4LM> "Close Communion:" OR, BAPTISM AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER BY JOHN T. CHRISTIAN, A.M., D.D., LL. D. Author of '" Immersion, the Act of Christian Baptism" etc. SEVENTEENTH THOUSAND. LITTLE ROCK, ARK. THE ADVANCE PUBLISHING CO. 1907. Copyright. 1892, By J. T. CHRISTIAN. Electrotyped BY ROBERT ROWELL, LOUISVILLE. KY. SRI.F URL Q*//?Sf PREFACE. THE position of the Baptists upon the Com- munion question is one of neutrality. We do not invite others to participate with us; and not inviting others we do not accept invitations. Our position is defensive rather than offensive. This book is written in this spirit. It is intended to explain and defend the practice commonly known as "Close Communion." We think our practice is Scriptural. The brotherhood of the New Testament were one in fellowship and doctrines. Under those condi- tions open communion was impossible. This view is confirmed by all history. I have been unable to find an instance of open communion for the first sixteen hundred years after Christ. I am in no way responsible for the opinions of the authors I quote, only so far as I may endorse them. Many of these writers believe in baptis- mal salvation, in baptism coming in the room of circumcision, and other errors which we repudi- ate. I have, however, accurately examined orig- inal sources, so that there may be no doubt as to the testimony of these writers. The author desires that this book may be read in the kind spirit in which it was written. There are many hard facts in the book, but no hard words. I merely recorded facts as I found them without passion or prejudice. CONTENTS. PAGE CHAPTER I. Are Ignorance, Prejudice, and Bigotry the Reasons Why Baptists are Close Communionists? 7 CHAPTER II. The Baptist Position Stated and Defended by the Scriptures 21 CHAPTER III. The Testimony of the Fathers 39 CHAPTER IV. The Testimony of Scholars 50 CHAPTER V. The Testimony of Creeds, Confessions, etc 61 CHAPTER VI. The Terms of Communion in the Episcopal Church. Are the Episcopalians Close Communionists? 64 CHAPTER VII. The Terms of Communion in the Presbyterian Church. Are the Presbyterians Close Communionists? 81 CHAPTER VIII. The Terms of Communion in the Congregational Church. Are the Congregationalists Close Com- munionists? 109 CHAPTER IX. The Terms of Communion in the Methodist Church. Are the Methodists Close Communionists? The Wesleys and Dr. Coke 118 6 CONTENTS. PAGE CHAPTER X. The Terms of Communion in the Methodist Church. Are the Methodists Close Communionists? Asbury and Hedding. The Discipline. Living Bishops. Watson and Others 138 CHAPTER XI. The Terms of Communion of the Disciples or Chris- tian Church. Are the Disciples Close Commun- ionists? 156 CHAPTER XII. What Is Baptism? 163 CHAPTER XIII. Are Baptists Lacking in Charity? 190 CHAPTER XIV. Positive and Moral Law 197 CHAPTER XV. Open Communion Destroys Gospel Discipline 202 CHAPTER XVI. Infant Communion 212 CHAPTER XVII. Open Communionists Do Not Endorse Each Other. . . .220 CHAPTER XVIII. Open Communion is a Worn Out Heresy Borrowed From the Baptists 234 "CLOSE COMMUNION:" OR, BAPTISM AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. CHAPTER I. ARE IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, AND BIGOTRY THE REASONS WHY BAPTISTS ARE CLOSE COM- MUNIONISTS? THE Baptists have been thoroughly misun- derstood on the subject of Close Commun- ion; and it has been difficult to get our real opinions before the world. That we are more illiberal, un-Christian, and sectarian than others I do not believe. Perhaps it is frequently more convenient and popular to use denunciatory words than to meet our arguments. Our position has been distorted, and some of those professing the broadest liberality have sometimes called us the harshest names. I shall notice a few of these epithets not for the purpose of stirring up ill feeling and strife, for of that there has been too much already, but rather that we may have the subject fairly before our minds. I believe that we can easily show that these names have no more application to us than to others. 8 CLOSE COMMUNION. We have been called ' ' bigoted. " Webster says that in its origin the word bigot means ' ' hypo- crite," and defines it: "One obstinately and un- reasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual." Hypocrites we are not. It is proverbial that the Baptists are among the boldest and most progressive people on earth; and that they have been swift, in all proper ways, to promulgate their opinions. To the charge of being obstinately and unreason- ably wedded to an opinion we plead not guilty. And as to creed or ritual it is not so much as mentioned among us. The fact that our doc- trines and practices do not agree with what others believe on those subjects, does not, in the least, go to prove that we are not grounded upon the truth. Our highest appeal is not to the bar of public opinion, but to the Word of God. We stand by the Bible. When God commands a thing, we believe men ought to obey. When men object to this position we make answer: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." (Acts 4:19.) If this is not popular with so- called liberal opinions, as it is not, we can only say: " We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29.) We must have a "thus saith the Lord." We should not be criticised because we refuse to obey the commandments of men. Many wholly mistake latitudinarianism for IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 9 Catholicism. I do not think John Wesley ever said a truer thing than what he says on this point. Said he: "A catholic spirit is not specu- lative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the spawn of hell; not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought, this being driven to and fro, and tossed about by every wind of doctrine, is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a true Catholicism. A man of a true catholic spirit does not halt between two opinions; nor vainly endeavor to blend them into one. Observe this, you that know not what spirit you are of; who call yourself a catholic spirit, only because you are of a muddy understanding; because your mind is all in a mist; because you are of no set- tled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced that you have quite missed your way. You know not where you are. You think you have got into the very Spirit of Christ; when in truth you are nearer the spirit of Anti-Christ." (Rowland Hill's Pull Answer to J. Wesley's Remarks, pp. 40,41.) It ought to be popular for a man to have con- victions and stand by them. For my part I like a man who believes something and knows why he believes it; and when occasion calls for it is not afraid to defend his position. "The appoint- ment of God," says Turretin, "is the highest law, the supreme necessity; which we ought 10 CLOSE COMMUNION. rather to obey than indulge popular ignorance and weakness. " (Inst. Theol. , Tom. iii, Loc. xix, Quaes, xiv, sec. 14, p. 336.) This is the height and front of our offending. We recognize no man as Lord of the conscience. I, therefore, appeal from the position that we are hypocrites and obstinate. CHRISTIAN UNION. The Baptists of the United States stand pub- licly pledged to unite at any time with any or all Christian denominations, upon the Word of God. We are in favor of Christian union, not upon "the historic episcopacy," or upon historic anything else, but upon the Bible. There is nothing un- reasonable in this demand. If it is bigotry to say that God's Word is right, then we plead guilty. In another place I will show the evil results of Open Communion upon Christian charity; but here I plead only that we are not uncharitable and illiberal. The Southern Baptist Convention and the Northern Anniversaries unanimously passed the following resolutions: "Whereas, The different denominations have lately been giving unusual attention to the sub- ject of Christian union, and "Whereas, It is conceded to be a great de- sideratum that Christians should agree in all im- portant points of doctrine and polity, and ' ' Whereas, There is a standard recognized as IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 11 authoritative by all Christians, viz: the Bible, therefore, "Resolved, By the Southern Baptist Conven- tion (and the same resolutions were passed by the Northern Anniversaries), representing 1,200,000 communicants, that we recognize the gravity of the problem of bringing different denominations to see alike on important subjects concerning which they now differ, and they recognize in the teaching of Scripture the only basis on which such an agreement is either possible or desir- able, also "Resolved, That we respectfully propose to the general bodies of our brethren of other denomi- nations to select representative scholars who shall consider and seek to determine just what is the teaching of the Bible on the leading points of difference of doctrine and polity between the denominations, in the hope that they can at least help to a better understanding of the issues in- volved; also ' 'Resolved, That we heartily favor that the re- sults of the proposed conference of representa- tive scholars be widely published in all denomi- national papers so that the Christian public can be thoroughly informed concerning these re- sults, and that progress may be made toward true Christian union. " As long as this invitation remains unaccepted no one has a right to declare that we are unchar- 12 CLOSE COMMUNION. itable and illiberal. This can not be true: for we are not only in favor of toleration, but of the widest liberty in all matters of conscience. We believe that the civil law has nothing to do with religion; and that it is a heaven-given privilege for every man to worship according to the dic- tates of his own conscience. We must stand or fall before God; and man is not our judge. All we ask is that we shall have the same right to worship God that we cheerfully grant to others. We have been pioneers in this work. " Freedom of conscience," says Mr. Bancroft, the brilliant historian of the United States, "unlimited free- dom of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the Baptists." For the wonderful change that has taken place in England, Dr. Schaff gives the credit to the Baptists. "For this change of public senti- ment," says he, "the chief merit is due to the English Non-conformists, who in the school of persecution became advocates of toleration, especially to the Baptists and Quakers, who made religious libert}^ (within the limits of the golden rule) an article of their creed so that they could not consistently persecute even if they should ever have a chanca to do so." (Creeds of Christ., vol. 1, p. 803.) The historian, Skeats, who was not a Baptist, records these strong words: "It is the singular and the distinguished honor of the Baptists to IGNORANCE AND PREJUDU E. 13 have repudiated, from their earliest history, all coercive power over the consciences and actions of men with reference to religion. No sentence is to be found in all of their writings inconsist- ent with these principles of Christian liberty and willinghood which are now equally dear to all of the free Congregational churches of England. They were the photo-evangelists of the volun- tary principle." (History of the Free Churches of England, p. 