continue while memory endures."*
And yet neither Mr. Remington nor any other Baptist
minister would admit "that feeble young woman," nor any
of the rest immersed with her, to the Lord's Supper, unless
they joined the Baptist Church. Grod's "sanction" of
Pedobaptist immersions is not enough to entitle to a place
at his table! "Jesus is present to own and sanction his
ordinance" at the hands of a Pedobaptist administrator,
and "the Spirit appears hovering over" the scene as at the
baptism of Christ, and Mr. Remington feels "the most
intense interest and delight" on the occasion, and is "sur¬
prised" at the effect that followed,—yea, his "heart is
melted," and he hears "something kindly whispering, This
is the way to follow Jesus,"—and yet these very Christians
are not worthy of participation at the Lord's table with the
Baptists ! If baptism at the hands of a Pedobaptist was not
vitiated, how can the Lord's Supper at the same hands be?
If Glod in these cases owned and sanctioned the ordinance
that the Baptists make indispensably prerequisite to the
Lord's Sapper, by what authority can the Baptists deny the
right of these persons to the Lord's Supper? That mem¬
bership in the Baptist Church is an indispensable condition
to sacramental communion is therefore refuted by the testi¬
mony of Mr. Remington himself.
"Churches of like faith and order" ! Worse and worse.
Is not prayer in the name of Jesus, with every other act of
proper worship, alike acceptable devotion and the peculiar
prerogative of every Christian church? "Like faith;"
very well: and yet they exclude those who they acknow¬
ledge "have obtained like precious faith with"* them-
* Remington's Reasons for Becoming a Baptist, pp. 58, 59
,14*
162
COMMUNION CONFINED TO
selves,—a shot point-blank from the apostolic battery
against this peculiarity of the Baptist Church. Peter at
first refused even to eat with the Gentiles; but, when the
Holy Ghost fell upon them assembled in the house of Cor¬
nelius, he hesitated not a moment to admit them to all the
privileges of the Christian church, " forasmuch," says he,
"as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who
believed ;"f and adds, "who was I that I should withstand
God?"—that I should be stricter or more orderly than
God himself? Peter had as good evidence that these
Gentiles had a right to the privileges of the church as the
converted Jews had; and the Baptists concede, what is
obvious on every hand, that pious Pedobaptists have " the
like gift" with themselves. Peter, an apostle, was not
intolerant enough to "withstand God;" and his practice
may be recommended to the serious consideration of the
Baptists. Mr. Hall observes, "The practice which we
are reprobating is nearly equivalent to the inscription
over the door, Let none but Baptists enter within these
walls,—an admirable expedient, truly, for diffusing the
Baptist sentiments; about as rational as to send a man
from London to Constantinople to study the evidences of
Christianity."|
The Baptists assume a fearful responsibility when they
dispute the Christian character and standing of other evan¬
gelical churches, and a greater responsibility when they
venture to repulse them from the Lord's table because of a
want of conformity to their " faith and order." Such a
repulse is equivalent to a positive and unequivocal denial
of the right of every other Christian denomination but their
own to the blessings of the everlasting covenant, equivalent
® 2 Peter i. 1. f Acts xi. 17.
f "Works, vol. ii. p. 228.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAPTIST CHURCH. 163
to a formal shutting out of all other Christians from the
kingdom of grace and glory, equivalent to an association of
all other true believers but themselves with unbelievers and
the heirs of perdition, and is, in fact, so far as they can do
it, rendering absolutely impossible obedience to the com¬
mand, of Christ, 11 Do this in remembrance of me" If it
were proved that immersion and association with the Bap¬
tist Church are essential prerequisites to communion, then
the Baptists were not responsible for their restriction and
exclusiveness, and the responsibility would lie upon other
churches to submit to immersion and join the Baptist
Church. But, in the first place, it has never been proved
that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism,—but the
contrary; in the second place, if it had been proved, it has
never been proved that baptism is essentially prerequisite
to communion; and, in the third place, if it had been proved
that immersion is prerequisite to communion, it never has
been, and never can be, proved that association with the
Baptist Church is prerequisite to communion in the Baptist
Church.
All that is required as essentially prerequisite to com¬
munion is the evidence of Christian character. That is,
both baptism and the Lord's Supper stand upon the same
ground in this respect; for as the evidence of Christian
character in adults is required as prerequisite to baptism,
so it is required as prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. As,
therefore, the Baptists grant baptism to all who give this
evidence, they are bound to admit to the communion all
who give the same evidence. They acknowledge thousands
who have never been immersed to be Christians; and to
these they should no more deny admission to the Lord's
table, should they seek to be .admitted, than they should
have denied them immersion had they sought to be baptized
in that form. Upon the ground of Christian character alone
164 restricted communion unreasonable.
they baptize all who desire itj and this is right; and so,
upon the same ground, they should admit to the Lord's
Supper all who seek it. It is extravagant to demand
immersion also as preliminary to communion; but when, in
addition to Christian character and immersion, membership
in the Baptist Church is required also as indispensable,
extravagance exceeds all bounds.
CHAPTER XI.
restricted communion unreasonable.
Not to confine the attention of the reader to the forms
of logical precision, a few solemn and vital questions are
proposed.
What a spectacle have we in a restricted communion!
Shall the Father, in tender mercy, devise the plan of sal¬
vation, and, through a long series of centuries and sublime
transactions, in prophecy and providence, amid the ruins
of civil governments and false systems of religion of every
form, and opposition of earth and hell, preserve his word
and church in a glorious manner, and yet one branch of
that church, under authority of that word, stand out, dis¬
owning, alienated, sundered, opposed, without communion,
without confidence, without religious "dealings," and play¬
ing the Samaritan toward the rest of the church, as if its
title to heaven were founded upon uncompromising and
incessant hostility to those who profess "one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, and one hope of their calling" ? It is
unreasonable.
Shall the Son lay aside his glory, assume the nature of
man, lead a suffering life, endure the wrath of God, shed
RESTRICTED COMMUNION UNREASONABLE. 165
his blood, and-die a shameful agonizing death, that he may
lay down the foundation of a kingdom that shall embrace
all nations, the foundation of a church that shall include
every people, tribe, tongue, and kindred of this earth, the
one kingdom, the one church, of the living God,—oh,
shall the Son of God astonish heaven and earth with the
grandeur of his scheme, the wonders of his life, the prodigy
of his death, and the excellence of his teaching,—shall he
devote his whole life to unite the entire human race to God
forever, and just before his death institute, in the most
solemn and impressive manner, an ordinance,—his own
supper,—a bond of union of all his people, a common oath
of fealty to him, a means of reciprocal benefit, encourage¬
ment, and love between all the members of his body,—and
yet one sect assert sole right to that sacramental communion
and oath, repel those who differ in nothing essential to
salvation, in nothing wanting in moral probity, clash harshly
and unkindly with the rest of the churches of Christ, turn
the table of the Lord into " a stone of stumbling and rock
of offence," and excite the bitter, biting taunt, " These
Christians have just religion enough to form a faction and
hate their brethren heartily" ? Is this reasonable ? It is
not reasonable.
Shall the Holy Spirit call and send out men of every
order of mind to preach the word, and seal their commis¬
sion in awakening and converting men of every rank in
humanity, and baptize the churches with power, and on
them stamp the seal of divine approval, and adorn them
with heavenly virtues and graces, and excite in their indi¬
vidual members a reciprocal brotherly love, and shield them
all against the world's invasions, and harmonize them in the
great enterprise of the world's redemption, and yet one com¬
munion throw up around itself a strong rampart of sectari¬
anism which other denominations sound in the faith of Jesus
166 RESTRICTED COMMUNION UNREASONABLE.
are not permitted to pass, exerting to the utmost the baleful
and blasting influence of sect on the rest of the "kingdom
of God," exercising caution, management, and address to
break down other altars of Christ or draw away worshippers
from them, and allowing no sacramental fellowship whatever
to other children of God, unless they dissolve their con¬
nection with their particular churches and transfer their
precious spiritual interests to her superintendence ? Is this
reasonable ? It is unreasonable.
Shall this separate sect engage with other churches in
public worship in their respective churches, in singing the
praises of Zion, in public prayer with their members, in
exchanging pulpits with their ministers, in social spiritual
conversation at the fireside, in the sick-room, at the death¬
bed, everywhere but at the communion-table, and yet at the
communion-table have no fellowship at all with them, and
spurn them away as disobedient children, unworthy of their
sanctity and profession, because destitute of their sectarian
mark and different from them in their peculiarities ? Is
this reasonable ? It is unreasonable.
Shall this sect engage with other churches in gracious
and powerful revivals, in which the rumbling among the
dry bones waxes louder and louder, in which multitudes
press into the kingdom of God and souls by families and
flocks enter into the fold of Christ, in which the vain, the
fashionable, the gay, the dissipated, the formal, the moral,
the rich, the poor, and those who ridiculed vital and experi¬
mental godliness, " escape for their lives" and " flee from
the wrath to come," and the most solemn spiritual concern
is universal among persons of all degrees, tastes, pursuits,
and ages? and yet,—but look at one of these revivals. The
town, village, or country-place seems to be full of the
presence, love, and peace of God. The very breezes and
sunlight seem to come from a pure and. happy world,—the
RESTRICTED COMMUNION UNREASONABLE. 167
clouds by day to float with blessings of heaven, and the
moon and stars by night to shine with the softened reflection
of the Sun of righteousness. The stillness of the air is
sacred, and the singing of birds is sweet. The quiet homes
of men seem to be enjoying a visit from the Son of man,
as the cottage of Bethany did •, and peace smiles around the
happy mansions, parents and children and husbands and
wives and friends rejoicing in the converting power of God.
God is seen in his sanctuary: his days are delightful and
his tabernacle amiable. The congregation is alive and eager
to catch every word of instruction from the pulpit, some
weeping in penitential sorrow, others in earliest spiritual
love and joy, and others in sympathy for those who are
impenitent and in danger of dropping into hell. . The public
praise is simple, lively, harmonious, and exalted almost to
seraphic melody,—as nearly so as happy mortals can employ
in the service of God; at least, there is no service in which
the hearts of good men—old and young Christians—har¬
monize so sweetly as praise in a revival, all singing with
unusual animation and elevation of heart and voice, the very
melody giving an intense charm to the truth, rendering
duty pleasant, and invigorating for other services of the
sanctuary. The prayers are simple, earnest, spiritual,
special, powerful, uttered as if at the feet of Jesus, and sent
up to heaven to be answered,—and answered sometimes in
a signal and overwhelming manner. The lukewarm are
greatly enlivened and renerved. Many who for years had
been depressed with doubts and fears receive a more plentiful
baptism of the Spirit and rejoice in clearer discoveries of
God's mercy and love. Some who occasionally had been
seeking salvation for years, and who had often obtained
glimpses of pardon, now give themselves wholly up to the
work of seeking, and, in a powerful conversion, obtain the
fullest assurances of pardon. Backsliders are reclaimed,
168 RESTRICTED COMMUNION UNREASONABLE.
and rejoice with, exceeding joy. Strangers are solemnly
impressed as soon as they enter the house of God, and many
of them are soon weeping in the congregation or at the
altar, and partake of the gracious feast, and go away
rejoicing. More seems to be done for religion in one week
than had been done for many years before. The " Spirit
of grace" sheds abroad his holiest influences; the Son of
God spreads his mildest radiance around; the "love of the
brethren" flows from heart to heart till the swelling tide
overflows all- bounds in streams of hallowed transport, and
the scene compels the reverential testimony, " How vene¬
rable is this place ! Surely this is none other than the
house of God! and this is the gate of heaven !" But soon
the whole scene is changed. The sacramental bread is to
be broken. All these evidences of the divine favor and
approval are at once swept aside; and though the members
of this one separate sect, and perhaps their pastor with
them, took this "sweet counsel" with this sister-church,
and some of their children, parents, husbands, wives, and
friends were converted at her altar, and many of the con¬
verts became the rich spoils of the common labors, lo! a
huge stumbling-block, an inexpiable transgression, lies in
the way to the Lord's table: the charm is dissolved; the
sectarian suddenly prevails over the Christian; "they
only follow Christthey do not follow us: they are not
of uonr faith and order;" they are a "disorderly" church:
communion with them would be "unlawfulthey have
never been "immersed." Is this reasonable? It is
unreasonable. It is a reproach,—a shame,—a crime,—
the true award of which, sooner or later, must come, in this
world, or when God arises to judgment.
Once more: Shall all the true churches derive their
spiritual life and being from the same source, be en¬
couraged by the same gracious word, be delivered in
RESTRICTED COMMUNION UNREASONABLE. 169
temptation, in trial, in danger, by the same gracious band,
be comforted in suffering, in losses, in bereavement, by tbe
same blessed Spirit, be relieved in want, in poverty, in ne¬
cessities, by tbe same special providence, be strengthened
in misfortune, in calamity, in persecution, by tbe same
heavenly Friend, be supported in sickness and in death,
and led along tbe valley of death, by tbe same heavenly
Physician and Guide ?—be intrusted with the same great
work on earth and called to the same great reward in
heaven, be one with God in time and eternity,—and yet
one of these churches bind itself around as with a chain
of iron, to hold within it all its members, and surround
itself as within a wall of adamant, with no egress nor in¬
gress but to those of its communion, and shut up, lock up,
the sacramental banquet to its sole use,—to its sole use hold
a solemn feast to which all God's people have an equal
right, and in which all these great mercies and blessings
and hopes are gratefully acknowledged, and the death that
secures them all is reverently commemorated ? Is this
reasonable ? It is unreasonable.
Does God make no distinctions between his churches but
as they obey him ? No! and shall one of these churches
presume to make such a distinction ? Has God in any way
evinced that the exclusiveness of this one sect is right, and
the opposite practice of the other churches is wrong ? No!
but quite the contrary, if their "fruits," and the concessions
of this sect itself, are to be received as proofs. If we glory
in this, it is in the Lord, that in our hearts and in our
lives we have the evidence that God owns us as his people,
and we never will exclude from his table any who we be¬
lieve are his people.
15
170 consequences of restricted communion.
CHAPTER XII.
consequences of restricted communion.
What is right in itself may he abused, and the abuse
becomes an evil. Sacramental communion is right in itself;
but when it is made restrictive to a single sect of the true
churches it becomes a subject of abuse, and the evil con¬
sequences are many.