24.) So strikingly correct and sympathetic are the words of Gervinus, the most astute and philo- sophic of the German historians of this century, that I present them here. He says: "In accord- ance with these principles Roger Williams in- sisted, in Massachusetts, upon allowing entire freedom of conscience, and upon the entire sepa- ration of the Church and the State. But he was obliged to flee, and in 1636 he formed in Rhode Island a small and new society, in which perfect freedom in matters of faith was allowed, and in which the majority ruled in all civil affairs. Here in a little State, the fundamental principles of political and ecclesiastical liberty practically prevailed, before they were ever taught in any of the schools of philosophy in Europe. At that time people predicted only a short existence of these democratical experiments: universal suf- frage, universal eligibility to office, the annual change of rulers, perfect religious freedom — 14 CLOSE COMMUNION. the Miltonian doctrines of schisms. But not only have these ideas and these forms of govern- ment maintained themselves here, but precisely from this little State have they extended them- selves throughout the United States. They have conquered the aristocratic tendencies in Carolina and New York, the High Church in Virginia, the Theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy in all America. They have given laws to a con- tinent, and formidable through their moral in- fluence, they lie at the bottom of all the demo- cratic movements which are now shaking the nations of Europe." I shall venture to quote the complimentary letter of George Washington to the Baptists. He says: "I have often expressed my sentiments that every man conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable alone to God for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping according to the dictates of his own conscience, while I recollect, with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are mem- bers have been throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends of civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious revolution, I can not hesitate to believe that they will be faithful supporters of a free, yet efficient, general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may rely on my best wishes and en- deavors to advance their prosperity." IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 15 I can not believe that people who thus love liberty, and contend for the widest freedom of thought and worship, will be either uncharitable or illiberal. We must look for some other reason for Close Communion. The last cry is that the Baptists are ignorant. We freely confess that we have among us more ignorance than has ever done us any good. But the denomination that can not reach the igno- rant and the poor lacks one of the essential fea- tures of a church of Christ. There are those, however, who appear honestly to believe that we hold to Close Communion through sheer igno- rance. While it is a fact that among our millions we have many unlettered people, it is equally a fact that in scholarly attainments and educa- tional facilities we occupy no mean place. I quote the tribute of the great Presbyterian, Dr. Chalmers, to the English Baptists. He evidently thought they had done something for the world. He says: "Let it never be forgotten of the Par- ticular Baptists of England, that they form the denomination of Fuller and Carey and Ryland and Hall and Foster; that they have organized among the greatest of all missionary enterprises; that they have enriched the Christian literature of our country with authorship of the most ex- alted piety, as well as with the first talent, and the first eloquence; that they have waged a very noble and successful war with the hydra of Anti- 16 CLOSE COMMUNION. nomianism; that perhaps there is not a more in- tellectual community of ministers in our islands, or who have put forth to their number a greater amount of mental power and mental activity in the defence and illustration of our common faith; and, what is better than all of the triumphs of genius or understanding, who by their zeal and fidelity and pastoral labor among congregations which they have reared, have done more to swell the list of genuine discipleship in the walks of private society — and thus to both uphold and extend the living Christianity of our nation."' (Com. Romans, Lee. 14, p. 76.) In the United States the Baptists are in the front rank in providing educational facilities. Our ministers in scholarly ability are second to none; and our schools are of the very best. We have always been the advocates of education. The oldest and largest University in the United States is Harvard. The first money it ever re- ceived for an endowment was from a Baptist; and the Hollis family — Baptists — were among its most munificent benefactors. Its first two Presi- dents, Henry Dunster and Charles Chausey, were Baptists. President Quincey said of them: "For learning and talents they have been surpassed by no one of their successors." The Baptists assisted Franklin in laying the foundations of the University of Pennsylvania, and have been among the first in their support of all State IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 17 schools." As early a 1764, when numbering in all America only 60 churches and about 5,000 mem- bers, the Baptists founded their first college, Brown University of Rhode Island. Now they have 28 chartered colleges, over 200 academies and female colleges, and 9 theological semina- ries. In less than five years they have founded a university in Chicago, upon a wider plane than any school in America, with an endowment al- ready little less than four millions of dollars. Nearly all of our colleges have recently added largely to their endowment funds. "We have one man, Mr. J. D. Rockefeller, who has given nearly three millions of dollars for education. The Baptists have 70 newspapers in the United States and not a few quarterlies and reviews. In writers they have been second to none. The book that has reached a wider circulation than any other except the Bible, and has been translated into every tongue of earth, was writ- ten by a Baptist, John Bunj^an. John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, was a Baptist. Macau- lay calls these two the original minds of their century. Gill has not been surpassed as a com- mentator; and indeed time would fail us to speak of the multitude that we could mention with propriety. All this and more has been frankly conceded by others. Dr. Baird, in his great work, Religion in 18 CLOSE COMMUNION. America, p. 463, says: "The ministry of the Bap- tists comprehends a body of men who, in point of talent, learning and eloquence, as well as de- voted piety, have no superiors in this country." Dr. T. L. Cuyler recently said of the Baptists in Philadelphia and elsewhere: "They are a powerful body in Philadelphia. Let us thank God that their great army corps all over the land are so stoutly loyal to sound doctrine and evan- gelical doctrine and progress. " The late Dr. Woods, of Andover, thus expressed himself: "I entertain the most cordial esteem, love and confidence toward the Baptists as a de- nomination. I have the freest intercourse, and the sincerest friendship with Baptist ministers, theological students, and private Christians. I have wished that our denomination — the Congre- gationalist — was as free from erratic specula- tions, and as well grounded in the doctrines and experimental principles of the Puritans as the Baptists. It seems to me that they are the Chris* tians who are likely to maintain pure Christian- ity, and to hold fast the form of sound words." Dr. Hase, the German historian, says: "They agree with, and even exceed the Congregational- ists in their rejection of all human authority in matters of faith, and in their practical mainte- nance of the independence of the congregation." (Hist, of Christ. Ch., p. 603.) The Baptists have taken the lead in modern IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 19 times in the cause of Foreign Missions and in the founding of Bible societies. In 1792, under Carey, they formed the first missionary society of mod- ern times to preach the gospel to the heathen. When Carey made the proposition to send the gospel to India Dr. Ryland was so astounded at its audacity that he sprang to his feet and or- dered Carey to sit down, saying: "When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it with- out your aid or mine." But the Baptist cobbler became the forerunner of the mighty mission work of to-day. The Rev. J. L. Withrow recently said: "The Baptist church is in repute for thorough-going piety; a piety which takes the Bible as God's book, rather than as a book with some stray breaths of God through it, no one being sure where to find them ; a piety which grasps the doc- trines of justifying and sanctifying and glorify- ing grace with a grip which holds as a vice; a piety which one hundred years ago, before any other Protestant soul or society began it, arose to the divinest enterprises of Christianity, the enterprises of sending the gospel to all the ends of the earth. It was Baptist piety which did that. It was Baptist believers who began that monthly concert of prayer for Foreign Missions which has been heaping up prayers before the throne of God for a century, and adding to them every month petitions by the million! What a 20 CLOSE COMMUNION. church it is to the glory of the Son of God and the good of this needy world! " As an outgrowth of this mission work, in 1804, the British and Foreign Bible Society was formed. Joseph Hughes, a Baptist minister, bore the most prominent part in its organization. As one has quaintly put it: "He was the hands and feet, as he had been the head of the insti- tution." I think with all of these facts before me, that none of these are the reasons that Baptists have for believing in, and practicing, Close Commun- ion. It is not held by them on account of igno- rance, bigotry or selfishness. It may be that their practice is founded upon the Scriptures. THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 21 CHAPTER II. THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED AND DEFENDED BY THE SCRIPTURES. THE Baptists are strict comm unionists and are likely to remain such. We want to be just as close as the Word of God. If we have prospered as a people, it is because we have rigidly adhered to the Word of God. Whenever we turn aside from this well-trodden path for mere sentimentality or transient popularity, the day of our power and usefulness is gone. We are compelled to search for the old paths, and when we have found them to walk in them. Despite all criticisms and abuse we have pros- pered as strict communionists. The reason is not far away. In the face of all clamor we have adhered to God's Word and God has greatly honored us. What he has done in the past he will do in the future. There is neither argument nor wisdom in open communion. It is based upon mere sentiment, and that a false sentiment. We are strict communionists and we are going to remain strict. This is freely admitted by Rev. J. L. Withrow, Presbyterian, in an able article in the Interior. 