1. It is a self-excommunication. It is an open renuncia¬
tion, as far as it goes, of visible fellowship with the rest of
the churches of Christ. It is arrogantly assuming to be
the only true church of Christ on earth. It is a deliberate,
bold, and formal protest against fellowship with the rest of
the universal church of the living God in her ordinances,
—a dissolution of the "unity of the Spirit" under the
profession of "doing God service." It is a solemn procla¬
mation to the world that the claims of other churches are
unfounded and imaginary, and that the manifestations of
divine power, grace, love, and faithfulness in them are
spurious and delusory. It impeaches the professions of
other churches, accuses their intelligence of inconsistency,
and charges their piety with insincerity. It excludes every
description of Christians who are not of our sect. It is a
public announcement that none are the people of God but
the members of our church. It is a total disregard of the
terrible word of the Lord, " Whoso shall offend one of these
little ones that shall believe in me, it were better for him
that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck and that he
were drowned in the depth of the sea." Dr. Howell un-
CONSEQUENCES OP RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 171
qualifiedly proclaims, "We are not Protestants, nor Dis¬
senters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers,
but what we have been in all ages,—the church of our Lord
Jesus Christ."* This assumption is endorsed by the im¬
print of the "American Baptist Publication Society."
The setting up of a separate communion on reasons found
in mere forms and ceremonies, or in difference of opinion
and practice in immaterial matters, in the days of the
apostles, would have been considered a violation of the
commandment of Christ, a conspiracy against the unity of
his kingdom, an attempt to lacerate and destroy his church,
a desecration and slander of the spirit of the gospel, an
occasion to the enemies of Christ to blaspheme, and a
scandal to the Christian cause. Though these serious
offences may not be involved in the intentions of the Bap¬
tist Church in the present day, yet they are in fact the
unavoidable consequences of baptistical restrictions and
exclusiveness. Argue and explain as we may,—give to
Christian charity and forbearance their utmost exercise,—
the Baptist Church is a schism,—not entire, but partial,
and to a serious extent,—a schism to the whole extent of the
nature and importance of sacramental communion. Her
exclusiveness on the subject of baptism might be regarded
as a harmless, at least tolerable, error; but when it is made
the basis of a separate communion, the indispensable pre¬
requisite to sacramental fellowship with the church of
Christ, we are -forced to the conclusion that she has severed
one of the tenderest and most sacred ties that bind the
church of God together. Names, influence, learning, use¬
fulness, numbers, strength, in other respects, are nothing
on this one point. On this one fundamental point the
Baptist Church is a separate sect. This cuts deep. And
* Terms of Communion, p. 251.
172 consequences op restricted communion.
if on other fundamental points the Baptist Church were
schismatical as in this, she might he justly excluded from
the Christian church. Notwithstanding the divisions,
rents, wranglings, and bitterness of feeling that this one
evil has produced, it is gratifying to know that matters
are no worse, and that enough remains essential and fun¬
damental in the Baptist Chnrch as a ground on which she
may he regarded as a part of the Christian church and an
efficient agency in the world's redemption. She might be
better and do more; and so might every other Christian
church. Though she excludes us from the table of the
Lord, we are ready cheerfully to receive and welcome her
there. England and Canada encourage us to hope for the
best in the United States.
The self-excommunicating spirit and practice of the Bap¬
tist Church as regards sacramental communion are the more
remarkable since, as we have seen, she practically recog¬
nises Christian fellowship in every other respect.
Dr. Howell, "the American champion" of the cause,
proudly flaunts the sectarian banner to the breeze, under a
proclamation that calls Christendom to submission, and with
an inscription of profound meaning and dazzling glory:—
" Our whole mighty army, bearing the banner of undeviating
obedience to the word of Cod, the whole word of God, and
nothing hut the word of God, upon the ample folds of which
is inscribed 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism,' pre¬
sents an unbroken front,"*—a banner under which none
are permitted to enlist but strict Baptists, in the "whole
army" of whom we look in vain for such men as Bunyan,
Hall, Carson, Foster, Noel, and Roger "Williams,—the last
acknowledged to have been the first to call the Baptists to
arms in the little gallant company of "eleven" in America
* Terms of Communion, p. 16.
CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 173
in 1639 ! The inscription on the banner is indeed un¬
exceptionable , but the design is sectarian, for the " un¬
broken front" is sectarian, and every soldier marshalled
under it is a separatist, and what just reason there is for
excluding the rest of the Christian army it is impossible
to conceive. It had been well for Christianity if this un¬
broken front and solid square had long ago opened into
columns wide enough to admit into rank millions of other
loyal and valiant soldiers, who are recognised as fighting
under the banner of the "Captain of our salvation," but
are excluded from the shadow of "the ample folds" of the
Baptist flag ! A close inspection of this baptistical inscrip¬
tion will convince the beholder that the army beneath it
is parading the world to win mankind to the imaginary im¬
portance of the mere mode of a sacramental rite,—as if this
were " the word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing
hut the word of God," or any part of the word of God!
Is this the guardian and transmitter of the divine revela¬
tions to man ? Then why so vacillating in its utterances of
the truth as it has come down to us from former ages, and
why propose to bless mankind with a " new translation" of
the Holy Scriptures,—a translation that would require an
alteration in the inscription on the Baptist banner, by sub¬
stituting "one immersion" for "one baptism"? The spirit
of self-excommunication displayed in strict communion is
not" even the imitation of the majesty of the true church—■
not the pure gold of truth, but the baser metal of error,
which the crucible detects. Holy names and holy words
are blasted by refusal to commune with those whom we
acknowledge to be Christians; for such a refusal is equi¬
valent to a denial of their Christian character, whatever may
be the protestations to the contrary. It is in deadly hos¬
tility to the social principle of religion. It excludes utterly
the advantages of co-operation, renders impossible the dis-
15*
174 CONSEQUENCES OE RESTRICTED COMMUNION.
charge of those obligations by ■which religious society is
held most firmly together, and impracticable the fulfilment
of those proper and respective duties on which union is
most securely founded and perpetuated. It renders the
churches unable to lighten each others' burdens by mutual
assistance. Practically carried out in every other relation
of the churches to each other, it dissolves the bonds of the
family of God, and the church is destroyed; for renounce
the connections which religion has formed, and you must
be renounced also, and stand an isolated individual, or an
isolated sect, in the very centre of Christendom,—and, every
.other church pursuing your course, union is at an end, and
the church is no more. It is independence at the expense
of all the blessings of union,—Arabian freedom: your
" hand against every man, and every man's hand against"
you. Union is overlooked, and attention is fixed only on
bonds that draw a single denomination into closest sectarian
communion. We feel instinctively that disaster lurks within
it; we are disquieted by an indefinable apprehension that
danger is either at hand or not far remote; and we look
about us for the surest means of self-defence,—conscious
that it is humiliating for any portion of the church to be
beguiled into the necessity of surrounding itself with walls
impassable to the rest of the Christian world, and that the
rest of the Christian world should thereby be reduced to
the necessity of providing the best means of self-defence.
If concord be life, how can discord be other than death ?
" Let party names no more
The Christian world o'erspread :
Gentile and Jew, and bond and free.
Are one in Christ their head."
The piety and zeal of the Baptist Church alone counter¬
balance the evils of its restrictions.
CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 175
2. Restricted communion originates in, and fosters, the
spirit of bigotry. Books are read, studies are pursued,
sermons" are preached, volumes published, conversations
cherished, faculties employed, and time expended, for this
one end,—sectairan collision. The soul is narrowed down
and contracted within the interests of the sect. The virtues
and graces of other Christians are disparaged, and their
failures and faults aggravated into misdemeanors and crimes.
As the spirit of the sect predominates, the spirit of the
gospel languishes. As regard for the sect increases, concern
for the common faith, the general good, and the Redeemer's
truth, grace, kingdom, and glory, diminishes. Zeal for the
peculiarities and prosperity of the sect is substituted for
personal religion and the worship of God "in spirit and
in truth." Sacrifices are consecrated to the idol-god of the
sect, and not to the God of our salvation. Hard-faced
formality is substituted ^or living godliness. Greater stress
is laid upon the union' of the sect than union with the
church of God. A favorite system grows with the sect, till,
to support its integrity, it is necessary to supply certain
doctrines by inference, and illusory deductions from the
Scriptures are confounded with the original Scriptures them¬
selves.
It is not difficult to prove that to be true which we wish
to believe, and which coincides with our desires and habits.
Possibility strikes us then with the force of demonstration,
doubtful evidences are conclusive, and plausible arguments
are irresistible. But the reverse is the case when the truth
demands the recantation of our faith and the adoption of
that which we do not wish to be true. Then the claims of
truth are admitted with reluctance, powerful arguments are
received as plausible, conclusive evidences are entertained
as doubtful, demonstration is reduced to possibility, and the
mind is dissatisfied with every species of proof that can be
176 CONSEQUENCES OP RESTRICTED COMMUNION.
produced. In either case the exercise of candor and im¬
partiality is next to impossible. What allowance infinite
mercy may make to this infirmity of human nature cannot
be defined; but that it is a fit occasion on which to appeal
for mercy there can be no doubt. But bigotry goes beyond
this. It is blind to the truth. It is deaf to the appeals
of reason. It is insensible to the force of argument. It is
reckless in its defence of party. It sentences and roots out.
It invades the authority and province of the Deity. It
assumes the office of an executioner. It deprives innocent
Christians of the means of salvation, and expels them from
the sanctuaries of religion. Oh, what a narrow church
does " the general assembly" here become, and in what a
narrow place is it here confined! The gospel invitation is,
Approach, for "yet there is room;" but the master here
commands, "Retire, for there is no place for you."
As an example of the infatuation and bigotry which strict
communion engenders, take Dr. Howell himself, one of the
most popular writers in its defence:—" What more need we
say firmly to settle the principles of our faith ? In relation
to so plain a truth it is difficult involuntarily to err."
Again:—"Are they [Pedobaptists] conscientious ? We are
willing to admit that they may he." Again :—" The former
assumes that, as the Pedobaptist sincerely, if such a thing
he possible, believes himself to be baptized," &c.* By-the-
way, did it never occur to the doctor that it is more diffi¬
cult for the Pedobaptists to be saved at all than for them
"involuntarily to err," or be "sincere in believing them¬
selves to be baptized" ? If "the righteous" Baptists "are
scarcely saved," what must become of the Pedobaptists who
can scarcely be sincere in their errors ? If the Baptists, who
are as certain as open day that they are baptized, just
* Terms of Communion, pp. 56, 86, 106.
CONSEQUENCES OP RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 177
reach heaven, what must become of the Pedobaptists, with
whom sincerity in believing that they are baptized is
scarcely possible ? But the doctor says, as we have seen in
another part of his treatise, that he "cherishes for the
Pedobaptists, as the people of God, the sincerest affection,
and preaches, and prays, and labors, and consults, and co¬
operates, and takes pleasure in being associated with them
'in every good word and work/" What! with persons of
even doubtful sincerity, to say nothing of their positive
errors? I leave the reader to judge in which of these
opinions of the Pedobaptists the doctor himself is sincere.
If in the latter, then he is justly chargeable with bigotry
in the former; if in the former, then he is justly chargeable
with insincerity in the latter; and insincerity, in this case,
can be ascribable to no other conceivable source but the
spirit of proselytism. It is not a matter of surprise that
he should have expressed the following opinion of Robert
Hall:—" It is a matter of no surprise that a man so great as
Mr. Hall, with principles so loose and contradictory, should
have been at once the glory and the shame, the boast and
the blight, of the Baptist Church."* The "blight" arises
from another quarter, and Mr. Hall refers to it:—"What is
the consequence which must be expected from teaching an
illiterate assembly that the principal design of their union
is to extend the practice of a particular ceremony, but to
invest it with an undue importance in their eyes, and, by
tempting them to look upon themselves as Christians of
a higher order, to foster an overweening self-conceit, to
generate selfish passions and encourage ambitious projects?
Accustomed to give themselves a decided preference above
others, to treat with practical contempt the religious pre¬
tensions of the best and wisest of men, and to live in an
* Terms of Communion, p. 112.
178 CONSEQUENCES OP RESTRICTED COMMUNION.
element of separation and exclusion, it would be astonish¬
ing indeed if their humility were not impaired, and the
more delicate sympathies .of Christian affection almost ex¬
tinguished."*
A. proselyting and uncharitable spirit—which is but
another name for the intolerance of bigotry—is the natural
fruit of the exclusive principles of the Baptist Church.
But Mr. Remington, who was once a Methodist and became
a Baptist, says, " The practice of close communion does not
lead to bigotry: if it did, the Baptists would have been
persecutors.""]* And to this Mr. Smith, who was once a
Baptist and became a Methodist, replies, "But he [Mr.
Remington] should remember that the spirit of persecution
is often seen in other forms than in imprisonments, racks,
and tortures, and that it will be quite in time for Baptists
to boast in this matter when they have once had the whip
in their hands and refused to use it. He would do well
also to remember the saying of their great apostle, Robert
Hall,—viz.: That their views of the communion were
equally intolerant with the bigoted principles of Romanism :
that the one was 'the intolerance of power, the other of
weakness.' That they do lead to bigotry, he [Mr. Reming¬
ton] has himself shown, as any one may see by reading his
two pamphlets,—the first, ' Reasons for Becoming a Bap¬
tist,' written when he had just embraced these sentiments,
the other, 'Defence of Restricted Communion,' when he
had not only embraced the theory but the spirit also,—the
fruits of which are seen in the gross perversions and mis¬
representations of the discipline of a church to which he
owed, under God, the salvation of his soul."J The Baptists
claim descent from the apostles, and affirm that the apos-
* Works, vol. i. p. 496. ■}• Restricted Communion.
J Reasons for Becoming a Methodist, pp. 159, 160.
CONSEQUENCES OE RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 179
tolic churches were Baptist; and, as they degenerated ulti¬
mately into papal intolerance and bigotry, who can say that
their modern restrictions are not in the right line to a repe¬
tition of papal heresy and practice ?
3. Restricted communion casts off co-operation with the
churches of-Christ. It is a stranger to the benign laws of
mutual benevolence. It is the parent of excitement, aliena¬
tion, enmity, animosity. It is ever receding further and
further from other churches, inventing new points of dis¬
crepancy, creating new subjects of contention, opening new
sources of crimination, gathering new combustibles for party-
passions, presenting new obstacles to concord, and raising
new barriers to " brotherly love." " My church" absorbs
so much anxiety that little concern is felt for other
churches,—the common interest,—the church of God.
The divine rule—"Whether one member suffer, all the
members suffer with it, or one member be honored, all the
members rejoice with it"—is applicable only to my church.
I can rejoice that the "word of the Lord has free course
and is glorified" in my church, and labor most zealously for
it; but I am pained to hear of its success elsewhere, and
rejoiced to hear that it languishes elsewhere. It is pleasant
enough to draw members away from sister-churches, and it
evinces the piety, independence, and good sense of those
members to come; but no sympathy is felt for the church
that suffers the loss. It is agreeable to receive accessions
from revivals in sister-churches and then to represent the
increase as a proof that religion is flourishing in my church:
the church of Christ is not once thought of but to " bite
and devour." Other churches are left to stand or fall by
themselves, provided no attack be made by the enemy upon
some common interest or civil privilege. Other matters are
" none of their business."