22 CLOSE COMMUNION. He says: "Furthermore, in their favor it is to be said, they have proved, beyond peradventure, that narrow church doors and severe communion conditions do not bar people out of the Christian church. Against creeds and communion bars there is ceaseless outcry from some quarters. The Baptists have no chaptered creed, but their unwritten creed, as England's unwritten consti- tution, is more insurmountable than the Thirty- nine Articles of Episcopacy, or the ponderous chapters of theWestminster Confession. Against chaptered creeds the complaints are so urgent that Congregationalists have recently made a new one — you may safely offer a dollar for every new convert which has been captured by that new creed who otherwise would not have been secured. And now the Presbyterians are wast- ing a heap of hard-earned money (contributed, much of it, by God's poor for better purposes), and are stirring bad blood between the brethren in an attempt to smooth off and sweeten up their creed. The claim is that we keep people out of the church, and candidates out of our ministry with such strict conditions as now exist. It sounds like arrant nonsense in presence of the fact that the Baptist church is the strictest church we have; and yet it is growing— not as a weed, but as the Word of God is promised to grow. There is no church, so far as we know, into which it is more difficult to enter than the THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 23 Baptist through theological, ecclesiastical and ceremonial conditions. And yet there are throngs pressing through its narrow threshold. Whoever cares to study this subject of easy and exacting conditions of church membership, ask- ing which is most likely to secure accessions to the fellowship of professing Christians, should compare the history of the Baptist church with that of the liberal churches, so-called." The practice of restricted communion is no arbitrary affair with us. We think the Lord has laid down in the New Testament certain PREREQUISITES TO THE COMMUNION. We think the Scriptures warrant definite terms of approach to the Lord's Supper. The divine order is, first, faith; second, baptism; third, church membership; fourth, discipline; fifth, doctrine; sixth, the Lord's Supper. No man has a right to the Lord's table who has not exercised faith, been baptized, and is a member of the church, subject to its discipline, and agreeing with it in doctrine. This is so important that I shall illustrate and defend it from a number of standpoints. The Lord Jesus himself instituted the Supper. A record of this event is given in Matthew 26:26-30: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my 24 CLOSE COMMUNION. body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives." We have no right to change a qualification. Were these disciples baptized ? There is no doubt about it. Robert Hall, the foremost defender of open communion, admits this. He says: "It is almost certain that some, probably the most of them, had been baptized by John." (Works, vol. 1, p. 303.) In the Gospel of John at least four of the disciples were declared to be disciples of John the Baptist. (1:36-40.) Jesus also made and baptized disciples. (John 4:1.) It is not reasonable to suppose that Jesus would have se- lected men to represent himself, who had refused to obey the first and plainest command of the Gospel. "The practice of the first Christian church," says Knapp, "confirms the point that the baptism of John was considered essentially the same with Christian baptism. For those who acknowledged that they had professed, by the baptism of John, to believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in consequence of this had be- come in fact his disciples, and had believed in THE BAPTIST POSITION STATE!'. 25 him, were not, in a single instance, baptized again into Christ, because this was considered as having been already done. Hence we do not find that any apostle or any other disciple of Jesus was the second time baptized; not even that Apollos mentioned in Acts xviii:25, because he had before believed in Jesus Christ, although he had received only the baptism of John." (Christ. Theol., p. 485.) But the Scriptures do not leave us in doubt on this subject. "When an apostle -was to be chosen in the place of Judas Iscariot, he was required to be a disciple of John, as were the rest of the apostles. I quote Acts 1:21,22: " Wherefore of those men which have accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." This passage undoubtedly teaches that an apostle must have been a disciple of John. In fact this is made an absolute qualification. This interpretation is sustained by the foremost scholars. Alexander, Presbyterian, says: "The idea evi- dently is, that the candidate must not only have believed Christ's doctrines and submitted to his teaching, as a disciple in the widest sense, but formed a part of that more permanent body, 26 CLOSE COMMUNION. which appears to have attended him from place to place, throughout the whole course of his public ministry." (Acts of the Apostles Expl.) Gloag says: "In these verses Peter assigns the necessary qualifications of the new apostle. He must have associated with them during all of the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them; that is, during the whole of his public ministry. He states the commencement of that period to be the baptism of John, and its termination to be the day of the ascension." (Crit. and Exeget. Com. on Acts.) Burkitt says: "That is one who had followed Christ from his baptism to his ascension." Adam Clarke, Methodist, says: "They judged it necessary to fill up this blank in the aposto- late, by a person who had been an eye witness of the acts of our Lord. Went in and out. A phrase which includes all the actions of life. Beginning from the baptism of John. From the time that Christ was baptized by John in Jordan; for it was at that time that his public ministry prop- erly began." (Com., vol. 3, p. 694.) Barnes, Presbyterian, says: "The word 'be- ginning from ' in the original refers to the Lord Jesus. The meaning may be thus expressed, ' during the time in which the Lord Jesus, be- ginning (his ministry) at the time he was bap- tized by John, went in and out among us, until the time in which he was taken up, ' etc. From THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 27 those who had during that time been the constant companions of the Lord Jesus must one be taken, who would thus be a witness of his whole ministry." It is no answer to assert that John's baptism was not Christian baptism; for beyond doubt this was all the baptism Christ ever received, and none of the persons baptized by John were ever rebaptized. It answers every requirement of the Lord Jesus and we ought to be satisfied. "The object of John's baptism," says Knapp, "was the same of that of Christian; and from this it may be at once concluded that it did not differ essentially from the latter. John exhorted the persons baptized by him to repentance and to faith in the Messiah who was shortly to ap- pear, and make these duties obligatory upon them by this rite. And as soon as Jesus pub- licly appeared, John asserted in the most forci- ble manner that he was the Messiah, and so re- quired of all whom he had then or before bap- tized, that they should believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Now in Christian baptism, repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah are likewise the principal things which are required on the part of the subjects of this rite. " (Christ. Theol. , p. 485.) Turrettin maintains with great learning and force that ' ' the baptism of John was the same essentially with that of Christ," or Christian baptism. 28 CLOSE COMMUNION. Calvin says : ' ' This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the ap©stles. For the different hands by which bap- tism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same. John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine. Both baptized unto repentance, both for the remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world, thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?" (Inst. Christ. Relig., vol. 3, pp. 332, 333.) We are not, therefore, left in doubt about bap- tism preceding the Lord's Supper. You will also notice that in the celebration of this first Supper there was no one present except the twelve apostles. His mother was not there; Mary, Martha and Lazarus were not present; the seventy were not admitted, indeed there were no other participants, and no spectators. There was no foolish sentimentality about this observ- ance. Not one argument that open commun- ionists urge can be based upon the institution of the Supper by Jesus. This is the teaching of the great commission. THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 29 Matthew 28:19,20, states: " Go, ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. " I love to go back to foundation principles, and learn what Christ has commanded, and then I know how to obey. By this law we are required in the first place, to teach or preach the Gospel; secondly, to baptize those who believe; and thirdly, to instruct such baptized believers to observe all things whatsoever Christ has com- manded: and the order in which these several duties are here stated, is as imperative as the duties themselves. This argument is so important, and the logic of Dr. Hibbard, the Methodist writer, so just, that I transcribe a paragraph from him. ' ' The reader will perceive,'' says he, "that the argu- ment is based entirely upon the order of the apostolic commission. It may be questioned by some whether the argument is genuine, and whether it is entitled to any considerable force. But suppose we assume an opposite ground ? Suppose we say that the things commanded are important to be done, but the order observed in the commission is a subject of indifference. Now what will be the consequences of this position ? What but total and irretrievable confusion? The 30 CLOSE COMMUNION. apostles go forth; they are intent upon doing all that Christ commanded them, but the order of the duties is a subject of indifference. The con- sequence is that some are baptized before they are converted from heathenism; some receive the holy supper before either baptism or conversion; others are engaged in a course of instruction be- fore they are discipled; and the most incoherent and unsuitable practices everywhere prevail. Improper persons are baptized, or baptism is im- properly delayed; the holy supper is approached before the candidate is duly prepared, and it is therefore desecrated, or it is unduly withheld from rightful communicants. Is not the pre- scribed order, therefore, in the administration of the ordinances, and the duties of the apostolic commission, all important? And thus we hold that Christ enjoined the order as well as the duties themselves; and, in this order of Christ, baptism precedes communion at the Lord's table." (Hib- bard on Bapt., P. 2, p. 177.) The custom of the apostles is in line with the commands of Christ. The divine order is beau- tifully set forth in Acts 2:41,42: "Then they that gladly received the word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." The order is, teaching, gladly receiving the word, baptism, THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 31 and the Lord's Supper. The Syriac, the oldest existing translation of the New Testament so understands this passage. Calvin says: " I would have breaking of bread understood of the Lord's Supper." (Com. on Acts.) Blount, Episcopalian, says: "I consider 'the fellowship ' or ' communion ' and ' the breaking of bread ' to stand in close combination, and to in- dicate that another bond by which these first Christians were joined to the apostles, to one another, and to a unity in Christ, was a collective participation in the Lord's Supper." (Christ. Ch. First Three Cent.) Baumgarten, Presbyterian, says: "The third characteristic that is noticed in respect to the baptized is the breaking of bread. The com- munion of the Lord with his disciples may very properly be characteristic that the disciples who, after his resurrection, had recognized him nei- ther by his form nor by his discourse, imme- diately knew him upon his breaking of bread with them. This mode of communion was there- by consecrated; and appears as the proper me- dium of a community which lived together as one family." (Com. Acts of Apos.) Burkitt says : • 'Another religious office which they continued constant, was the breaking of bread; that is, receiving the sacrament." Bengel says: "The Lord's Supper is included in this expression." (Gnomon of New Test.) 32 CLOSE COMMUNION. Every instance of baptism in the New Testa- ment confirms this view. The first duty after re- pentance and faith was baptism. As soon as the Samaritans believed the things Philip preached they were baptized both men and women. (Acts 8:12.) The eunuch was baptized at once upon a profession of his faith. (Acts 8:36,37.) As soon as the scales fell from the eyes of Paul he was baptized (Acts 9:18); and the Philipian jailer was baptized the same hour of the night in which he believed. (Acts 16:33.) In none of these cases was there any time to celebrate the Lord's Sup- per between a profession of faith and baptism. I read in Acts 20:7: "And upon the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." The Syriac version, and well nigh all commentators agree that this passage refers to the observance of the Lord's Supper. We know that none but disciples were present, for the passage distinctly says this. Gloag says: "That is to celebrate the Lord's Supper." Paul in writing to the Corinthian church says : ' ' For first of all when we come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 33 was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remem- brance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." Paul distinctly says he was addressing the church, verse 18, at Corinth. There is not a word said about outsiders. Indeed the whole of this epistle is in regard to disorderly members in the Corinthian church. This passage proves be- yond doubt that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. In chapter 12:12,13 Paul says that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper. Says he: "For as the body is one, and hath 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 all been made to drink into one Spirit." The argument is clear. Thev have all been 3 34 CLOSE COMMUNION. baptized into the one body or church; and they have been made to ' ' drink," or participate of the Lord's Supper, into one Spirit. Bloomfield says of this passage: "This is the interpretation adopted by almost all commentators, ancient and modern, who here suppose an allusion to the two sacraments." Olshausen says: "The allusion in this passage to x. 1, seq. is unmistakable, so that we may see the epotistheeme?i points to the communion." (Com., vol 4, p. 346.) Burkitt says: "By baptism we were admitted into his church; and this union of ours, one with another, is testified and declared by our com- munion at the Lord's table, which is here called a drinking into the Spirit. " Dr. Charles Hodge says : ' ' The allusion is sup- posed by Luther, Calvin, and Beza to be to the Lord's Supper." Van Oosterzee, Presbyterian, says: "It is worthy of notice that baptism and the Supper are at least once mentioned by him in one breath, and placed upon a level." (Theol. of New Test., p. 328.) MacKnight says : ' ' For indeed with the gifts of one Spirit, we all have been baptized into one body, or church, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or freemen, and all are equally entitled to the privileges of that one body, and derive equal honor from them; and all have been THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 35 made to drink in the Lord's Supper of one Spirit of faith and love, by which the one body is ani- mated." The priority of baptism to the Lord's Supper is likewise taught in 1 Cor. 10:1-3. The passage reads: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all of our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spirit- ual drink. " Olshausen says: "Thus in this passage the history of Israel is typically conceived as refer- ring to the sacramental rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which contain like holy vessels all the blessings of the gospels; and thus in this very passage lies a powerful argument for these two sacraments." (Com., vol. 4, p. 308.) Meyer says: "Just as all receive the self same type of baptism (verses 1,2), so too all were par- takers of one and the same analogue of the Christian ordinance of the Supper, so that each one therefore stood on the very same level of apparent certainty of not being cast off by God." Bishop Ellicott says: "The spiritual food re- ferred to was, it hardly need to be said, that which typified one part of the other sacrament." Godet says: "As the holy Supper serves to maintain in salvation those who have entered 36 CLOSE COMMUNION. into it by the faith professed in baptism, so the Israelites also received, after the initial deliver- ance, the favors necessary to their preservation. These benefits, corresponding to the bread and wine of the Supper, were the manna daily re- ceived, and the water which God caused to issue from a rock in two cases of exceptional dis- tress." Alf ord says : ' ' They had what answered to one Christian sacrament, baptism; now the Apostle shows that they were not without a symbolic correspondence to the other, the Lord's Supper." Dr. Hodge says: "As the miraculous deliver- ance and miraculous guidance of the Israelites was their baptism, so being miraculously fed was their Lord's Supper." Stanley says: "This is the natural expression for the voluntary pledge involved in Christian baptism. The food and drink are parallel to the Lord's Supper." On this point the authorities are conclusive. From these considerations we think the argu- ments for baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper are most conclusive. When once this proposition is admitted our argument is impreg- nable. But we can go a step further in this argument. We are not only called upon to obey the ordi- nances of the Gospel, but we are required to obey them in the divine order. The Scriptures are THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 37 unmistakable on this point. Notice the instruc- tions to the churches. To the church at Corinth Paul writes: ••Where- fore I beseech you be ye followers of me. For this cause have. I sent unto you Timotheu's, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. " (1 Cor. 4 :16, 17. ) " Be ye followers of me, even as I am also of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (1 Cor. 11:1,2.) "For I have re- ceived of the Lord that which I have delivered unto you; " and he immediately gives directions in regard to the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23.) To the church at Philippi: "Brethren, be fol- lowers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample; " and this exhortation: "Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." (Phil. 3:16,17.) To the church at Colosse : ' ' For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the Spirit, judging and beholding your order, and the steadfastness in the faith. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain de- ceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudi- ments of the world, and not after Christ." (2:5,8.) To the church at Thessalonica: "Therefore, 38 CLOSE COMMUNION. brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15.) "And we have con- fidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you." (2 Thes. 3:5.) No comment on these Scriptures is needed. We have no right to vary or change God's com- mands. He gave us the divine order and we ought to obey him in that order. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 39 CHAPTER III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. THE Greek and Latin fathers are quite ex- plicit upon the relative position of baptism and the Lord's Supper. As far as I have ob- served there is no difference of opinion among them on the subject. I will let them speak for themselves. Justin Martyr, second century, says : ' ' This food is called among us the eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regenera- tion, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these." (Apol. 1 c. lxvi. Patrologise, Migne, vol. 6, p. 427.) The second canon of the Council of Antioch, 344, orders that those who came into the church and heard the service, so far as the lections of Scripture, but declined to partake in the prayers of the people or to communicate, should be cast out of the church until they should have pro- fessed and repented of their fault." (Canon Apost., c. 9 (10). Hefele's Hist. Councils, vol. 2, p. 67.) 40 CLOSE COMMUNION. The second Council of Carthage says: "No stranger shall be admitted to receive the com- munion in another church, without a letter of recommendation from his own bishop. " (Hefele's Hist. Coun., vol. 2, p. 187.) Hippolytus, in the beginning of the third cen- tury, in a fragment preserved of his works, makes baptism precede the Lord's Supper. Dollinger also gives this account of a work of Hippolytus: "In a small treatise, in which he castigates and exhorts the Jews, he depicts the marvelous spectacle of Israel pressing, humbled and penitent, to receive baptism, and begging for the food of grace— the Blessed Bread. " (Hip- polytus and Callistus, p. 319.) The learned Baron Bunsen, in commenting on Hippolytus and his times, says: "Catechetical instruction, as a general rule, was limited to three years; so that the catechumen, after hav- ing completed the first year satisfactorily, might be permitted to hear the Word of God and the sermon; at the conclusion of which, after solemn prayer and the blessing, he was dismissed before the worship of the believers, the service of the general congregation, commenced. Nothing can be more natural; for the celebration of the Lord's Supper was the solemn act of the believers and implied reception into the Christian community, of which it was intended to be the sacred symbol. * * * No one can take part in the solemn cere- TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 41 mony of a close society, except one who has been received into it. To have allowed it would have been a contradiction in terms." (Hippolytus and His Age, vol. 2, p. 108.) Cyril of Jerusalem, 347, says: "After the bap- tism followed the holy communion, of which all the newly baptized were partakers, therein be- coming ' of one body and of one blood ' and there partaking of a heavenly bread, and of a cup of