180 advantages of open communion.
CHAPTER XIII.
advantages of open communion.
The advantages of open communion are many and incal¬
culable, two of which only we shall mention.
1. It would contribute to the interchange of friendly
counsel and proper admonition among the churches. One
who treats me with coldness and indifference, shuns my
company, disparages my reputation, excites broils in my
house and among my neighbors, publishes my faults to the
world, and endeavors to banish me from society, is not the
man to expostulate with me about my frailties and imper¬
fections or admonish me about my errors. But the man
who is kind and sociable in his intercourse with me—who
is found in my house, at my fireside, at my table, and is on
terms of intimacy and friendship with me—is the man who
can .profit me by his admonitions and reproofs, because he
has proved that he loves me and has a sincere concern for
my improvement, especially when I know that our enter¬
prises and interests are essentially interwoven and our affairs
a matter of common concern. In this way how might the
churches be instrumental in helping one another to correct
deficiencies, faults, and errors, and in pointing out wherein
each "walks npt uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel" ! We might then converse familiarly and calmly
about differences in doctrine and church-government, and,
"seeing eye to eye," make such modifications as would
remove the barriers to the most intimate Christian union
and fellowship. Individual Christians and ministers in
different churches would profit by friendly counsel, admo-
ADVANTAGES OF OPEN COMMUNION. 181
nition, and encouragement. The noise of the brawler would
he hushed. Ecclesiastical tale-bearers would be silenced.
Busybodies would lose their importance and be reduced to
insignificance. The petty hostilities of irritable sectarians
would be terminated. Pharisaical panegyrics, now so often
lavished upon " our church," would be discountenanced.
The detestable spirit of proselytism would be crushed. The
antipathies, collisions, and wranglings of evangelical churches
would soon be no more. And in the deep and holy calm
that would ensue might be heard the celestial and tender
strains of that "wisdom which is first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of compassion and good
fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy/' by which
all the true churches in the world might be made a mutual
improvement and support.
2. It would strengthen the force of the testimony for
Christ among men. Let it never be assumed again, as it
has been by some, that God's own people can maintain a
stronger testimony for him by disunion than by union.
What is a testimony for our sects and peculiarities worth to
God and his truth when our shibboleths, symbols, and flags
challenge believers to battle with one another, and our forms
are the wedges that split the church of Christ to pieces ?
What could more enforce the church's testimony for the
truth among men, or more effectually rout the whole field
of infidelity and unbelief, than religion reduced to a prac¬
tical system upon the broadest Christian fellowship, on which
the inferior particulars in which the churches vary were
lost in the glory of the higher particulars in which they
agree ? Let the churches confine their testimony to the
substantial truths of revelation which cement the founda¬
tions of the common salvation, and no longer let their
creeds clash with their communion, and a ground is formed
for Christian confidence, energy, and co-operation which the
16
182
objections considered.
powers of earth and hell cannot resist. Let the spirit of
Christian fellowship pervade and predominate in the subor¬
dinate and supreme councils of the churches, and, as a
central fire, it will soon animate the whole church and bow
mankind in submission and fealty at the feet of Christ.
Though we cannot rationally believe that the union of all
the churches under identically the same doctrinal and eccle¬
siastical government is expedient and practicable the present
hour, because there are opinions, habits, feelings, and forms
which must be reduced to some common standard before it
can be wisely and safely done, yet let us in the mean time
cultivate the most friendly Christian intercourse in every
possible way, as opportunity serves, and so ripen into
mutual alliances for mutual benefit, and hasten the time
when "the Lord shall build up Zion and appear to men in
his glory." Thus shall we live
" Citizens <Jf ages yet to come."
CHAPTER XIV.
objections to open communion considered.
In this chapter we shall give attention to the principal
objections to open communion.
1. "God may, and does, hold communion with those with
whom we may not." Very well: this settles the question.
God is with us. Why should the Baptists lay more stress
upon the mere mode of baptism "than God himself does?
God " hold communion with those with whom" his people
may not! What better evidence can there be of one's right
to the table of the Lord than that the Lord is with him ?
John Jones, "a bold reprover of sin" and an inflexible non-
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
183
conformist, told some of his friends who were for separating
from their brethren because they were not altogether of
their own principles and entertained different sentiments
about non-essential matters that, "for. his part, he would
be one with everybody that was one with Christ,"*—a sen¬
tence worthy of inscription in letters of gold over the portals
of every church of God on earth. Henry Jessey, another
non-conformist, after his ejectment turned Baptist; "and it
proved no small honor and advantage to the Baptists to
have such a man among them. But, notwithstanding his
differing from his brethren in this or any other point, he
maintained the same Christian love and charity to all saints
as before, not only as to friendly conversation, but also in
regard to church-communion, and took great pains to pro¬
mote the same catholic spirit among others."f God holds
no communion with an unregenerate man, but with regene¬
rate men; and all regenerate men, by virtue of union with
God, have already spiritual union and communion with all
his people on earth, and so have a right to a place at the
Lord's table with them. " That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship
with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and
with hisJSon Jesus Christ." (1 John i. 3.) That is, as
our communion with God is a sufficient reason for others to
commune with us, so their communion with God is a suf¬
ficient reason for us to commune with them. Then it is
not true that "we may not hold communion with those with
whom God communes." As soon as a man becomes a
Christian he has a right to fellowship or communion with
all the people of God.
Matters which destroy not communion with Christ cannot
prevent the communion of Christians. " Receive ye one
* Non-Conformist Memoirs, i. 340.
flbid. p. 130.
184
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God."
(Rom. xv. 7.) Here Christ is the example, and the glory
of God is the aim. " Receive:" this is the command.
The church, then, that sees in other churches or in indi¬
viduals the evidence of Christ's approbation and presence,
and yet excludes them from communion with her, disregards
the example of Christ, violates his command, and impedes
the glory of God. It is no atonement for these offences
for a church to boast that she will glorify God in her own
way. God can he glorified no otherwise than in his own
way; and the Scriptures just quoted utterly exclude all
separate and exclusive communions of his people as methods
of glorifying God.
Besides, if this objection is valid, it is subversive of all
Christian fellowship. The outward walk is the only incon¬
testable evidence of right to Christian fellowship : " By their
fruits ye shall know them." If such an evidence as this—
the external effect of communion with God—is not a suf¬
ficient warrant for reciprocal communion among the churches
in those ordinances appointed expressly for their spiritual
benefit, then we must admit persons to the communion on
some other ground than that prescribed in the gospel; and
then we cannot know whether we are indeed communing
with the people of God or not; and so Christian communion
would be impossible,—for communion upon principles of
man's making is not Christian communion, but profanity
and pollution. Let us follow the divine rule.
Finally: the terms of the objection should be reversed.
We should hold communion with those with whom God
holds communion, and that to the whole extent of the
evidence which they give of such communion. If we walk
with those who "walk with God," we are certainly in the
way to heaven. We never should be ashamed to be found
in worship or sacramental communion with those whom the
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
185
God of our salvation deigns to own and bless as his children.
No power on earth is authorized to hinder me from going
with those of whom God is the Father, and to whom I can
say, "I will go with you, for God is with you." And
rather than commit the grievous offence of shutting out
God from an exclusive communion-table by shutting out his
people, I would abandon the table at which this is done. I
never could be held a willing captive within the iron wall,
hemmed round by ceremonial forms and points of disagree¬
ment which prevent one from being one with the family
of Christ.
Dr. Howell states this objection in another form. Says
he, "Christ may bless with his presence and favor those
who disregard his injunctions, but he has not covenanted to
do so."* This is a new interpretation of the spirit of the
gospel, which admits of blessing those who disregard its
plain letter, while it is inconceivable on what ground the
spirit and letter of the gospel can come in conflict. It
would require the most stupendous miracle and a revolution
of all the laws of reasoning to establish the validity and
propriety of this novel law of interpretation. "When the
spirit of the gospel is once satisfactorily made out, it may
be taken for granted that no divine injunction exists, or can
exist, which is in conflict with it; and, therefore, if Christ
blesses Pedobaptists, their involuntary omission of baptism—
if theyjhave omitted it-—cannot be construed into a dis¬
regard of the injunction respecting that ordinance; and so
the Baptists do violence to the spirit of the gospel, at least,
when they affirm and require baptism as an indispensable
condition of communion. No argument can ever amount
to the smallest degree of plausibility that Christ blesses
those who voluntarily disregard his injunctions; and, if an
* Howell on Communion, p. 42.
16*
186
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
exception to this intuitive truth were possible, the Baptists
have never ventured so far as conscientiously to believe that
pious Pedobaptists are guilty of this offence. They cordially
concede that pious Pedobaptists are blessed with the " pre¬
sence and favor" of Christ; and hence it is a matter of
surprise that they should inflexibly maintain that the former
are excluded from sacramental communion by "the injunc¬
tions" of Christ. If it were possible to conceive of Christ
blessing those who voluntarily disregard his injunctions, it
is impossible to conceive, why those should not be received
to sacramental communion who voluntarily disregard the
injunction of baptism; or if it be a fact that Christ blesses
those who involuntarily neglect that ordinance, it is impos¬
sible to conceive why they should not be received to sacra¬
mental communion. Man receives no blessing not contained
in the covenant, expressed or implied; and any theory in
opposition to this is one of the flimsiest fictions of the
imagination. Extreme indeed must be the urgency of a
cause when it is forced to adopt an expedient of this sort
to support it,—an expedient which, while it makes God
" the author of confusion," is extorted by the piety of those
who make him " the God of peace."
But this is not all. Who shall say—and what is it to
say—that man ever receives the presence and favor of
Christ outside the covenant ? The Papal Church says it,
and Dr. Howell repeats it. It is to elevate exterior authority
above the inspired sense of the Bible, which is the only infal¬
lible standard and rule of faith. When the Papal Church, in
corruption and arrogance, transcended the plain and inspired
sense of the Scriptures, the necessity arose to invent a new
and adequate standard to support the authority of her doc¬
trines and rites; and we need not be surprised that the
evangelical piety of unbaptized Christians has forced upon
the Baptists a similar necessity.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
187
We retort the prohibition of the doctor upon him. God's
" wisdom forbids us to assume his prerogative and place our
own inventions superior to his laws in the government of his
kingdom."* And his supposition, "If God has some
secret code by which he saves those who habitually violate
his revealed will, it is for his own government, not ours,"f
we consign to the fate of Romish dogmas of a similar nature.
A position that is guarded against all means of proof detects
itself; and such is this. It hears no mark of truth, but
carries with it the irresistible features of internal error,
which no sophism can conceal and no dogmatism support.
But the doctrine of the doctor admits of another appli¬
cation. What blessing inside the limits of the covenant
do the Baptists receive which the Pedobaptists do not
receive outside the covenant ? or in what single particular
do the Baptists display any superiority in piety and efficiency
over evangelical Pedobaptists ? or in what single doctrine or
practice are they entitled to peerless honor in purity except
in the vindication of a rite supposed by them to be neg¬
lected by the rest of the Christian world ? And if in all
these respects the Pedobaptists are equal to the Baptists,
let them show what other blessings Christ has covenanted
to bestow. Till this be done, facts evince either that the
Baptists are outside the covenant as well as the Pedobaptists,
or that the Pedobaptists are inside the covenant as well as
the Baptists; and so in the former case neither have a right
to communion, and in the latter case both have an equal
right to it.
2. " Open communion compels us to admit all that pass
themselves for Christians, and thus abolishes the distinction
between the precious and the vile."
First. Are any of the "vile" among the "precious" in
* Terms of Communion, p. 88.
f Ibid. p. 109.
188
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
restricted communions? If so, then the objection is an
argument against restricted communion.
Secondly. Restricted communions exclude those who are
acknowledged by the objectors themselves to be Christians
and as having given evidence that they have " received
Christ Jesus the Lord/' Open communion proposes to
welcome and encourage all who evince " repentance toward
God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," and to repel
and exclude all that are aliens and enemies; and thus the
distinction between " the precious and the vile" is preserved.
But restricted communions go further, and exclude the
"precious" with the "vile." The "vile" cannot invalidate
the right of the " precious." Sinners cannot set aside the
rights of Christians. No power on earth can do it. Scrip¬
tural discipline is not prostrated, nor is the house of God
opened to utter profanation, by admitting the " precious" to
the table of the Lord in any of his churches. No man or
church is able to " search the heart and try the reins of the
children of men:" the " outward appearance" only can
guide, and by this every church must be guided. Secret
states must be left with God.
Thirdly. There never has been a church, from the days
of the apostles to the present hour, in which the "vile" have
not existed; and hence, if the objection be valid, there
should not have been, and ought not now to be, any sacra¬
mental fellowship between Christians of different names;
and the doctrine of the unity of the church is a fancy, a
deception. The objection subverts the foundation of the
church and overturns the sacramental table at a single
stroke. It cuts up the communion of saints by the roots.
It brings the purest churches under the ban of a terrible
and desolating proscription. If by communing with a par¬
ticular church I must approbate the "vile" within her fold,
then I can commune with no church on earth, not even
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
189
with my own, for in all the " vile" may be found; and so
there can be no lawful sacramental fellowship on earth. Do
not the Baptists find the "vile" at home as well as abroad?
Then let the sacramental table be removed from the Baptist
Church, or the objection be surrendered.
True, we are to "keep ourselves pure;" to "have no
fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness;" to "come
out and be separate;" to "withdraw from every brother
that walketh disorderly;" to separate from "idolatry,"—
from the " world which lieth in wickedness,"—and specially
from the " mother of harlots and abominations of the earth:"
all this is plain and peremptory. But for one believer to
refuse communion with another, or for one church of Christ
to refuse communion with another, because there the " vile"
are associated with the " precious," not a commandment or
an example can be found in the Bible. Andrew Fuller,
one of the most eminent writers and preachers in the Bap¬
tist Church in England, observes, in a " Letter to a Friend,"
" It was no reproach to Christ and his apostles to have had
a Judas among them, though he was a thief, so long as his
theft was not manifest; but, had there been a rule laid down
that covetousness and even theft should be no bar to com¬
munion, the reproach had been indelible." If the Pedo-
baptists countenanced in their communion persons heretical
in opinions, profligate in character, and scandalous in life,
the objection would be of resistless force; but this is not so,
and the objection fails.
Besides, these persons did not appear profane when they
were received into the church; and, since they have been
found out to be inconsistent and irregular, they are retained
in order to their repentance and amendment,—which God
will allow a church to do for a period; while he threatens
to cut off the church that fails to cut off incorrigible offend¬
ers, as he did in the case of the ten tribes, and then the two
190
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
tribes of Israel, and afterward all the apostolic churches
without exception.