salvation, that sanctify both soul and body." (Myst, Catch, iv. Patrologias, vol. 33, p. 1102.) Origin says: " It doth not belong to every one to eat of this bread, and to drink of this cup. " (Com. in Joan. , vol. 2, p. 345.) Jerome, the most learned of the fathers, 400. says : ' ' Catechumens cannot communicate at the Lord's table, being unbaptized. " (Patrologise, vol. 22, p. 658.) Augustine, 400, speaking of administering bap- tism to infants, says: " Of which certainly they cannot partake unless they are baptized." (Ani- madversiones t. ii. AlsoDePecat. Remiss, lib. i.) The Didache says: "But let no one eat or drink of your eucharist, except those baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also the Lord has said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs." (Didache, C. ix, sec. 5.) In the Recognitions of Clement I read : ' ' For he who wished soon to be baptized is separated but a little time, but he for a longer who wishes 42 CLOSE COMMUNION. to be baptized later. Every one therefore has it in his own power to demand a shorter or longer time for his repentance; and therefore it lies with you, when you wish it, to come to our table; and not with us, who are not permitted to take food with any one who has not been baptized." (Recog., B. ii, C. lxxii. Patrologise, vol. 1, p. 1282.) The Apostolic Constitutions say: "But if he afterwards repents, and turns from his error, then, as we receive the heathen, when they wish to repent, into the church indeed to hear the word, but do not receive them to communion until they have received the seal of baptism, and are made complete Christians; so we do not per- mit such as these to enter only to hear, until they show the fruit of repentance, that by hearing the word they may not utterly and irrevocably be lost." (Apos. Con., B. 2, sec. 5, c. xxxix. Pa- trologise, vol. 1, p. 694.) Dr. Philip Schaff commenting on this says that the Apostolic Constitutions ' ' lay great stress on the exclusion of unbelievers from the eucharist." (Teaching, p. 193.) Jobius says: "We are baptized, annointed, and then thought worthy of the precious blood." (Dollinger's Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 324.) In the life of Basil it is recorded that: " Max- imus, the bishop, baptized him an Eubulus, and clothed them with white garments, and, annoint- TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 43 ing them with the holy chrism, gave them the communion." (Amphiioch., vit. Basil, cap. v.) Tertullian, the hrst of the Latin fathers, says: "To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation, and under the hand of the presi- dent, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel. * * * Then we also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the president, receive the sacrament of the eu- charist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike." (De Corona, c. 3. Patrologiae, vol. 1, p. 98.) Bede, A. D. 613, says: "If you will be baptized into the salutary fountain as your father was, you may also partake of the Lord's Supper as he did; but if you despise the former, ye cannot in any wise receive the latter. " (Eccl. Hist. , lib. ii, cap. v. Patrologise, vol. 95.) Theophylact, A. D. 1100, says: "No unbap- tized person partakes of the Lord's Supper." (On Math. 14.) Bonaventura, 1200, says: "Faith, indeed, is necessary to all of the sacraments, but especially to the reception of baptism, because baptism is 44 CLOSE COMMUNION. the lirst among the sacraments." (Apud Forbe- sium, Instruct. Historic. Theolog., lib x, cap. iv. 9.) We can reach the same conclusion that baptism precedes communion from another standpoint. The word mass, which is now used to designate the communion in the Catholic church, origi- nated in the ancient church, in the dismissal of the unbaptized from the congregation before the observance of the Lord's Supper. Dr. Schaff says of this word : ' ' The name missa (from which our mass is derived) occurs first in Augustine and in the acts of the council of Carthage, A. D. 398. It arose from the formula of dismission at the close of each part of the service, and is equivalent to missio, dismissio. Augustine (Serm. 49, c. 8) : ' Take notice, after the sermon, the dis- missal (missa) of the catechumens takes place; the faithful will remain. ' Afterwards missa came to designate exclusively the communion service. In the Greek church leitourgia or litourgia, ser- vice, is the precise equivalent of missa." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 232, note.) But we need not appeal to Dr. Schaff, as we have the original authorities before us. Thus, by the Council of Carthage, 398: "That the bishop forbid no one to enter the church and hear the Word of God, be he Gentile, or heretic, or Jew, until the dismissal (missam) of the catechumens." (Can. 84.) Augustine about the same time makes TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 45 a similar statement as I have quoted from Dr. Schaff. Cassia, A. D. 424, speaks of one who was overheard while alone to preach a sermon, and then to ' ' give out the dismissal of the cate- chumens as the deacon does." (Coenob. Instil, xi. 15.) The Council of Valentia, 524: "That the gospel be read before the mass of the catechu- mens." (Can. 1.) The Council of Lerida in the same year decreed that persons living in incest should be allowed to remain in the church only to the mass of the catechumens." (Can. 4.) The formula of dismission in the Latin church was: 1 ' If there be any catechumens here let them go out." (Scudmore's Notitia Eucharista, p. 336, ed. 2.) The Apostolic Constitutions read: "But let them not be admitted to communion in prayer; and let them depart after the reading of the law, and the prophets, and the Gospel, that by such departure they may be made better in their course of life, by endeavoring to meet every day about the public assemblies, and to be frequent in prayer, that they may at length be admitted, and that those who behold them may be affected, and be more secured by fearing to fall into the same condition." (B. ii, c. xl.) Lyman Coleman, a noted Presbyterian Archae- ologist, says upon this passage: "It appears from the Apostolic Constitutions, that after the doors had been carefully closed and a guard set. the 46 CLOSE COMMUNION. deacon made a public proclamation of the differ- ent classes of persons who were not permitted to be present on the occasion. These were the first and second classes of catechumens, the unbe- lievers, Jews and pagans, and reputed heretics and separatists of every description. The peni- tents and inergumens are not here mentioned, but it appears from other sources that they were not permitted to be present at the Lord's table. None indeed but believers in full communion with the church were permitted to be present. All such, originally, partook of the sacrament. " (Antiq. Christ. Ch., pp. 308, 309.) The above extracts prove conclusively that the unbaptized were not permitted at the Lord's Supper. The most scholarly writers admit that this was the practice of the primitive church. Prof. Samuel Cheetham, Episcopalian, says: "Conditions of admission to holy communion. Communicants must be baptized persons, not under censure. None could be admitted to holy communion but baptized persons lying under no censure. The competency of ordinary members of the church would be known as a matter of course to the clergy administering the sacra- ment. Persons from a distance w T ere required to produce certificates from their own bishops that they were in the peace of the church, before they could be admitted to holy communion. Some have thought that the expression communio TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 47 peregrina designates the state of those strangers who, being unprovided with such letters, w T ere admitted to be present at divine service, but not to communicate." (Diet. Christ. Antiq., vol. 1, p. 417.) Bishop Stillingfleet, Episcopalian, says: Mlssa "was then only taken for the public service of the church, so called from the dismission of the people after it, with an Ite, missa est; and from the different forms of Christians, they had two several services, the one called missa catechu- menormn, because at the end of that the catechu- mens were dismissed from the assembly; the other missa Jidelium, at which they received the Lord's Supper; which afterwards, (the former discipline of the church decaying), engrossed the name missa to itself." (Irenecum, p. 263.) Lord Chancellor King, Episcopalian, says: "Hence when other parts of divine worship were ended, and the celebration of the eucharist was to begin, the catechumens, penitents, and all, except the communicants, were to depart, as Tertullian says thereof : 'Pious initiations drive away the profane. ' These being mysteries which were to be kept secret and concealed from all, except the faithful." (Prim. Ch., p. 243.) Dollinger, Catholic, says: "The doors of the church were now closed, and the mass of the faithful, who alone remained within, commenced: it consisted of three parts, the offertory, the con- 48 CLOSE COMMUNION. secration, and the communion." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 310.) Kurtz, Lutheran, says: "In connection with the arrangements about the catechumens, public worship was divided into missa catechumenorum and a missa ficlelium. From the latter, all who had not been baptized, who were under disci- pline, or were possessed by an unclean spirit, were excluded." (Church Hist., vol. 1, p. 121.) Neander, Lutheran, says: "With reference to these two constituent portions of the church assemblies, the catechumens and baptized be- lievers, the whole service was divided into two portions: one in which the catechumens were allowed to join, embracing the reading of the Scriptures and the sermon, the prevailing didac- tic portion; and the other, in which the baptized alone could take part, embracing whatever was designated to represent the fellowship of believ- ers — communion, and all the prayers of the church which preceded it." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, pp. 324, 325.) Guericke, Lutheran, says : ' ' The service was preceded by the call of the deacon, excluding catechumens, and all unbelievers, heretics, hypo- crites, unreconciled persons, etc., from partici- pating in it." (Manual of Ch. Hist., p. 302.) Dr. Schaff, Presbyterian, says: "The public service was divided from the middle of the sec- ond century down to the close of the fifth, into TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 49 the worship of the catechumens, and the worship of the faithful. The former consisted of Scrip- ture reading, preaching, prayer and song and was open to the unbaptized and persons under pen- ance. The latter consisted of the holy commun- ion, with its liturgical appendages; none but the proper members of the church could attend it; and before it began, all catechumens and unbe- lievers left the assembly at the order of the dea- con, and the doors were closed and guarded." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 232.) Here we have the unanimous authority of the Fathers that no one was permitted to participate in the Lord's Supper who had not been baptized and was a member of the church in good stand- ing. The celebrated rule of Augustine is in point. He says : ' ' What the whole church, through all the world does practice, and yet has not been instituted in councils, but has been always in use, is with very good reason supposed to have been settled' by the authority of the apostles." (Wall's Hist. Infant Bapt., vol. 1, p. 85.) The con- clusions from this rule are perfect. No one in all antiquity denies that baptism and church mem- bership preceded the Lord's Supper. 50 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER IV. THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. SCHOLARS of every denomination testify to our position that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper. There is so much material at hand, and so many eminent men to select from, that I am embarrassed in having to choose a few witnesses. These men represent the scholarship of the world, and are worthy of a hearing. I present, 1. Writers upon history. There is not a stand- ard historian, who speaks upon the subject, that does not testify that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper. Moreover there is not a standard histo- rian who gives any account of open communion for the first sixteen hundred years after Christ. But I shall let the historians speak. The German writers will lead. Mosheim says : ' ' Neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance." (Eccl. Hist., vol. 1, p. 189.) Neander says: "At this celebration, as maybe easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of the Christian church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism." (Church Hist., vol. 1, p. 271.) THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 51 Gieseler says: "The eucharist was considered the symbol of the intimate communion of the church with Christ and one another." (Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 104.) Kurtz says: "All unbaptized persons were ex- cluded." (Church Hist., vol. 1, p. 123.) A brilliant Frenchman testifies. Pressense says: "While the Lord's Supper was thus celebrated with all simplicity and lib- erty, it was, nevertheless, with much solemnity in the eyes of the church. It summed up in one symbol, chosen by the Lord himself, the whole Christian religion. To partake of it was to make the most solemn profession of faith in Christ. To receive it unworthily was not only to despise the Lord's body in the symbol which spiritually set it forth, but also to make the church partaker in the sin. Thus serious and severe discipline was appointed not merely to prevent the prof- anation of the Lord's Supper, but also to repress all kinds of irregularities." (Early Years of Christianity, p. 379.) Here is a voice from Switzerland. Frederick Spanheim says: "The oblation of the eucharistical bread and wine by the people followed; the consecration of it by prayer, and the distribution to the faithful and baptized in remembrance of the death of Christ." (Eccl. Annals, p. 177.) I put an infidel on the stand. 52 CLOSE COMMUNION. Gibbon says: "One circumstance maybe ob- served, in which the modern churches have ma- terially departed from the ancient custom. The sacrament of baptism (even when it is adminis- tered to infants) was immediately followed by confirmation and the holy communion. " (Decline and Pall of the Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 271.) Old England testifies. Milman says: "Baptism, or the initiation into the Christian community, was a solemn ceremo- nial, requiring previous examination and proba- tion. The governing power would possess and exercise the authority to admit into the com munity. They would perform, or, at all events, superintend the initiatory rite of baptism. The other distinctive rite of Christianity, the cele- bration of the Lord's Supper, would require a more active interference and co-operation on the part of those who presided over the community. " (History Christ., p. 198.) J. G. Robertson says: "None were admitted but such as were baptized and in full communion with the church." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 1, p. 168.) Waddington says: "The sacraments of the primitive church were two — baptism and the Lord's Supper." (Hist. Ch., p. 46.) Homersham Cox says: "From a subsequent passage it appears that immediately after bap- tism, the convert was brought into the congre- THE TESTIMONY OP 1 SCHOLARS. 53 gation, and partook of the eucharist." (First Cent Christ., p. 278.) The scholarship of America joins all the rest. Professor Fisher, Congregationalist, says: "Toward the close of the second century we find it to be the custom to exclude non-communi- cants from being present at the Lord's Supper. After the preliminary services, at the close of the addresses of the bishop and presbyters, the unbaptized were dismissed. From the Latin word signifying dismissal (missa) the word mass is derived/' (Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 66.) Gregory and Ruter, Methodists, say: "With respect to the few and simple rites instituted by Christ, it appears, that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administered, by the first Christians, whenever they assembled for the pur- poses of social worship; and so far from being confined to those who had made the greatest progress in religious attainments, it was equally participated in by the apostle of Christ and the meanest member of the church. The initiatory rite of baptism was usually performed, by im- mersing the whole body in the baptismal font, and in the earlier periods of Christianity was permitted to all who acknowledged the truths of the Gospel, and promised conformity to its laws. The introduction of unworthy and disorderly persons into the church, from easiness of admis- sion, naturally narrowed the terms of commun- 54 CLOSE COMMUNION. ion, and baptism was afterwards confined to those who had been previously instructed in religious knowledge, and proved the sincerity of their professions by the regularity of their lives. The probationers for admission into the society of Christians took the humble name of Catechu mens, while those who were already consecrated by baptism were distinguished by the superior title of Believers." (Church Hist., pp. 33, 34.) Dr. Schaff, Presbyterian, says: "The two sac- raments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the antetypes of circumcision and the passover under the Old Testament, were instituted by Christ as efficatious signs, pledges, and means of the grace of the new covenant. They are related to each other as regeneration and sanctification,- or as the beginning and growth of the Christian life." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 1, p. 465.) Surely the Baptists must be right when all his- tory gives such a willing voice to their position. 2. Writers upon the church. These writers have studied the church and her ordinances from every conceivable standpoint, and yet, wonder- ful to say, on this point they are unanimous. Litton, Episcopalian, says: "To his church, represented in the apostles, he delivered the sac- raments. Believers are to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; bap- tized Christians are to eat the bread and drink the cup, and thus to feed spiritually upon his THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 55 body and blood. These simple directions com- prise all of the particulars of the original insti- tution." (The Church of Christ, p. 156.) Jacob, Episcopalian, says: The baptized per- son ' ' was at once admitted to the Lord's Supper, which was commonly administered to newly bap- tized infants, as well as to those of riper years." (Eccl. Pol. of New Test,, p. 279.) Bishop Kaye, Episcopalian, says: "Christ him- self instituted two rites — the one to be the out- ward mode of initiation — the other the outward mark of communion with it." (Exter. Govern, and Discipline of the Church, p. 30.) Dr. Killen, Presbyterian, says: "As baptism was designed to supercede the Jewish circum- cision, the Lord's Supper was intended to occupy the place of the Jewish Passover. The Paschal lamb could be sacrificed nowhere except in the Temple of Jerusalem, and the passover was kept only once a year; but the eucharist could be dis- pensed wherever a Christian congregation was collected." (The Ancient Ch., p. 218.) Bannerman, Presbyterian, says: "Baptism, as commonly administered, to entrants into the church, takes infeftment, so to speak, of our flesh when we enter into covenant with Christ, that not even the lower part of our being may be left without the attestation that he has redeemed it. The Lord's Supper, as administered from time to time to those who have been admitted into the 56 CLOSE COMMUNION church before, renews this infeftment at inter- vals, and attests that the covenant by which we are Christ's still holds good both for the body and the spirit which He has ransomed in Him- self." (The Church of Christ, vol. 2, p. 129.) 3. Writers on Systematic Theology and Dog- matics. These men have given their lives to the direct study of the Scriptures, and their testi- mony is important. Turretin, Presbyterian, says: " It is one thing to have a right to these external ordinances of the church, which belong to a profession; it is another thing to be interested in the internal blessings of faith. Unbaptized believers have actually a right to these, because they are al- ready partakers of Christ and his benefits; though they have not yet a right to those, except in ob- serving the appointed order of baptism." (Insti- tut. Theol., Tom iii, Loc. xviii, Quaes, iv, § 10, p. 22.) Mastricht says: "As no uncircumcised male was admitted to the typical supper, that is the passover; so, under the New Testament, no un- baptized person is admitted to the Lord's table." (Theol., lib. vii, cap. v, § 29.) Pictetus, Presbyterian, says : ' ' The Supper of our Lord ought not to be administered to persons that are unbaptized: for before baptism, men are not considered as members of the visible church." (Theolog. Christiana, pp. 959, 960.) THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 57 Marckius says: "The dying and the unbap- tized, are not to be admitted to communion." (Compend. Theolog. Christ., p. 604.) Witsius says: "For as two things are required to complete our happiness: first, our being ab- solved from our sins, and washed from our pol- lution; that we may be regenerated by the com- munication of the Spirit of Christ to a new life of grace, that is sustained, strengthened and in- creased therein, until we be promoted to the life of glory both these are sufficiently confirmed to us by these two sacraments. Our first engraft- ing into Christ, and our regeneration by the Spirit, are set forth by baptism; and the nourish- ment of our spiritual life by the holy supper. ; ' (Econ. Cov., vol. 2, p. 421.) Dr. Dabney, Southern Presbyterian, says: • * That the sacrament is to be given only to cred- ible professors, does not indeed follow necessa- rily from the fact that it symbolizes saving grace; for baptism does this; but from the express limi- tation of Paul, and from the different graces symbolized. Baptism symbolizes those graces which initiate the Christian life: the Supper, those also which continue it." (Sys. Polem. Theol., pp. 803, 804.) Dr. McDowell, Presbyterian, says : ' ' The quali- fications to come to the Lord's Supper, in sight of the church ought to be visible piety. For the officers in the church, cannot search the heart; 58 CLOSE COMMUNION. but they ought to look for evidence of that which God requires, which has been shown to be real piety. And since they have had committed to them by Christ, the keys of the visible kingdom, with power to open and shut it, it becomes them to examine persons applying to be received to the Lord's Supper, to enable them to form a judgment whether they possess or not the requi- site qualifications." (Theol., vol. 2, pp. 511, 512.) Dr. Martensen, bishop in Denmark, says: "Bap- tism is the setting up of the new covenant; the Lord's Supper is its renewal. By baptism a man is incorporated into the new kingdom, and the possibility of, the necessary requirements for, the new personality are given therein; by means of the Lord's Supper this new personality is brought to perfection. * * * The Lord's Supper as a church ordinance, must be looked upon as an act of confession, appointed by the Lord to refresh our remembrance of him." (Christ. Dogmat., p. 432.) 