3. "Unbaptized persons were not admitted in the
apostles' days. Pedobaptists, therefore, ought not to be
admitted now."* In the first place, this is assuming that
pedobaptism is not apostolic baptism,—which is begging the
whole question of baptism. Secondly.- Granting that the
unbaptized were not admitted in the apostles' days, were
the excluded such as the Baptists now exclude ? Infidel
Jews, idolatrous heathen, and the disobedient and rebellious,
were excluded by the apostles; but it never can be proved
that the apostles would have excluded believing, pious,
obedient, and faithful Christians, such as the Baptists con¬
cede the Pedobaptists to be. It is unreasonable to assume
that they would have done it. Would the apostles have
exchanged pulpits with unbaptized Christian ministers,
united with them in prayer and other services of church-
worship, recognised them as members of the household of
faith, admitted that they had "a right to the Lord's
Supper, and did right in partaking of it in their own
churches," and engaged with them in the discharge of
every other Christian duty, and yet excluded them from
the sacramental table ? Would the apostles have beheld
unbaptized Christian ministers preaching the same doctrines
that they received from Christ and the Holy Spirit and
taught themselves, and their preaching accompanied with
the unction, power, and demonstration of the Spirit superior
to their own, and their labors crowned beyond all com¬
parison with greater success than their own, and thousands
upon thousands of happy converts from all classes of society
crowding into unbaptized churches, while but hundreds
were obtained as seals to the apostolic ministry?—would
® R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 241.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
191
the apostles have beheld unbaptized churches far out¬
numbering their own, and powerful and overwhelming
revivals breaking out in them on every hand and wherever
their ministers came, and thousands upon thousands of their
converts pressing into and increasing the strength of the
apostolic churches ?—would the apostles have beheld unbap¬
tized churches engaged in the noblest enterprises to advance
the kingdom of Christ at home and abroad, far and near,
and everywhere accessible, organizing powerful religious
societies, such as Bible, Missionary, Sunday-school, and
Tract societies, to disseminate evangelical truth, and out¬
stripping in the aggregate the apostles themselves in these
matters ?—would the apostles have beheld the salutary
influence of these unbaptized churches extending into every
department of society, modifying human laws, tastes, man¬
ners, habits, and customs on every hand, and insinuating a
sanctifying leaven into the most powerful empires of earth,
and depositing the elements of freedom, stability, and pros¬
perity in the very fundamental laws and institutions of the
nations that received and tolerated them?—would the
apostles have beheld these unbaptized ministers and their
churches enduring as great hardships, leading as holy, con¬
sistent lives, and dying as triumphant deaths, as the apostles
themselves and their churches displayed ?—would the
apostles, in a word, have beheld themselves comparatively
a small sect in the very centre of a thousand evangelical
churches owned and blessed of God in a wonderful manner
on every hand and helping mightily even the apostolic
churches in the world's redemption,—and yet, after all this,
refuse to receive them to the Lord's table because they were
not immersed, or, if immersed, because they were not of
their " faith and order" ? The very idea is preposterous.
Why, the apostles would have come to a dead stand: if they
were Baptists, they would have been confounded. They
192
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
would have inquired, "What does all this mean? Have
we not received from the Master that we are to admit none
to his church or his supper, on any terms, by any means,
and under any circumstances, but those who have been
immersed and are of our faith and order? Surely we must
have misunderstood the Lord. See, here before our eyes,
all around us, are unbaptized ministers and churches excel¬
ling us in laboring for God. God, of a truth, is with them
mightily. The Holy Ghost has at least baptized them
with 'Jire.' They yield us the accession of thousands of
unquestionable conversions; and yet they are themselves
spreading on every hand. It is wonderful. There is a
mistake somewhere. We must be wrong, for they give no
evidence that they are wrong. The facts are against us.
They give better evidence that they are the true apostles
and their churches the true churches than we do that we
are. such. We must either deny the truth of the gospel or
change our ground. We .must acknowledge that we have
either misunderstood the 'commission' and instructions
of the Lord, or that his commission and instructions to us
were of no essential importance. It cannot be the latter:
it must be the former. We must convene a council and
change our ground on two essential points. We must abro¬
gate the essential importance of immersion and annul the
condition of membership in churches of our 'faith and
order' as prerequisite to sacramental communion, and so
break down the wall of close communion that separates our
brethren from us; for they give better evidence than we do
that they understand the true and proper meaning of the
' commission' and instructions of our common Lord." Thus,
in the appeal to what the practice of the apostles would
have been in a similar case, we turn the tables upon the
Baptists. Make the cases parallel, and the Baptists must
abandon their ground. Make the cases parallel, or withdraw
objections considered.
193
tlie objection. Either class pious Pedobaptists with infidel
Jews, idolatrous beatben, faithless, disobedient professors,
and the non-professing world,—in a word, exclude them
from the Christian church altogether,—or withdraw the
appeal to the practice of the apostles for the course you
pursue. There is no alternative. You must do one or the
other. The objection forces you to the one; the reply
drives you to the other. Abandon the objection, or main¬
tain it.
Alas, your leaders are resolved to maintain this objection
at all hazards. I quote from Mr. Whitney, and give his
comments. "Just look for a moment," says he, "at the
language of those whom you point to as the defenders of
your practice. ' All Pedobaptists are, however ignorantly,
openly disobedient to a command of Christ.'* ' They refuse
subjection to Christ and violate the laws of his house.'-j-
'The essential preliminaries being disregarded, they cannot
approach the table of the Lord.'£ 'Their reception by us
would on our part amount to a conspiracy with them in
their design to overthrow the law of God, and render us
not Christian communicants, but partners in their rebellion
against the authority of the Supreme Legislator.'§ Evan¬
gelical and pious Pedobaptists disobedient and rebellious!
IToly men like Owen and Baxter, Doddridge and Scott,
Chalmers and McCheyne, Edwards and Davies, Whitefield
and Tennent, Brainard and Payson, openly disobedient,
rebels against the authority of God, refusing subjection to
Christ, and designing to overthrow his laws! Would to
God we had more such, or that all who make these modest
charges and consider themselves obedient above others would
* Curtis on Communion, p. 243.
-J- Kinghorn's Terms of Communion.
% Howell on Communion, p. 178. g Ibid. p. 87.
17
194
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
only supply their place! But where does such language
place all Pedobaptists ? Out of ' the church which is
subject unto Christ/ among the godless, whose sentence, as
written out by the pen of inspiration, is, 1 Unto them that
are contentious and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteous¬
ness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish.' It
not only throws them out of the visible church, but out of
the invisible. Can you be surprised to hear close-com-
munionists denounced as illiberal and bigoted when they
make use of such language and practise a course which, if
consistently interpreted, necessarily leads to the unchurch¬
ing and condemnation of everybody but themselves ? And
to refuse to commune with such men because they will not
sin against their souls is to act more in accordance with the
genius of Hildebrand than the spirit of Christ."*
Mr. Whitney might have gone further, and retorted upon
Curtis, Kinghorn, and Howell, and reminded them that they
and their brethren exchange pulpits with these "openly
disobedient" men, "conspirators," and "rebels" against the
government of God, and engage with them in the solemn
mockeries of church-worship, "when occasion offers," and
concede that they have "a right" to take the oath of con¬
spiracy at the Lord's table, and bid them God-speed in their
horrid "design to overthrow the law of God" ! If the ob¬
jection supports close communion, it presupposes a coalition
of close-communionists with open-communionists against
the authority of God. If such a coalition does not exist,—
and it does not,—then the objection falls to the ground, and
the appeal to what would have been the practice of the
apostles in the case fails.
4. "To be separated from our brethren at the Lord's
* Whitney on Open Communion, pp. 131-133. It is gratifying to see
a Baptist administering such just rebuke to his brethren.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
195
table is more painful to us tban to them; but our love for
them, as well as our loyalty to Jesus, demands of us this
self-denial."* The Baptists have a singular aptitude to con¬
nect a cross with the discharge of many religious duties.
At one time immersion is a cross, especially in freezing
weather and to delicate females, when in fact it is only
repulsive to man's natural instincts and to woman's native
modesty. At another time the dying Christian who can¬
not be immersed, and so cannot have the communion, must
"submit with pious resignation" to the necessity; and "it
is a very great attainment to submit patiently to suffer the
will of God, at such a time, concerning us."f And now it
is a cross to decline communion with those who are "knit
together with us by a union most sweet and dear and
imperishable," whom "neither walls, nor mountains, nor
oceans, nor ages, can separate."J We repeat, this sort of
" self-denial" is a singular demand upon piety,—especially,
too, when Dr. Howell admits that "all the Lord's children
have an undoubted right to his table." The pious heart
indeed shrinks from communing with the ungodly at the
Lord's table; and it is no self-denial to do this. But how
a Christian can feel the prompting of " self-denial" in de¬
clining to commune with his brethren in the sacred supper
is wholly inexplicable, except upon the ground of perverted
moral sensibility. I cannot understand how it is "painful"
to unite with another in the discharge of a duty equally
imposed upon both. How "loyalty to Jesus" can be im¬
peached by uniting with his- subjects in taking the oath of
allegiance to him is another mystery, inexplicable except
upon the ground that I am controlled rather by the laws of
* R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 239.
f Remington on Restricted Communion, p. 72.
J R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 220.
196
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
an improper religious education tlian an enlightened judg¬
ment of the laws of Christ's spiritual kingdom. Christians
often confound the peculiar claims of party with the in¬
exorable claims of the divine law, and so are "loyal" to
their sect and disloyal to God. An enlightened conscience
would free many a sincere Christian from painful mortifica¬
tion and useless self-denial in a multitude of instances.
Certain it is that pious Pedobaptists have no compunctions
of conscience in obeying the command, " Do this in remem¬
brance of me," nor would they have any, nor feel it to be
a case of "self-denial," nor disloyal to.sect or to Jesus, to
unite with pious Baptists in sacramental communion. It
is, however, to be deeply regretted that pious Baptists are
governed by different views of duty; and we most sincerely
return the pious lamentation of Mr. Puller, " the more we
admire their characters, so much more do we lament that they
throw their influence on the side of error;" though we drop
his appended phrase,—"and continue in disobedience."*
We sincerely regret that, while it almost "breaks" Mr.
Fuller's "Aectrt" because we charge "inconsistency" upon
him, his conscience should dictate that it "would not only
be inconsistency but a deliberate sin in him"f to commune
with lis; for a pious man, with his heart and conscience in
conflict, cannot well be at ease. There certainly is to every
pious heart an attraction toward those on whom the sun¬
shine of God's countenance rests; and to such a heart it
does seem that it ought to be not only " painful" but re¬
morseful to repel or neglect them : it is paradoxical, to say
the least, that both should be right. It is a singular
government that yields joy and comfort to the Pedobaptists
in partaking of the Lord's Supper, and at the same time
imposes upon the Baptists the "painful" duty of expelling
them from that hallowed service,—singular that God should
* R. Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 239. f Ibid. p. 244.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
197
own that service as "loyal/' and yet some of his children
pronounce it "disloyal" and "continued disobedience,"—
singular, above all, that a service should be conceded by
one party to he " right" when performed by the other party,
and yet "adeliberate sin" when united in by both parties!
Our appeal, then, is to God, with the concessions of the
Baptists, and not to the standard by which the Baptists
determine their obligations,—assured that we shall not run
the hazard of incurring the divine displeasure by any arbi¬
trary assumptions of exclusive privileges.
"I have known," says Robert Hall, "more instances than
one of good men complaining of the uneasiness—I might
say the anguish—they felt on those occasions, when they
witnessed some of their most intimate friends, persons of
exalted piety, compelled, after joining in the other branches
of worship, to withdraw from the Lord's table, "as though
' they had no part or lot in the matter.' "*
5. "As no one who was not circumcised was permitted
to partake of the paschal feast, so no unbaptized person is
admissible to the eucharist." Our reply is brief. Circum¬
cision is expressly enjoined as indispensably preliminary to
the passover, and the neglect of circumcision incurred the
sentence of excision, exclusion from the privileges and
blessings of the everlasting covenant: " that soul shall be
cut off from the people." But no such dependence of the
eucharist upon baptism is stated in Scripture; and the
Baptists themselves admit that pious Pedobaptists already
enjoy all the spiritual blessings of the new and everlasting
covenant. If such a dependence does exist, how did it
happen that pious Pedobaptists obtained all the spiritual
blessings of the covenant, and why are they not "cut off"
by God himself "from his people"? That such a neces¬
sary dependence does not exist is evident from the single
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 323.
17*
198
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
consideration that pious Pedobaptists give as good evidence
that they are already admitted by G-od himself to a parti¬
cipation of the blessings of the everlasting covenant as the
Baptists themselves can furnish. Besides, if there be any
force in this analogical argument of the Baptists, it must
revert to the Pedobaptists; for then baptism comes in the
place of circumcision,—which is the fact; and then all pious
Pedobaptists are already entitled to the communion, and
the Baptists are wrong in opposing infant baptism.
6. "When we receive," says Dr. Howell, "the Lord's
Supper with Pedobaptists, we either actually abandon, or
practically falsify, all our principles in relation to the sacra¬
ments of the gospel. Is it possible they [the Pedobaptists]
can wish us to admit them to communion with us, or desire
us to sit down with them without acknowledging the validity
of their baptism ? Bead all their books on this subject, and
the conviction cannot be resisted that they esteem our com¬
munion with them as worth nothing except as an acknow¬
ledgment of their baptism or a renunciation of our own."*
The consequences stated in this objection are not neces¬
sarily involved in mixed communion, for the Baptists might
still maintain their "principles in relation to the sacra¬
ments," and, so far as they are concerned, might still main¬
tain the necessary dependence of the sacraments upon each
other, regarding their Pedobaptist brethren 'as innocently,
because involuntarily, erring in the matter of baptism.
Besides, it is not true that the Pedobaptists require the
recognition of the validity of their baptism in order to
mixed communion: believing that their baptism is valid,
they do not require the concession of the Baptists to
strengthen its validity. Nor is it true that the Pedobaptists
would "esteem" mixed communion "as worth nothing"
® Terms of Communion, pp. 119, 120.
OBJECTIONS -CONSIDERED. 199
without a renunciation on the part of the Baptists of their
baptism, for they might still maintain and practise their
doctrine of exclusive immersion. Finally, it is believed
that all in strict Baptist churches, in England and America,
are not of the opinion of Dr. Howell.
7. " Baptists cannot commune with Pedobaptists, because
they administer baptism for illegal purposes and attach to
it an unreasonable and unscriptural degree of efficacy and
importance."* This author, on same page, observes,
"Pedobaptists of all classes regard baptism as at least
synonymous with regeneration." We need scarcely stop to
remind the reader that neither of these statements is true
respecting evangelical Pedobaptists, and that this author
attempts, it is feared, to practise a pious fraud upon those
of his readers who may fail to detect his sophism, by which
he wishes to show that the Baptists " are the only people
who do not unduly exalt the sacraments of the gospel,"f
and therefore they should not commune sacramentally with
any other sect of Christians. Communion should be prac¬
tised with none but evangelical churches j and we deny that
the evangelical churches "attach an unreasonable and
unscriptural degree of efficacy and importance" to baptism.
After having labored to prove baptismal regeneration upon
Pedobaptists, (including Papists and Protestants,) whole
and entire, this author himself concedes, " The evangelical
portion of them will, I doubt not, earnestly protest that they
do not believe that baptism has any regenerating or saving
influence whatever."! As to the "creeds and standards"
of the evangelical Pedobaptists, it is almost needless to say
that this author either misunderstands or has misrepresented
them, and that "the antagonistic influence of Baptist prin-
* Howell on Terms of Communion, p. 180.
f Ibid. p. 181. t Ibid. p. 201.
200
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
ciples" has rather heen a barrier to the progress of the
gospel than a restraint upon the " extravagance" of the
evangelical churches. The truth is, evangelical Pedobap-
tists attach neither more nor less importance and efficacy to
baptism than the Baptists do; and so this objection is irre¬
levant.
8. "Baptists cannot unite with Pedobaptists in sacra¬
mental communion, because they attach to the Lord's
Supper an unreasonable and unscriptural importance and
efficacy."* This is but the repetition of the preceding
pious fraud, which is a favorite weapon with unfair religious
controversialists. To use the -language of this author, this
proposition " is extravagant and ridiculous." For he main¬
tains—what no one denies—that in the early ages of the
church infant baptism and infant communion were con¬
nected ; but this ridiculous absurdity is not now practised
even in the Bomish Church, and so does not now exist as
a barrier to communion with that church. Indeed, this
author says, " The Papists and all the Protestants who have
been under this influence have long since abolished infant
communion."f Why then refer to it as a reason for not
communing with evangelical Pedobaptist churches, in which
it never existed in doctrine or practice ? All arguments to
prove that evangelical Pedobaptists attach more or less
importance to the Lord's Supper than the Scriptures justify
or evangelical Baptists admit are mere assumptions; and
so, this objection failing, the Baptists may commune with
their Pedobaptist brethren without " insincerity, hypocrisy,
or sin."J
9. " The policy of free communion is disastrous to the
church."§ The progressive prosperity of the evangelical
* Howell on Terms of Communion, p. 203. t Ibid. p. 208.
% Ibid. p. 213. I Ibid. p. 215.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
201
Pedobaptist churches at once refutes this objection; and it
can never be proved that the prosperity of the Baptist
Church is the legitimate result of strict communion. On
the contrary, the probability is that the prosperity of the
Baptist Church is ascribable mainly to the adoption and
application of the fundamental doctrines and principles of
salvation which constitute the creeds and enter into the
measures and practices of the evangelical Pedobaptist
churches; and so long as this is true of the Baptist Church
it must continue, in the nature of things, to prosper, not¬
withstanding the restraints and impediments involved in
exclusive immersion and strict communion. The main¬
tenance of these two dogmas may perpetuate the distinct¬
ness of the Baptist Church as a sect, but can never tend
to promote its prosperity. The prosperity of the Baptist
Church lies in other causes,—causes common to other evan¬
gelical churches,—which are the common ground of sacra¬
mental communion between them, and on which they are
entitled consequently to oommuniou with the Baptist
Church. Nor does it follow that free communion would be
u disastrous" to the Baptist Church, since it need not abate
at all in its piety or zeal, or abandon any of its truly evan¬
gelical principles and doctrines, nor relinquish immersion,
which it regards as so essential, " solemn, and impressive."
The Baptist Church, like the Methodist Church, carries
the gospel chiefly to the middling classes of social society;
and certainly it can never be pretended that men are con¬
verted through the instrumentality of the sacraments.
Thus, the Baptist Church might practise free communion,
and yet preach the saving doctrines of the gospel with
undiminished zeal and success. Then if the tide of pros¬
perity turn in favor of the Baptist Church, let it be so; or
if it turn more strongly in favor of other evangelical
churches, let it be so: in either case more souls are saved
202
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
and the prosperity of Christianity is more rapidly promoted
among men. One great barrier to evangelical union and
harmony in efforts and enterprises to evangelize the world
is broken down, and the strength and time formerly
expended in wasting each others' energies in mutual strifes
and impeding each others' progress are employed in mutual
helps and in combined labors to accelerate the final triumph
of the gospel in the world's redemption. Our petty differ¬
ences and intense solicitudes for our own arks and sects are
humiliating. This author observes :—" Christian com¬
munion, in its largest sense, extends to all the modes by
which believers recognise each other as members of a
common head. Every expression of fraternal regard, every
participation in the enjoyments of social worship, every
instance of the unity of the Spirit exerted in prayer and
supplication or in acts of Christian sympathy and friend¬
ship, truly belongs to the communion of saints."* One
would imagine that this is the language of a liberal evan¬
gelical Pedobaptist, if he were not told that a strict Baptist
is the author of it; while it is surprising that all this can be
done, and is done, by strict Baptists, who all the time
maintain their tenet of exclusive immersion, and yet cannot
go further, and engage in free communion without aban¬
doning that characteristic tenet.
10. It is assumed by Professor Curtis that open com¬
munion involves " a full and perfect membership in any
numbers, with an equal right to vote, to elect officers, or
become officers themselves, as well as to preach and adminis¬
ter ordinances only as they conscientiously believed cor¬
rect.""}" To this objection we shall give particular attention,
because it is founded on a serious misapprehension of the
rights implied in sacramental communion.
* Howell on Terms of Communion, p. 229.
f Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 287.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
203
1. No church has a right to require that as a term of
church-membership which is not essential to salvation; and
it is not essential to salvation that a person belong to this or
that particular church; but every one has a right to the
Lord's Supper who has performed that which is essential
to salvation; and therefore a person may and should be
received to sacramental communion with a particular church
without becoming a member of that church.
2. Every one who is a member of the spiritual or uni¬
versal church of Christ has a right to the visible ordinances
of the church; for the visible ordinances of the church
belong to the spiritual or universal church of Christ, and
consequently to no particular church more than to another,
unless we can prove the absurdity that what belongs to the
whole does not belong to a part of the spiritual church.
Hence it is evident that sacramental communion with one
particular church does not necessarily involve membership
in that particular church, since the communicant is already
a member of another particular church which has an equal
right to sacramental communion with the former.
3. The objection is in fact a question of church-govern¬
ment, and as such we shall now more particularly consider
it. Human nature is substantially the same always and
everywhere; and, corresponding to this nature, the gospel
is always and everywhere essentially the same. But circum¬
stantially man .is infinitely various, and hence differences
may exist in the external governments of particular
churches, provided nothing be done in conflict with the
immutable and essential principles of the gospel. As man
is substantially the same always and everywhere, certain
ordinances and institutions of the gospel, applicable alone
to man's substantial nature, are enjoined as universally and
immutably binding, such as preaching, the sacraments,
thanksgiving, prayer, and praise. In other words, the
204
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
spiritual church of Christ is one, as the human race is one,
hut composed of many societies, all branches of the same
body, and governed by the same fundamental spiritual laws,
and haying the same right to the same immutable ordi¬
nances and institutions, though under different but har¬
monious external governments. There are two elements
essential to the being of the spiritual universal church of
Christ: the one doctrine, and always the same; the other
spiritual, and always active and operative; and where these
exist in a particular church, its external government, in
the nature of things, is sufficiently in harmony with the
principles of the gospel to entitle it to recognition as a
branch of the universal church of Christ; for every essence
has a development peculiarly its own ; and so Christianity,
in doctrine and life, has its own development, and is inde¬
pendent of every form of church-government in itself not
contrary to the gospel. It is thus that churches with
different ecclesiastical governments, but having the same
evangelical doctrine and life, are members of the same great
body,—the universal church; and so each has the same
right to the same ordinances and institutions of Christianity,
and are bound to observe all, because they are equally bind¬
ing upon all.
Thus, while particular churches having the same doctrine
and life are but members of the same body, or parts of the
same great whole, and so in doctrine and life are not inde¬
pendent of each other, in external government and regula¬
tions they are different, are independent of each other, and
cannot make laws for or interfere with each other, any
more than the church can make laws for or interfere with
the state, or the state make laws for or interfere with the
church, but each particular church can regulate its govern¬
ment and discipline according to the general principles
revealed and provided for every case that can occur in the
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
205
exigencies of time and place. From tliese fundamental
principles several consequences follow.
If a member leaves one particular church for another, he
remains still in the one church of Christ; but if he joins
not another particular church he leaves the one church
altogether; and yet no one is justified in renouncing the
communion to which he belongs from motives of taste, con¬
venience, or worldly policy, much less because it contains
in it some who are corrupt, or against whom prejudices,
however strong, are entertained; though he may renounce
a communion if it be destitute of spiritual life and teach
false doctrine, for such a communion is no part of the
church of Christ. On the same ground, no Christian is
justified in neglecting any of the ordinances and institutions
of Christianity because some in the church to which he
belongs are corrupt, or entertain for him prejudices, how¬
ever strong or malignant: he is under prior and abiding
obligation to Christ, and he cannot neglect his duty to him,
however others may neglect it. Nor is any member of
a particular church justified in declining communion with
another particular church which he believes is a part of
Christ's church, since Christ is the head of all the parts
of his church. And so the ordinations and ministrations
of one particular church are as valid as those of another
particular church, because Christ is the head of all the
particular churches comprehended in the visible church,
and is the head of every spiritual member and minister of
every particular church, and rules and supports every par¬
ticular church in every place. Not that the minister of
one particular church is invested with authority to vote, or
sit in trial, or administer ecclesiastical government, in an¬
other particular church, or engage in framing rules and
regulations for the government of another particular church;
for in these matters each particular church may adopt its
18
206
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
own government and discipline, so it be done in accordance
witb tbe general and immutable principles provided in the
gospel for the direction of those in authority in the church.
Right to commune with another church, does not involve
right to engage with that church in ecclesiastical matters,
such as legislation for the peace and order of its members,
regulation of its worship, superintendence of its interests,
voting in church-trials, &c. In these matters each church
has its own government, rules, and regulations. And there¬
fore none of these are invaded or sacrificed by admitting
members of other Christian churches to the Lord's table,
since the Lord's table is the common property of all Chris¬
tian churches. And as a properly-accredited minister of
one particular church is the minister of the whole church,
as the preacher of the truth, his administration of the sacra¬
ments and his right to communion should be recognised
as valid as are the administration and rights of the minister
in any other particular church. And so private members
of one particular church are not invested with authority to
vote, or sit in trial, or engage in any manner in framing or
administering the ecclesiastical government of another par¬
ticular church; for, as above, each particular church may
adopt and administer its own government. In this matter,
under the restriction and direction stated, each church may
exercise its own discretion and freedom. Rut in the matter
of the immutable ordinances and institutions of Christianity
no particular church can exclude the members of another
particular church, for all have an equal right to them, and
here rights are not left to the discretion and freedom of any
particular church. For example,—which is the matter in
hand,—the Lord's Supper is a standing ordinance of Chris¬
tianity, of universal and perpetual obligation, that is, equally
and perpetually binding upon all the churches of Christ,
which neither originated with nor can be appropriated to
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
207
the use and benefit of any particular cburcb to tbe exclu¬
sion of any other particular church) and so, while it is the
common and inalienable right of every particular church,
reciprocal communion between the churches does not secure
to those communing " an equal right to vote, elect officers,
or become officers/' or engage in any manner in the ec¬
clesiastical government of the churches respectively. In
mixed communion all enjoy an inalienable right to the
Lord's Supper, each particular church retaining at the same
time its right under the gospel to provide and administer
its own external government according to the gospel. This
is the course pursued by the English Baptists, as is ad¬
mitted by Professor Curtis himself:—"Most of the English
[Baptist] churches now do not allow Pedobaptists to become
fully members of the church in the sense of voting or
having any share in the government, but simply to com¬
muneThis is as it should be in America and every¬
where else in the Christian world.
11. Allied to this is another objection to open commu¬
nion urged by the same author:—" The visible churches
are also independent bodies, just as all the families in a
community are independent in their household arrange¬
ments. Hence it does not follow that, because an individual
is entitled to enjoy the privileges of a home in his own
family, he is therefore at liberty to claim all the same
prerogatives in any other, as he may see fit to demand them.
So must it ever be, measurably, in well-regulated Christian
churches."f The analogy is radically defective. The Lord's
Supper is the " privilege" or " prerogative" of every par¬
ticular church, without distinction j and every true believer
has an inalienable right to "home" anywhere with his
Father's family. Admit that the Lord's Supper is the
peculiar privilege or prerogative of a particular church, and
* Progress of Baptist Principles, p. 289. "j* Ibid. p. 403.
208 eminent open-communion baptists.
it becomes at once tbe foundation of a sect; and this is the
assumption and tbe practice of strict Baptists, whatever
may be tbeir concessions. Arguments drawn from social
life in favor of strict communion do »not touch the question
in controversy, though the intercourse, generally practised in
well-regulated conventional life, might be turned with great
force against the practice of strict communion in the Bap¬
tist Church, and put to the blush the exclusiveness of that
church,—since members of different "families in a com¬
munity," though "independent in their household arrange¬
ments," are often found in friendly intercourse in the same
house and around the same social table.
CHAPTER XY.
eminent baptists in payor op open communion.
Some of the "noblest spirits and brightest lights" in the
Baptist Church, whose names are fadeless in the annals
of Christianity, deny that baptism is an indispensable pre¬
requisite to sacramental communion. John Bunyan, the
celebrated author of "Pilgrim's Progress," was a Baptist;
and he opposed this dogma of his church. "The ingenious
author of the Pilgrim's Progress was one of the first in
this kingdom [England] who dared to assert that the want
of baptism is no bar to communion, and acted accordingly."*
Roger Williams, immortal in the history of American inde¬
pendence, and the founder of the Baptist Church in America,
and who withdrew from the church he founded, was in
favor of open communion. Robert Hall, one of the most
* Booth's Vindication of the Baptists, Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 49.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 209
elegant and eloquent writers in the Baptist or any other
church, was in favor of open communion, and has done
more, probably, than any other man, to break down the
opposite practice in his own church. John Foster, one of
the most profound and accomplished writers of his age, a
Baptist, is at the side of Bobert Hall. The two Haldanes,
of Scotland, are of the same class. Alexander Carson, the
author of the best defence that has ever appeared in favor
of immersion, and the great authority of the Baptists for
the original meaning of the Greek word baptizo, was in
favor of open communion. Baptist W. Noel, who withdrew
from the Church of England and became a Baptist, has
published, in his work on Christian baptism, pp. 287-301,
"reasons for free communion." To the writings of some
of these, and of others, we shall refer in this chapter,
making extracts from their works which are not in the
possession of the people generally.