4. Writers on Christian Antiquities. Writers on this subject are supposed to weigh all kinds of testimony, and had there been any deviation on this subject they would undoubtedly have mentioned it. Riddle, Episcopalian, says : "In the primitive church, the eucharist was administered immedi- ately after baptism to persons newly admitted into the church by that rite; who, it is to be re- THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 59 membered, were adults, and had gone through a preparatory course of instruction." "According to the original laws and customs of the church, the communicants consisted of all persons who had been admitted as members of the church by baptism." (Christ. Antiq., p. 572.) Coleman, Presbyterian, says : ' 'Agreeably to all the laws and customs of the church, baptism con- stituted membership with the church. All bap- tized persons were legitimately numbered among the communicants, as members of the church. Accordingly the sacrament immediately followed the ordinance of baptism, that the members thus received might come at once into the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of Christian fel- lowship." (Antiq. Christ. Ch., pp. 309, 310.) Guericke says: "At a very early date it was the custom, immediately after the act of bap- tism," to admit the candidate "with the rest of the church to the Holy Communion." (Manual Antiq. Ch., pp. 233, 236.) 5. Miscellaneous writers. Ravenellius says: "Baptism ought to precede; nor is the holy Supper to be administered to any, except they be baptized." (Bibliotheca Sacra, torn, i, p. 301.) Zanchius says: "We believe that baptism, as a sacrament appointed by Christ, is absolutely necessary to the church." (Opera, torn, viii, p. 416.) 60 CLOSE COMMUNION. Hornbekius says: "No one is admitted to the sacred supper unless he is baptized.*' (Socin. Confut., torn, ii, p. 416.) Dr. Manton says: "Before the church, none but baptized persons have a right to the Lord's table." (Supplem. Morn. Exercis., p. 199.) Dr. Green, Presbyterian, says: "It appears from several passages of the New Testament, that baptism and the Lord's Supper in the Chris- tian church, have succeeded to circumcision and the passover in the Jewish. " (Lect. Shorter Cat. , vol. 2, p. 358.) Dr. Stier says: "Yet it must be maintained, with Luther, that the forgiveness of sins is also imparted in the Gospel, as here, through the word; we may say, further, that the first sacra- ment, baptism, had already communicated for- giveness to the participants of the Supper." (Words of Lord Jesus, vol. 7, p. 135.) Surely the Baptists must be right on the Lord's Supj3er when their position is thus heartily en- dorsed by the scholarship of the world. From whatever standpoint we view the subject the conclusion is the same. All scholars concede that baptism must precede the Lord's Supper. The man, therefore, who rants about Baptist "close communion" must be ignorant of the scholarship of the world, or hopelessly blinded by prejudice. THE TESTIMONY OF CREEDS, ETC. 61 CHAPTER V. THE TESTIMONY OF CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, ETC. I HAVE put myself to much trouble to look through the creeds of various sects, Roman Catholic and Protestant, and they all lay down the order claimed by the Baptists. This is im- portant testimony. It shows that the whole Christian world is a unit on this important point. The order we claim, and the creeds admit, is that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper. The Roman Catholics are very clear on this point. The Council of Trent, 1547, has: '"Bap- tism, Confirmation, the Eucharist." (De Sacra- mentis in Genere., can. 1.) The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, 1564, has the same. (See Bulls of Pope Pius IV.. Injunctum Nobis, No- vember 13th, 1564.) The Orthodox Eastern, or Greek Church, has: "Baptism, Unction with Chrism, Communion." (Queas. xcviii, Longer Cat. Eastern Church. ) The Old Catholic Church has: "Baptism and the eucharist." (Fourteen Theses Old Catholic Union, Bonn, Art. IX.) The First Helvetic Confession, A. D. 1536, Swiss Divines, Bullinger and others, Art. XXI: "Baptism and the eucharist." 62 CLOSE COMMUNION. The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566: "Bap- tism and the Supper of the Lord." (Art. XIX.) The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563, question 68: ' ' How many sacraments has Christ appointed in the New Testament? Answer. Two: holy bap- tism and the holy supper." The Belgic Confession, 1561: "Moreover, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments which Christ our Lord hath instituted, which are two only, namely, the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Art. XXIII.) The Scotch Confession of Faith, 1560: "As the Father is under the law, besides the veritie of the Sacrifices, had twa chiefe Sacraments, to wit, Circumcision and the Passover, the despisers and contemners whereof were not reputed for God's people: sa do we acknowledge and con- fesse that we now in the time of the Evangell have twa chiefe Sacraments, onelie instituted be the Lord Jesus, and commanded to be used of all they that will be reputed members of this body, to wit, Baptisme and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus, called the Communion of his body andhisblude." (Art. XXI.) The Thirty-nine Ai tides of the Church of England, 1563, 1571, 1801: "There are two sac- raments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gos- pel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. (Art. XXV.) THE TESTIMONY OF CREEDS, ETC. 63 The Irish articles of religion, 1615: "There be two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. " (Sect. 85.) The Westminster Confession, 1647: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." (Art, XXVII.) The Methodist, 1784: "There are two sacra- ments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." (Art. XVI.) Our position must be a very strong one when all of the Creeds of Christendom endorse it. We hold in common with all others that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper. 64 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER VI. THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. ARE THE EPISCOPALIANS CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS ? WE can undoubtedly answer this question in the affirmative. The Episcopalians are quite strict in their requirements. We notice: 1. The Episcopalians declare that baptism and church membership precede communion. Prof. Cheetham, Professor of Pastoral Theol- ogy in King's College, London, says: "None could be admitted to holy communion but bap- tized persons lying under no censure." (Diet. Antiq., vol. 1, p. 417.) The Episcopal Recorder says: ' ' The close com- munion of the Baptist churches is but the neces- sary sequence of the fundamental idea out of which their existence has grown. No Christian church would willingly receive to its commun- ion even the humblest and truest believer in Christ who had not been baptized. With Bap- tists, immersion only is baptism, and they there- fore of necessity exclude from the Lord's table all who have not been immersed. It is an essen- tial part of the system — the legitimate carrying out of the creed.'' THE EPISCOPALIANS. 65 Dr. Wall says: "For no church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were bap- tized. * * * Since among all of the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized." (Wall's Hist. Infant Bapt., vol. 1, pp. 632, 638.) Lord Chancellor King says: "As for the per- sons communicating, they were not indifferently all that professed the Christian faith, as Origin writes : ' It doth not belong to every one to eat of the bread, and to drink of this cup. ' But they were only such as were in the number of the faithful, 'such as were baptized, and received both the credentials and practices of Christian- ity.' That is, who believe the articles of the Christian faith, and led a holy and pious life. Such as these, and none else, were permitted to communicate. Now since none but the faithful were admitted, it follows that the catechumens and the penitents were excluded; the catechu- mens, because they were not yet baptized, for baptism always preceded the Lord's Supper."' (Prim. Ch., pp. 242, 243.) Bingham says: "Now the obligation which every man laid upon himself in baptism, as we have shown in a former book, was the profession and actual performance of three things: 1. Re- pentance, or a renunciation of all former sin, to- gether with the author of it, the devil. 2. Faith, 66 CLOSE COMMUNION. or belief of the several articles of the Christian institution or mystery of godliness. 3. A holy and constant obedience paid to the laws of this holy religion. In the performance of which sincerely and without dissimulation, every man was supposed to be truly qualified for baptism; and what qualified him for baptism, also qualified him for the communion; of which there is this certain evidence, that as soon as any man was baptized, he was immediately communicated; which could not regularly have been done, but upon presumption, that he that was duly quali- fied for baptism was qualified for communion." (Origines Eccl., vol. 2, p. 835.) Dr. Cave says: "The communicants in the primitive church were those that embraced the doctrine of the gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of Christ. For looking upon the Lord's Supper as the highest and most solemn act of religion, they thought they could never take care enough in the dispensing of it." (Prim. Christ., P. 1, c. xi, p. 333.) That the Baptists are consistent in their terms of communion these authors frankly admit. 2. The Episcopalians have put around the Lord's Table the most stringent rules. (1). It is required by Episcopalians that the minister who administers the communion must be Episcopally ordained. The XXXIII Article reads: "It is not lawful for any man to take THE EPISCOPALIANS. 