"We begin with John Bunyan. We make several extracts
from a treatise written by him, entitled "A Reason for my
Practice in Worship."
" Let the Cry be never so loud, Christ, Order, The Rule,
The Command, or the like, carnality is at the bottom; and
they are but babes that do it; their zeal is but a puff.
(1 Cor. iv. 6.) And observe it, the great division at
Corinth was helped forward by water-baptism. This the
apostle intimates by 'Were ye baptized in the name of
Paul?' Ah, brethren, carnal Christians with outward
circumstances will, if they be let alone, make sad work in
the churches of Christ against the spiritual growth of the
same. ' But I. thank God/ saith Paul, '' that I baptized
none of you,' &c. Not but that it was then an ordinance
of God, but they abused it in making parties thereby. ' I
baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, and the
household of Stephanus, men of note among the brethren,
18*
210 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
men of good judgment, and reverenced by tbe rest: they
can tell you I intended not to make a party to myself
thereby. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any
other.' By this negligent relating of whom were baptized
by him, he showeth that he made no such matter of baptism
as some in these days do; nay, that he made no matter at
all thereof with respect to church-communion; for if he did
not heed who himself had baptized, he much less heeded
who were baptized by others. But if baptism had been
the initiating or entering ordinance, and so appointed of
God, no doubt he had made more conscience thereof than so
lightly to pass it over. c For Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel/ The gospel, then, may be
effectually preached, and yet baptism neither administered
nor mentioned,—the gospel being good tidings to sinners
upon the account of free grace through Christ; but baptism,
with things of like nature, are duties enjoined such a people
who received the gospel before. I speak not this because
I would teach men to break the least of the commandments
of God, but to persuade my brethren of the baptized way
not to hold too much thereupon, not to make it an essential
of the gospel of Christ, nor yet of communion of saints.
1 He sent me not to baptize/ These words are spoken with
a holy indignation against them that abuse this ordinance
of Christ."
Again :—" But to exclude Christians from church-com¬
munion, and to debar them their heaven-born privileges for
the want of that which yet God never made a wall of
division between us: 1. This looks too like a spirit of
persecution. 2. It respecteth more a form than the spirit
and power of godliness. 3. This is to make laws where
God hath made none, and to be wise above what is writ¬
ten,—contrary to God's word and our own principles. 4.
It is a directing of the Spirit of God. 5. It bindeth all
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 211
men's faith and light to mine opinion. 6. It taketh away
the children's bread. 7. It withdraweth from them the
increase of faith. 8. It tendeth to harden the hearts of the
wicked. 9. It tendeth to make wicked the hearts of weak
Christians. 10. It setteth open a door to all temptations.
11. It tempteth the devil to fall upon those that are alone
and have none to help them. 12. It is the nursery of all
vain janglings, backbitings, and strangeness among the
Christians. 13. It occasioneth the world to reproach us.
14. It holdeth staggering consciences in doubt of the right
way of the Lord. 15. It giveth occasion to many to turn
aside to most dangerous heresies. 16. It abuseth the holy
Scriptures; it wresteth God's ordinances out of their place.
17. It is a prop to Antichrist. 18. Shall I add, is it not
that which greatly prevailed to bring down those judgments
which at present we feel and groan under ? I will dare to
say it was the cause thereof."*
Again:—" Strange ! Take two Christians equal in all
points but this; nay, let one go beyond the other far for
grace and holiness; yet this circumstance of water shall
drown and sweep away all his excellencies, not counting
him worthy of that reception that with hand and heart
shall be given a novice in religion, because he consents to.
water." f
Again :—" But if thou canst hear them as God's minis¬
ters, and sit under their ministry as God's ordinance, then
show me where God hath such a gospel ministry as that
the persons ministering*may not, though desiring it, be
admitted with you to the closest communion of saints."^
Dr. Howell admits that "the justly-celebrated John
Bunyan, author of the Pilgrim's Progress and numerous
* Complete Works: "Reasons of my Practice in Worship/' pp. 220,221.
f Ibid. p. 222. i Ibid. p. 220.
212 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
other reputable works, was the father of open com¬
munion"* in the Baptist Church in England; that is,
among the first to resist strict communion in the Baptist
Church, which, as we have seen, till about his time had
practised open communion.
Robert Hall, of England,—one of England's most elegant
and liberal writers and divines, and one of the brightest orna¬
ments not only of the Baptist Church but of Christianity,—
has written an unanswerable treatise on " Terms of Com¬
munion, with a Particular Yiew to the Case of the Baptists
and Pedobaptists." As this work is not accessible to readers
generally, we shall make several extracts from it expressive
of his opinions of restricted communion:—
"The writer is persuaded that a departure from this prin¬
ciple in the denomination to which he belongs has been
extremely injurious, not only to the credit and prosperity
of that particular body, but to the general interests of truth.
By keeping themselves in a state of separation and seclusion
from other Christians, they have not only evinced an
inattention to some of the most important injunctions of
Scripture, but have raised up an invincible barrier to the
propagation of their sentiments beyond the precincts of
their own party."f Again :—"The success of their scheme
tends not to extend the practice of baptism,—no, not in a
single instance,—--but merely to exclude the Lord's Supper.
Leaving the former appointment unaltered and untouched,
it merely proposes to abolish the latter, and, as far as it is
practicable, to lay the Christian world under an interdict.
They propose to punish men for the involuntary neglect
of one ordinance by compelling them to abandon the other;
and, because they are uneasy at perceiving them perform
* Terms of Communion, p. 220.
t Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 285.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 213
but one-half of their duty, oblige them as far as lies in their
power to omit the whole. I must confess I feel no partiality
for those violent remedies which, under the pretence of
reforming, destroy, or for that passion for order which
would rather witness the entire desolation of the sanctuary
than a defalcation of its rites; and, in spite of all the efforts
of sophistry, I must be permitted to believe that our Lord's
express injunction on his followers, 'Do this in remem¬
brance of me,' is a better reason for the salvation of the
communion than can be adduced for its neglect."*
Again :—u In withholding the signs from those who are
in possession of the thing signified, in refusing to communi¬
cate the symbols of the great sacrifice to those who are
equally with themselves sprinkled by its blood and sharers
of its efficacy, in dividing the regenerate into two classes,
believers and communicants, and confining the church to
the narrow limits of a sect, they [the Baptists] have violated
more maxims of antiquity and receded further from the
example of the apostles than any class of Christians on
record."]*,
Again :—" I am fully persuaded that few of our brethren
have duly reflected on the strong/resemblance which subsists
between the Church of Home and the principles implied in
strict communion : both equally intolerant; the one armed
with pains and penalties, the other, I trust, disdaining such
aid; the one the intolerance of power, the other of weak¬
ness."!
Again :—" The tenet to which we are opposed produces
an effect so contrary to what the genius of the gospel teaches
us to anticipate, and so repugnant to the noblest feelings
of the heart, as to form a presumption against it which
* Hall's Works, vol i. pp. 308, 309.
t Ibid. p. 312. X Ibid. p. 358.
214 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
nothing can surmount but the utmost force and splendor of
evidence."*
Again :—cc It is this presumptuous claim of infallibility,
this assumption of the prerogative of Christ, this disposition
to identify ourselves with him and to place our conclusions
on a footing with his mandates,—this is the secret spring
of all that intolerance which has so long bewitched the
world with her sorceries from the elevation of papal Rome,
where she thunders and lightens from the Vatican, down
to Baptist societies, where ' she whispers, feebly from the
dust.' "j" Mr. Hall exhibits " the striking resemblance
between the system of strict communion and that which
is maintained by the Churches of England and of Rome."
" The Romish," says he, " it is well known, pretends to an
absolute infallibility, requiring, under pain of excommuni¬
cation, that the sense she puts on the words of Scripture
should be received with the same submission with the
inspired volume. In what respects, let me ask, is the
conduct of the strict Baptists different? A controversy
arises on the extent of a positive rite, whether it should be
confined to adults or be communicated to infants. Both
parties appeal to the Scriptures, which the Baptist inter¬
prets, in my humble opinion, correctly, in such a manner
as to restrict it to believers; the Pedobaptist, with equal
sincerity, supposes it to include infants. While the former
in his own practice confines it to the description of persons
to whom he judges it to belong, he acts with unexception¬
able propriety; -but when, not satisfied with this, he insists
upon forcing his interpretation upon the conscience of his
brother, and treats him precisely in the same manner as
though he avowedly contradicted Christ and his apostles,
what is this but an assumption of infallibility? If we
* Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 404.
t Ibid. p. 442.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 215
presume to treat our fellow-Christians, merely because they
differ from us in the construction of a positive precept, as
unworthy of being recognised as Christ's disciples and
disqualified for the communion of saints,—if we allow them
'faith,' while we deny them 'obedience' and affirm them
not to ' revere Christ's authority, submit to his ordinances,
or obey the laws of his house,'—we defy all the powers of
discrimination to ascertain the difference of the two cases
or assign a reason why we must ascribe the claim of infalli¬
bility to one and not to the other. If judging for others is
supposed to involve a claim of infallibility, and on that
account, and that alone, to be shunned, to attempt to vindi-
date the practice of our opponents from that imputation
will baffle the acutest intellect. The Roman Catholic
attaches such importance to the rite of baptism as to believe
that, when duly administered, it is necessarily accompanied
with the pardon of sin and regenerating grace. The strict
Baptist maintains that its absence where all other religious
qualifications are possessed in the highest perfection which
human nature admits deprives the party of ' the privileges
of faith' and renders him an alien from the Christian
church. The adherents to the papal power claim to them¬
selves the exclusive appellation of the church,—the arro¬
gance of which pretension is faithfully copied by the advo¬
cates of strict communion. The former, however, by
confining salvation within her own pale, avoid the absurdity
into which the latter fall, who, while they affirm the great
body of the faithful are not entitled to that appellation, are
obliged to distinguish between the mystical body of Christ
and his church, which the Scriptures expressly affirm to be
one and the same."*
Again:—"With mingled surprise and indignation they
* Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 450, 451.
216 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
behold us making pretensions which no other denomination
of Protestants assumes, placing ourselves in an attitude of
hostility to the whole Christian world and virtually claiming
to be the only church of Christ upon earth. Fortified as it
is by its claims to antiquity and universality, and combining
in its exterior whatever is adapted to dazzle the imagination
and captivate the senses, there is nothing in the Church of
Rome that has excited more indignation and disgust than
this very pretension. What, then, must be the sensation
produced when, in the absence of all these advantages, a
sect comparatively small and insignificant erects itself on a
solitary eminence, from which it repels the approach of all
other Christians !"*
Again:—"All that I have seen and heard concurs to con¬
vince me that the practice of strict communion rests almost
entirely on authority, and that, were the influence of a few
great names withdrawn, it would sink under its own weight.
Among those of recent date none has been more regarded
than that of the late venerable Fuller; and, as he left a
manuscript on this subject to be published after his death,
he is considered as having deposed his dying testimony in
its favor. That he felt some predilection to a practice to
which he had been so long accustomed and whose propriety
was very rarely questioned in his early days is freely ad¬
mitted ; but that he all along felt some hesitation on the
subject, and that his mind was not completely made up, I
am induced to believe from several circumstances. First,
from the fact of his proposing himself to commune at Cam¬
bridge with the full knowledge of there being Pedobaptists
present. Secondly, from a conversation which passed many
years ago between him and the writer of these lines. In
reply to his observations that they act precisely on the same
* Hall's "Works, vol. ii. p. 227.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 217
principle with our Pedobaptist brethren, since they also in¬
sist on baptism as an essential prerequisite to communion,
it was remarked that this was a mere argumentum ad ho-
minem: it might serve to silence the clamors of those
Pedobaptists who, while they adhered to that principle,
charged us with bigotry, but that still it did not touch the
merits of the question, since a previous inquiry occurs,
whether any thing more is requisite to communion on scrip¬
tural ground than a vital union with Christ. His answer
was, When mixed communion is placed on that footing, I
never yet ventured to attach it.
" In short, there is a certain false refinement and subtility
in the argument for strict communion which would never
occur to a plain man who was left solely to the guidance of
Scripture. In common with almost every other error, it
derived its origin from the public teachers of religion, and
with a change of sentiment in them it will gradually dis¬
appear; nor will it be long ere our churches will be sur¬
prised that they suffered themselves to be betrayed by
specious but hollow sophistry into a practice so repulsive
and so impolitic."*
Again:—To "the argument for strict communion from
the order of words in the apostolic communion," Mr. Hall
replies, "It is obvious, if the reasoning of our opponents
be valid, it militates irresistibly against the inculcation of
every branch of Christian duty on persons who in their
judgment have not partaken of the baptismal sacrament:
it excludes them not merely from the Lord's Supper, hut
from every species of instruction appropriate to Christians;
nor can they exhort Pedobaptists to walk worthy of their
high calling, to adorn their Christian profession, to cultivate
brotherly love, or to the performance of any duty resulting
* Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 209,210.
19
218 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
from their actual relation to Christ, without a palpable vio¬
lation of their own principles. We affirm that in no part
of Scripture is it inculcated as a preparative to the Lord's
Supper, and that this view of it is a mere fiction of the
imagination. How came the deteriorating effects of their
error respecting baptism to affect them hut in one part—
that of their eligibility as candidates for communion—with¬
out spreading further ? That it just amounts to a forfeiture
of this privilege, and of no other, is a conclusion to which,
as it is certain it cannot be established by reason, we ask to
be conducted by revelation; and we entreat our opponents
for information again and again, but entreat in vain."*
Again:—"Let this principle be once established and
fairly acted upon, and there is no question but that divi¬
sions will succeed to divisions, and separations to separa¬
tions, until two persons possessed of freedom of thought
will scarcely be found capable of walking together in fellow¬
ship, and an image of the infinite indivisibility of matter
will be exhibited in the breaking-down of churches into
smaller and smaller portions. An admirable expedient, truly,
for keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace !"f
Again:—"If communion with a Christian society cannot
be had without a compliance with rites and usages which
we deem idolatrous or superstitious, or without a surrender
of that liberty in which we are commanded to stand fast,
we must, as we value our allegiance, forego, however reluc¬
tantly, the advantages of such a union." J Finally:—" Strict
communion is the general practice of our churches, though
the abettors of the opposite opinion are rapidly increasing
both in numbers and in respectability."§
Dr. Alexander Carson, the author of the great text-book
* Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 305,307.
J Ibid. p. 290.
f Ibid. p. 456.
I Ibid. p. 292.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 219
with the Baptists, who " lived during the controversy of
Fuller, Hall, and Kinghorn on open communion," was in
favor of open communion. The following extracts are taken
from his biography by George C. Moore, who " long resided
under his roof and enjoyed his unbounded confidence," and
which biography Mrs. Hanna, Dr. Carson's daughter, de¬
clares has been written " faithfully, forcibly, clearly, and
without .exaggeration or partiality."*
" Dr. Carson lived during the controversy of Fuller, Hall,
and Kinghorn on open communion. He was often requested
to publish his views on this subject, but all efforts to induce
him to do so failed. He, however, promised to leave his
family his ideas on this contested question, for posthumous
publication; 'but/ said he, 'my views on that subject
must not be published while I live.' The Baptist Publi¬
cation Society have prefixed an article to his book on bap¬
tism, written by the Reverend John Young, in which it is
said that the church at Tubbermore 'have never regarded
an obedience to baptism as an indispensable condition of
admission to the Lord's Supper. Indeed, they have carried
the principle of open communion to the utmost extent, by
receiving members into their body upon evidence of their
conversion, with but little inquiry whether they agreed with
them on the subject of baptism. Certain it is that Mr.
Carson believed this plan to be consistent with the will of
the Lord; and this fact, while it may seem to show that his
views of gospel order were not in all respects precise and
clear, is at the same time a strong proof of his extreme
liberality and kindness of disposition. He was ever more
ready to hold fellowship even with those Pedobaptists who
otherwise taught a pure gospel than with such Baptists as
he might conceive to have departed from genuine ortho-
* " Recommendations" affixed to Life of Carson, by Moore.
220 eminent open-communion baptists.
doxy/ In justice to Dr. Carson's inemory, I must say that
he solemnly disclaims, in his preface to the hook to which
the above is prefixed, the principle to which this writer
attributes his practice. 1 Liberty of sentiment,' says the
doctor, 1 is not a phrase which I admit into my religious voca¬
bulary ; for, though I love and acknowledge those who love
the Lord Jesus, I hold myself as much under the law of
God in embracing all the children of God as in forming the
articles of my creed. My recognition of all Christians I
ground on the authority of Jesus. To set at naught the
weakest of Christ's little ones I call not illiberal, but un¬
christian.'" Mr. Moore then inserts "an extract from a
letter which Dr. Carson wrote in reply to an epistle from a
church in New York, addressed in care of his respected
friend, James Buchanan, Esq., late British consul," from
which we extract the following. It bears date
" Tubbermore* North op Ireland, 1
"May 6th, 1819. $
"The church of Christ at Tubbermore to the church of
Christ at New York. Grace be to you, and peace, from God
our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Beloyed Brethren:—
"It is not from inattention, nor from want of impression
of the importance of the subject of your communication,
that we did not at first fully reply to you, &c. Ignorance
of any divine institution is an evil, and must be felt as such
by a church, as far as it exists in any of its body. But the
question is, What is God's way for getting rid of an evil ?
We believe that it is by forbearance, affectionate instruc¬
tion, and prayer. Many, on the contrary, have thought that
the most effectual way to make a disciple receive an ordi¬
nance of Jesus is to refuse him fellowship till he has com-
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 221
plied. Notwithstanding all we have heard in favor of this
plan, we still deem it the wisdom of man. Accordingly, we
have found that God has made foolish this wisdom. Long
has it been tried without success; and of late, in some parts
of Ireland, it has been carried so far that some individuals
can scarcely find a second to unite with them in constant
fellowship. By permitting Satan to work them up to this
frenzy, it appears to us that God has fixed his seal of dis¬
approbation on the sentiment in its lowest degree, and would
lead sober-minded Christians, who have been led away by its
plausibility, to examine more attentively the ground of their
opinion. It detracts considerably from the joy with which
we should have received your letter that we find no notice
taken of this subject, but, on the contrary, that you seem to
make baptism a term of fellowship. The greater part of
our members not only have been baptized, but we are con¬
vinced that views on this subject extensively affect other
matters in Scripture; but we all deem that a man who has
been received by Jesus ought not to be rejected by us, and that
if he feed his people with his ordinances it woidd be crimi¬
nal in us, as far as in our power, to join in confederacy to
starve the weakest of them. We think that the man who
has been admitted to the fellowship of 'the general assembly
and church of the first-born' is undoubtedly worthy of a
seat with us. We entreat you to examine this subject,—
recollecting that, if it be sinful to receive any that Christ
has forbidden, it is also sinful to refuse any that he has
invited. There is no safe side in error! That Jesus will
not approve of refusing fellowship to any of his brethren,
known to be such, appears to us to have the irresistible
light of self-evident truth."*
In another letter, addressed to Mr. Buchanan, in 1833, in
* Moore's Life of Carson, pp. 83-89,
19*
222 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
allusion to the same subject, Dr. Carson observes, "The
church in this place has always acted on that principle.
There is nothing of greater importance to the welfare and pros¬
perity of the churches than to bring them to understand this,
point. But there is nothing in which they are so ignorant and
to which they are so averse. They consider that they have
attained to perfection in this matter, and, by a false view of
the want of zeal, consider themselves entitled to refuse their
fellowship to many of the sheep of Christ."*
The " Reasons for Free Communion" which Baptist W.
Noel addresses to his Baptist brethren are so excellent that
copious extracts from them may not he unacceptable to the
reader:—
"There are many Pedohaptists who love and serve the
Lord Jesus Christ. They are his members, his servants,
his soldiers, his friends. They maintain his authority, pro¬
mote his cause, copy his example, obey his precepts, and
live for his glory. They love him, and are therefore loved
by him, (John xiv. 21,) and to each of them he will say
at last, 'Well done, good and faithful servant: enter thou
into the joy of thy Lord.' (Matt, xxiii.)
" Why ought not Baptists to own them as brethren ? All
who are the servants of Christ ought to he owned as such.
If he honors and loves them, it is not his will that their
fellow-servants should dishonor them. God has made them
his children by adoption and grace, and cannot be pleased
to see that while they are owned by him they are disowned
by their brethren. It must be right to own the work of
the Holy Spirit, wherever it is accomplished, and to choose
those for our friends whom he has chosen to be his temples:
(1 Cor. vi. 19.) It is according to nature, and grace too,
that the sheep of the same flock, under the same shepherd,
* Moore's Life of Carson, p, 89,
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 223
should walk together and feed together in the same pastures:
(John x. 16.) Brothers ought to sit down together at their
Father's table, (John i. 12; Gal. vi. 10;) and soldiers of
the same army ought to be united. (Eph. vi. 10-17; 1 Thess.
v. 8.)
"We are called to receive all Christ's disciples, notwith¬
standing their errors, as Christ has received us, notwith¬
standing ours. If we must not openly acknowledge them
because of some defects in knowledge, why should Christ
accept us notwithstanding greater defects ? The, great
ground of this open reception, this free brotherly inter¬
course, is stated by St. Paul in these words:—'Let not him
that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath re¬
ceived him.' (Rom. xiv. 3.) In other words, let not the
Baptist, who cannot baptize infants, condemn pious Pedo-
baptists, who do baptize them, because their faithful pro¬
fession and their holy life prove that God has received
them; and those who are accepted by God as his beloved
children are surely good enough to be welcomed by erring
and sinful followers of Christ as beloved brethren.
"As 'brethren/ they are Christ's disciples, and therefore
commanded by him to eat and drink in memory of him,
(Matt. xxvi. 26,) but they must not eat and drink with
their fellow-servants. They are welcome guests to their
Lord, but are repelled by their fellow-guests. Elsewhere
they are owned to be brethren, but the chief sign of brother¬
hood must be withheld from them. They may lead the
prayers of their fellow-Christians, and they may instruct
the churches as enlightened and holy ministers of Christ;
yet in that ordinance which is specially appointed to be a
sign of the communion of saints and the unity of the body
(1 Cor. x. 17) they must be put out as though they were
not members. What a spectacle is thus afforded to the
world, who see with contempt that the most earnest fol-
224 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
lowers of the Kedeemer cannot even commemorate his death
together! When the saints of Jesus are thus put out of
the communion of any of his churches, are not those who
put them out treading in the steps of Diotrephes, (3 John
10,) though with a different spirit ?
"But how can the godly Pedobaptist he excluded on
these terms ? He is no more a disobedient unbeliever than
the strictest of the Baptists who would exclude him. The
reason why he is a Pedobaptist is that he believes the bap¬
tism of infants to be according to the will of Christ. What
person was ever excluded from the Lord's Supper in the
apostolic churches for doing all that he believed (after
searching of the Scriptures and listening to apostles) to be
according to the will of Christ ? What upright and earnest
believer was ever in those days excluded ? What member
of one church was refused communion with the members
of another? In what apostolic church were ever such men
as Baxter, Howe, and Flavel, Doddridge and Whitefield,
Edwards and Payson, Pletcher, Martin, Brainerd, and
Chalmers,—men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,
walking with God and laboring for Christ,—refused such
communion? It was reserved for worse days to see so
strange a spectacle.
"What if these good soldiers had not taken the oath of
allegiance to their king in the exact manner in which Bap¬
tists take it, still it was taken. What if they had not put
on their king's uniform just as Baptists put it on, yet they
wore it. The Baptist has professed his allegiance to Christ
at baptism; the Pedobaptist has professed it at the Lord's
Supper. Both wear the king's uniform, but the one
assumed it at the earlier rite, the other more irregularly at
the later rite. If the one in baptism professed to die and
rise with Christ, the other in the supper 1 showed forth the
Lord's death.' (1 Cor. xi. 26.)
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 225
u If; indeed, to admit him to the table were to dispense
with the command of Christ and to sanction the neglect of
baptism, he must not be admitted; but this cannot be,
because he is admitted by the churches who practise free
communion, on the ground that he is a believer who keeps
the commands of Christ, honors baptism, and believes that
he has been baptized. I own that he is unbaptized; but
his case is totally different from the case of a person refusing
to be baptized in the time of the apostles. They knew that
they were disregarding a divine command; he believes him¬
self to be fulfilling it: they refused baptism because they
despised the authority of Christ; he refuses it because he
respects that authority. A loyal, loving, and obedient
believer, who obeys the commands of Christ as far as he
knows them,—why should he be excluded? He is unbap¬
tized, it is true; but his neglect of baptism is simply an
error; and if a faithful, loving, and obedient believer,
who studies and follows the Scriptures, is to be excluded
from communion for an error which does not touch the
great doctrines of the gospel, where is the exclusion
to stop? Arminians and Calvinists must not hold com¬
munion together, nor Presbyterians, Anglicans, and
Independents, nor Millenarians with anti-Millenarians,
nor members of establishments with members of free
churches, nor free-communion Baptists with those who
advocate strict communion, nor any believer with any other
whom he believes to be in error. No members of any
church can receive the Lord's Supper together. Churches
must be scattered, and nothing remain but a sickening and
noxious individuality, the churches being reduced to a
chaos of disconnected units.
"Let it further be observed that the reasoning which
could prove that unbaptized persons must not, under any
circumstances, be admitted to the Lord's table, must equally
226 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
prove that they must not, under any circumstances, be
owned as brethren. If you sanction their error by admit¬
ting them to the Lord's table, you must sanction it no less
by all fraternization with them j and, since we must never
do evil that good may come, all persons, according to this
doctrine, must exclude from their fellowship all whom they
imagine to be in "error, and, unless they be themselves infal¬
lible, must allow all their fellow-Christians equally to excom¬
municate them. Since this absurd conclusion follows from
the doctrine that in admitting saints as such to the com¬
munion of saints we sanction their errors, it follows that this
doctrine is false. Saints may be admitted to the table of
their Lord without sanction of their errors, and Pedobaptists
may come to it without any dishonor done to the sacrament
of baptism.
"If I mistake not, it must injure the spirit of the
churches which practise it. How can they so separate from
those with whom they are commanded to be openly one
without serious loss ? (John xvii. 20, 21.) How can they
so value the rite of baptism as to repel from their com¬
munion those who have the faith and devotedness which
the rite expresses, and not suffer by it ? At least, they
must be much tempted to overvalue the form of religion
and to undervalue the reality, to ' pay tithe of mint and
anise and cummin' and to ' omit the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.' (Matt, xxiii. 23.)
This exclusion of holy men seems a palpable disregard to
the work of the Spirit in Pedobaptists, tempts Baptists to
overvalue themselves on account of baptism, and, if it
impairs the spirituality of the church, must hinder the
conversion of sinners.
" For consider the real character of this exclusion. Those
only are ordered in the word of God to be excluded who aro
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 227
heretical in doctrine, (Gal. v. 12,) who are vicious in their
practice, (1 Cor. v. 11, 13,) who are schismatical in their
temper, (Rom. xvi. 17,) who injure their brethren, (Matt,
xviii. 17,) or who are openly disobedient to the commands
of Christ. (2 Thess. iii. 14.) But you exclude in company
with all these some of the most loyal, the most active, the
bravest, and the most loving disciples of Christ. They
may, like Enoch, walk with God; like Abraham, sacrifice
all that is dearest to them to serve him; like Moses,
trample under feet the world's most alluring bribes; like
Paul, consecrate noble faculties with untiring ardor to the
cause of their Redeemer; and yet, because they are Pedo-
baptists, you will exclude them from the table of their
Lord. You do this because they will follow what they
believe to be the will of Christ, the meaning of his com¬
mand, and the practice of his apostles. You do this because
they do just what you do yourselves,—since you will baptize
believers alone because you think that Christ requires it,
and they will baptize infants because they think that he
requires it. You do this, therefore, on a principle which
would justify their exclusion of you, which proscribes all
communion among believers and would substitute sub¬
mission to human authority for entire, unlimited submission
to the authority of Christ. This cannot be right: a more
brotherly course is demanded by the plain precepts of
Scripture, by the clear proofs of faith and love in Pedo-
baptist brethren, by the duty of independent judgment
inculcated on all. (Rom. xiv. 5, 23.) And to admit the
saints of Christ as such to his table, to demand no other
terms of communion than such as are terms of salvation, to
welcome as brethren all whose doctrine and conduct prove
them to be so, and to invite all evangelical churches to this
manifested unity, is at once to extend the true doctrine of
228 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
baptism and to promote the progress of Christ's kingdom in
the world."*
We refer next to other Baptists in favor of open com¬
munion. Dr. John By land, one of the most distinguished
of the Baptist ministers of England, was in favor of mixed
communion. He had republished Bunyan's reasons for the
practice, with some of his own. Mr. Jay, in his reminis¬
cences of him, says that he was one day dining at a friend's
house, when one of the company asked him his opinion
about strict communion tod excluding pious men from the
Lord's table. He replied thus:—"You decide the thing by
calling it the Lord's table. Suppose, sir, when I entered '
this room I had taken upon me to say, Mr. such-a-one
(naming him) and Mrs. such-a-one,' You shall not sit down
at this table:' what would Mr. D., the master of the house,
say? 'Why, John By land, you have forgotten yourself!
You are not the owner of this table, but the master is. The
table is mine, and I have a right to invite them,—and I
have invited them; and is it for you to forbid them ? So
in the church the table is the Lord's; and all who are
called by his grace are his guests; and he has bidden
them."f
" In America, at the head of the liberal class stood the
late excellent Dr. Stillman, of Boston, who was beloved by
all the churches in that city and respected by Christians
throughout the United States,"J and only declined com¬
muning with Pedobaptist ministers because he " found the
brethren of his church and other Baptists unfavorable to
the intercourse."§ Bev. S. W. Whitney, A.M., late pastor
of the Baptist Church, Westport, N.Y., and still a Bap-
* Noel on Christian Baptism, pp. 287-301.
f Puritan Recorder.
% Dr. Griffin's Letter on Communion, Bap. Lib. vol. iii. p. 213.
I Ibid. p. 224.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.- 229
tist, has issued a small treatise on "Open Communion/'
■which has reached the second edition j and in the preface
he says, " From some who differ from him he knows what
to expect. But he is happy to know, on the other hand,
that there are many, and Baptists too, who will welcome his
humble effort as a token of the dawn of a coming brighter
day." And he accompanies it with a prayer "That the
volume, as it now goes forth to the public, may be accom¬
panied with the divine blessing, and aid in doing away with
one of the most uncalled-for and unscriptural bars to the full
intercommunion of Christians in things emblematic of their
union to Christ and to one another as members of his
family."* And to this prayer we cordially breathe Amen.
He denies that " baptism has been held in all ages and by
all denominations to be a divinely-prescribed term of com¬
munion." " When you say that baptism has been held by
all denominations to be a term of communion, either you
are no Baptist, or your assertion is not true; for a professing
of Christ by immersion—the thing that you are contending
for, and the only thing that you are willing to admit to be
baptism—has not been held by all denominations to be
necessary to communion. In no ag& and by no denomi¬
nation, except the close-communion Baptists of modern
times, has the want of an immersional profession of
Christianity been considered a barrier to the Lord's
table."*}"
Again:—"One of the first things that strikes an indi¬
vidual in looking at the system of restricted communion is
its glaring want of candor and consistency. It is not what
it professes to be. It restricts the supper from others pro¬
fessedly on the ground of their not being baptized. It
asserts its readiness to admit to the Lord's table any who
* Whitney on Communion, p. 4.
20
f Ibid. pp. 78, 79.
230 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
have been baptized and are leading irreproachable Chris¬
tian lives. Yet it excludes many such, and betrays an utter
insincerity of profession. When met with this fact, it
changes its ground, takes another stand, and yet another,
and says, Communion is a symbol of particular church-
fellowship, and therefore it is that others are excluded.
But in so doing it takes a stand equally false,—the supper
being never administered as a particular church-ordinance,
but as a denominational observance. There is a want of
candor on the part of its advocates, in not presenting their
reasons for it in their true light and on their true basis,
while they endeavor to shield themselves under subterfuges
which have only the appearance of truth. A system that
needs such a mode of defence is not of God. He is light,
and in him is no darkness at all. And if we would walk
in the light, as he is in the light, we should not be close-
communionists."*
Again :—"So long as it is a stubborn fact that there are
multitudes of holy and zealous Christians who differ from us
in their views respecting the act and subjects of baptism,
it is enough to know that those with whom we engage in
the solemn ordinance of commemorating the Savior's death
are members together with us of the common household of
faith. Nay, more: I consider it unworthy of any enlightened
mind, and beneath the dignity of the religion of Christ, to
descend at any time, much more at such a time, to the in¬
quiry how a disciple, eminent it may be for his piety and
usefulness, has made his profession of Christianity. Such
a course ill becomes a follower of Ckrist."f
Again:—" It is perfectly ridiculous to see any one at¬
tempting to show that a ' Pedobaptist church is no home
* Whitney on Communion, pp. 128, 129.
f Ibid. p. 93.
eminent open-communion baptists. 231
for a Baptist,' when a close-communion church, as such,
ought to be a home for no christian."*
Again:—" If the Baptist denomination is less numerous
than it might be, if its influence both at home and abroad
is not what it should be, Baptists have nothing to blame
for this more than their own dwarfing, antichristian, and
odious system of denominational communion,—a system that
decapitates all non-conformists,—as unwarranted as the papal
restrictions of the use of God's word, and as intolerant as
the spirit that drove Koger Williams, as a dangerous man,
from his home. It goes to work to advance the truth in
the very best way calculated to blind men to it and to keep
them from examining it. It runs directly counter to the
voice of reason and the genius of Christianity, which teach
that if we would win from error we are not to expect suc¬
cess by the use of harsh, coercive, and repulsive means,
but by those that are mild, conciliatory, and attractive."f
Again:—"Overlooking the great principles in which the
power of the gospel lies, and going contrary to them, it
vainly seeks to bring men to the knowledge of the truth
by setting it in a repulsive and odious light. Such a system,
be it from what source it may, cannot be of God."J
Again:—"When the communion is made a denomina¬
tional thing, as it really is, its administration is more than
unjustifiable-; it calls for reprehension from every Christian,
as a course that degrades the ordinance and dishonors Him
who instituted it. If this is not the offspring of party
spirit, it would be hard to say what is. It is a desecration
of the Lord's Supper which finds no parallel in Christian
churches,—a tampering with a divine institution of which
the world itself is not guilty." §
* Whitney on Communion, p. 142.
I Ibid. p. 144.
f Ibid. p. 142.
\ Ibid. pp. 145,146.
282 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
Again:—"It is gratifying, however, to know—as I do
know—that there are multitudes belonging to our [Baptist]
churches who would gladly see the practice abolished, and
would readily abjure it, but for the want of ministerial co¬
operation and sanction, the fear of being fickle-minded, and
the dread of excommunication and unkind treatment, in
some cases, from those they love."*
Again :—"But we have every reason to believe that the
day is at hand when the system of restricted communion
must be abolished, if not entirely, at least to a very great ex¬
tent. Present indications show that the strong tide of feeling
which for years past has been increasing against it cannot
much longer be successfully Jcept bach. Its inconsistencies
and glaring antichristian character are becoming daily more
and more felt. And, when the mind of the denomination
is fairly enlightened to see them, it must come to the con¬
clusion that the system is not only uncalled-for, but un-
scriptural and unworthy of a follower of Christ. This is all
we need."f
In England the tendency to open communion in the
Baptist Church is alarming and portentous to the Baptist
Church. Our authority for this statement is J. Gi. Fuller
himself, already quoted largely in this treatise, a Baptist
in England, and the celebrated author of "Conversations
between two Laymen on Strict and Mixed Communion,"
in reply to Robert Hall's great treatise on Open Com¬
munion. In the "preface" to his "conversations" Mr.
F. observes, "The tendency of mixed [open] communion
is becoming every day more apparent, and its deteriorating
and dissociating influence more visible. Every successive
month brings 'certain strange things' to our ears; a standing
ordinance of Jesus Christ displaced, condemned, and decried;
* Whitney on Communion, p. 151.
f Ibid. p. 152.
EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 233
its very mention deprecated; natural allusion to it stu¬
diously avoided; the almost total suppression, in the Chris¬
tian ministry, of one of 'the counsels of God'/ the reception
of members without any baptism, notwithstanding a renun¬
ciation of the ceremony performed in infancy and without
any public confession of faith in Christ, beyond a knowledge
of character and personal appearance in the temple of
mixed communion; clandestine admissions of unbaptized
[unimmersed] persons to the Lord's table ; attempts to en¬
force mixed communion; unnecessary and unwelcome
collision with Pedobaptist churches; the constitution of
Baptist churches altered by way of experiment; the neces¬
sary expulsion of conscientious strict Baptists; defective
discipline; a general relaxation from primitive Chris¬
tianity ; a disposition to sacrifice another ' non-essential,'
the Lord's Supper, whenever the supposed interests of peace
and union shall make the demand; private baptisms, in
compliance with the special desire of Pedobaptist members;
the celebration of believers' baptism in the morning and of
infant baptism in the afternoon of the same day, in the
same place, the morning preacher being specially requested
not to plead for his views of baptism, by a non-compliance
with which the Pedobaptist members were greatly offended!
These are indications (and others might be enumerated)
sufficiently clear and strong of the tendency of mixed com¬
munion."* This is a sad state of things in the Baptist
Church in England. Mr. Fuller proceeds:—" One porten¬
tous result of the proposed innovation, conceded by our
eloquent opponent himself, [Hall,] ought never to he for¬
gotten,—the extinction of Baptist churches! 'Were that
practice universally to prevail,' he says, 'the mixture of
* Conversations on Strict and Mixed Communion, Bap. Library,
vol. 1. p. 223.
20*
234 EMINENT OPEN-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
Baptists and Pedobaptists in Christian societies would pro¬
bably ere long be such that the appellation of Baptist
might he found not so applicable to churches as to indi¬
viduals.' In this, then, all parties are agreed:—that the
tendency of mixed communion is to annihilate as such all
the Baptist churches in Christendom!"* And Mr. Puller
sounds the alarm, in the language of Mr. Kinghorn :—" It
is time for us, in this state of things, to act with circum¬
spection and becoming firmness. It is manifestly the duty
of the members of our churches, and of those who sustain
the office of deacons and ministers, to put the question to
themselves and to each other, Do they wish to promote the
dissolution and ruin of the Baptist denomination, as such ?
If you do, Mr. Hall tells you his system will effect the
purpose; but, if you do not, take heed to your ways' "f
Such are the opinions of eminent Baptist writers, and
such the tendency to open communion in the Baptist
Church. We shall close this treatise with an appeal to
strict-communion Baptists.
* Conversations on Strict and Mixed Communion, Bap. Library,
vol. i. p. 223.
•)- Ibid. p. 223.—It is generally known that Mr. Spurgeon, a Baptist
preacher, who is attracting so much attention in England and whose
sermons are extensively circulated in this country, is in favor of
open communion. And we shall not be surprised if ere long, both in
England and America, other gifted sons of the Baptist Church shall
exert their talents and influence on the side of the free and open com¬
munion of the gospel.
APPEAL TO STRICT-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 235
CHAPTER XVI.
appeal to strict-communion baptists.
Ah ! some of you who kneel at the communion-table
never would have knelt there, perhaps, had not those whom
you exclude called you to Christ. And some of you who
shut yourselves up in God's temple, under the vain pretence
of protecting the honor of the temple, never, perhaps, would
have passed its blessed threshold, had not those on whom
you close and lock the doors led you to the portals of mercy
and pardon. And some of you who make baptism an in¬
dispensable prerequisite to the Lord's Supper never, perhaps,
would have obtained the baptism of the Holy Ghost, had
not those whom you disown and renounce as disqualified
for the communion taken you by the hand and tenderly
led you to the holy fountain. And some of you who make
membership in your church an indispensable condition to
participation in the Lord's Supper never, perhaps, would
have been united with Christ's visible and invisible church,
had not some of those whom you repudiate as " disobedient
children of God" recovered you from rebellion and brought
you back, no longer "strangers and aliens from the com¬
monwealth of Israel." And some of you who have "gone
down into the water" would have gone down to hell, per¬
haps, had not some who know no other baptism but sprink¬
ling or pouring taught you, exhorted you, prayed for you,
wept over your follies, and rejoiced in your forgiveness.
And some of you who, in the way to heaven, rejoice around
your own altars, never would have found that blessed way,
236 APPEAL TO STRICT-COMMUNION BAPTISTS.
perhaps, had not some of those with whom you would think
it a reproach and a dishonor to be found at the Lord's table
introduced you into the way at the altar of penitence, par¬
don, and joy in their own churches,—from which you retired
happy, never, never to return. And some of you whose
children, parents, wives, husbands, and friends, as well as
yourselves, have been forgiven, and are on your way to
heaven, and enjoy blissful hopes of being saved forever,
and often express your gratitude and joy in the celebration
of the Lord's Supper, never, perhaps, would have been
saved, nor found the way to heaven, nor enjoyed a blissful
hope of being saved forever, nor known any gratitude or
ioy in the service of God, nor enjoyed a single privilege of
communion, and life would have been desolation, and time
a desert, and death despair, had not those whom you now
regard as " disobedient and rebellious" found you miserable,
lost, bruised, and dead, and tenderly and affectionately con¬
ducted you to Christ.
You concede that those whom you exclude from com¬
munion have faith; and a moment's consideration will prove
that the exclusion is wrong. What is this faith ? It is the
condition of salvation; it is the source of devotion; it is the
internal spring of external obedience and activity; it is the
principle of promptitude and energy in submitting to the
precepts of religion, and develops itself in exertions in every
cause connected with the will of God; it is a persuasion
that resolves every thing into the authority of the Bible and
the glory of God. Have not, then, those whom you exclude
a right to communion ?
You concede that they have the substance signified by
baptism, and yet for want of the sign deny them admission
to the Lord's table. Had they the sign and not the sub¬
stance, you would not admit them. Therefore, do you not
give more importance to the sign than to the substance ?—
APPEAL TO STRICT-COMMUNION BAPTISTS. 237
more importance to baptism tban to regeneration? The
substance of the sacrament remains, tbougb the form has
never been administered and, if administered, it wastes and
passes away. It is the substance, then, that is essential j
and, therefore, all that should be required by any evangelical
church in order to communion is the possession of the sub¬
stance signified by baptism, no matter by what mode signi¬
fied, as in the case of pious Pedobaptists, or whether it be
conscientiously omitted altogether, as in the case of pious
Quakers. Besides, you take for granted that immersion
was the only apostolic mode of baptism. But this is not so
certain as the being of God, or as the obligation of faith, or
as the piety of those whom you exclude from communion.
Mr. Hall candidly admits, " The evidence by which our views
are supported, though sufficient for every practical purpose,
is decidedly inferior to that which accompanied their first
promulgation : the utmost that we can pretend to is a very
high probability
Mr. Booth, a very high authority with you, observes,
"It is not everyone that is received of Jesus who is entitled
to communion at his table, but such, and only such, as revere
his authority, submit to his ordinances, and obey the laws
of his house." Can any man or church fear offending
Christ who receives to communion those whom he has
received ? Christ cannot be offended with those who make
him their example. What should those expect who resist
the authority of his example ?
May time soon destroy all local prejudices and party
conflicts about matters not essential to salvation, and
religion advance her original and inalienable rights and
privileges by the cordial reciprocity of all Christians in
sacramental communion and harmony in holy zeal!
* "Works, vol. ii. p. 215.