67 upon him the office of public preaching, or min- istering the sacraments in the congregation, be- fore he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same: and these we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." What is meant by "lawful authority"? Rev. Henry Cary says: "The Church of England ever upheld the necessity of an Apostolic succession, and Episcopal ordination. For, to use the ex- pressions introductory to ordination service, ' it . is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which officers were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public prayer with imposition of hands by lawful authority. And therefore, to the in- tent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the United Church of England and Ireland, and no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest or Deacon, in the United Church of Eng- land and Ireland, or suffered to execute any of 68 CLOSE COMMUNION. the said functions, except he be called, tried, ex- amined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formal Episcopal consecration or ordination." (Test. Fathers, pp. 275, 276.) That is plain enough. According to the Thirty - nine Articles no Baptist, Methodist, Presbyte- rian, or other schismatic has a right to adminis- ter the Lord's Supper. The Episcopalian clergy- man who would participate in an open commun- ion ceremony with a Methodist or Presbyterian congregation would violate the fundamental law of the Episcopal church. (2.) Schismatics, that is to say Baptists, Meth- odists or Presbyterians, are to be excluded from the Episcopal table. Charles Wheatly, and there is no higher authority on the Prayer Book, says : "But besides persons excommunicated, and those above mentioned (disorderly and unbap- tized), there are other persons, by the laws of our church, disabled from communicating: such are of course, all schismatics, to whom no min- ister, when he celebrates the communion, is wit- tingly to administer the same, under pain of sus- pension." (Wheatly on Book of Common Prayer, p. 261.) There is no doubt about that being close com- munion. (3.) The Episcopalians demand that a man shall be confirmed, or desirous of being con- THE EPISCOPALIANS. 69 firmed, before he can sit down to their commun- ion. At the close of the rubric on Confirmation the Prayer Book says : ' 'And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such a time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. " Wake, Dean of Canterbury, says: "Is there anything further required of those who come to the Lord's Supper? A. Yes, there is; that they may first be confirmed by the bishop." (The Princ. Christ. Relig. Explained, p. 374.) Bishop Williams, Connecticut, says: "No mem- ber of any religious society, outside of the church, can receive her holy communion without a violation of a fundamental law of the liturgy; and no clergyman can administer it to such a person without a violation of his ordination vows. The rubric commands that no person shall be admitted to the holy communion until they have been, or are ready to be confirmed." Dr. W. A. Snively says: Confirmation "has constant reference to the baptismal vow, to the promises then made, and the system of instruc- tion then prescribed; and it looks forward to the admission of the candidate to his full privilege, as a member of Christ, in the Holy Communion." (Parish Lect. on Book of Prayer, p. 214.) Charles Wheatly says: " By a rubric at the end of the order of Confirmation, none are to be ad- mitted to the Holy Communion, until such a time 70 CLOSE COMMUNION. as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. The like provision is made by our provincial Constitutions, which allow none to communicate (unless at the point of death), but such as are confirmed, or at least have a reason- able impediment for not being confirmed; and the Glossary allows no impediment to be reasonable, but the want of a bishop near the place. " (Book Com. Prayer, p. 262.) These rules are such that no Baptist, Method- ist, Presbyterian, could sit down at the Episco- pal table, as they are not ready nor desirous of being confirmed. (4.) Episcopalians will not even commune with transient Episcopalians. Wheatley says: "All strangers from other parishes; the minister is by the canons required to forbid and to remit such home to their own parish churches and minis- ters, there to receive the Communion with the rest of their neighbors." (Book Com. Prayer, p. 262.) (5.) The Episcopal rules require that no evil liver shall be permitted to commune at the Lord's table. The English Prayer Book reads: "If among those who come to be partakers of the Holy Communion, the minister shall know any to be open and notorious evil livers, or to have done any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; he shall advertize him, that he presume not to come THE EPISCOPALIANS. 71 to the Lord's table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former evil life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recom- pensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong; or at least declared himself to be in full purpose to do so, as soon as he conveniently may. " This rubric has been omitted from the liturgy of the American church, but is regarded as bind- ing; in some of the States a canon to this effect is enacted and in full force. T. C. Brownwell, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Connecticut, says: "This Rubric has been omitted by our American Re- visers of the Liturgy; probably from the incon- venience of conveying the notice in our scattered Congregations. But it is desirable that there should be a general direction, requiring all per- sons to advertize the minister of their wishes, be- fore presenting themselves to the Holy Table for the first time. This is probably now the general usage of the Church. There is also a canon to this effect in the Diocese of Connecticut, and there may perhaps be similar Canons in some of the other Dioceses. But the general regulations of the Church are paramount to any local injunc- tions." (Book of Com. Prayer, p. 360.) (6. ) Episcopalians permit no person who holds malice to come to their table. In the Adminis- tration of the Lord's Supper, the Prayer Book says: "The same order shall the minister use 72 CLOSE COMMUNION. with those, betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign; not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord's Supper, until he know them to be reconciled." (7.) Episcopalians practice close communion in the burial of the dead. Under that head the Prayer Book says: " Here it is to be noted, that the office ensuing is not to be used for any un- baptized adults, any who die excommunicated, or who have laid violent hands upon themselves." (8.) In order to commune with the Episco- palians you must endorse the whole book of Com- mon Prayer. The Constitutions and Canons, No. 4, say: "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the form of God's Worship contained in the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments, containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excom- municated ipso facto, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his re- pentance and public revocation of such wicked errors." In corroboration of all that I have said, I give the testimony of two leading bishops of the Epis- copal Church. I asked the following questions: ' ' Does the Episcopal Church require a godly life as a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper? Does it require Baptism? Does it require Confirmation? Does it require Church membership? Any other prerequisites? " The answer was plain and clear. THE EPISCOPALIANS. 73 Bishop Hugh Miller Thompson, LL. D. , of Mis- sissippi, says: Battle Hill, Jackson, Miss.. May 7. L892. Mr. J. T. Christian: Dear Sir: In reply to your enquiries of May 4th, just come to my hands, I beg to say: To Question 1st: Decidedly yes — "a sober, right- eous, and godly life." To Question 2nd: Yes, invariably. To Question 3rd : Not always. Rea- sons and explanations in the. Confirmation ritual. To Question 4th: Yes. Baptism makes one a member of the Church. A man communicates because he is a member of the Household. It is a Family Table. No other requirements save, Faith and Repent- ance and Prayerful resolutions to live a sober, righteous and godly life. I answer your ques- tions in order, supposing you have retained a copy. The Prayer Book is our best explanation, how- ever. Very truly yours, Hugh Miller Thompson. The Rt. Rev. T. U. Dudley, S. T. D., Bishop of Kentucky, says: Louisville, Ky., 716 Third St., May 16, 1892. Mr. J. T. Christian, Jackson, Miss. My Dear Sir: I write hurriedly as I am obliged to do in reply to your letter of the 13th. 1. The Rubric in the Communion office of the 74 CLOSE COMMUNION. Prayer Book says : "If among those who come to be partakers of the communion the minister shall know any to be open and notorious evil livers, or to have done any wrong to his neigh- bors by word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended: he shall advertize him, that he presume not to come to the Lord's table, un- til he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former evil life, that the congregation may thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recompensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong: or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do as soon as he con- veniently may." 2. We do require baptism. 3. That a person may become a regular com- municant of the church confirmation is required. 4. All baptized persons are members of the church, and so of course as no unbaptized per- son may receive the Holy Communion, only church members may do so. I am truly yours, T. U. Dudley, Bishop of Kentucky. Instead of being one of open communion, the history of the Episcopal Church is one of blood- shed and persecution. Henry VIII. was scarcely established as head of the Episcopal Church till he began to persecute the Baptists. In 1535, according to the old Chronicler Stow: "On the THE EPISCOPALIANS. 75 25th day of May, in St. Paul's Church, London, nineteen men and six women, born in Holland, who held that the children of infidel parents might be saved; that the baptism of infants is of none effect; that the elements, the bread and the wine, in the Lord's Supper, remain unchanged, and are bread and wine still, were ordered to be examined and their views condemned. Fourteen of the twenty-five were condemned to suffer death, one man and one woman were condemned to be burned in Smithfield, and the others were sent to other towns to be burnt." (Stow's Chron- icle, p. 576.) Froude, the historian, says of these people: "The details are gone — their names are gone. Poor Hollanders they were, and that is all. Scarcely the fact seemed worthy of the mention, so shortly is it told in a passing paragraph. For them no Europe was agitated, no courts were ordered into mourning, no papal hearts trembled with indignation. At their death the world looked on complacent, indifferent or exulting. Yet here, too, out of twenty-five poor men and women were found fourteen who, by no terror of stake or torture, could be tempted to say they believed what they did not believe. History for them has no word of praise; yet they, too, were not giving their blood in vain. Their lives might have been as useless as the lives of the most of us. In their death they assisted to pay the pur- chase-money for England's freedom." 76 CLOSE COMMUNION. In 1536, the King and Convocation set forth articles against the Baptists, of which I present the following: "1. Infants must needs be christened, because they be born in original sin; which sin must needs be remitted: which cannot be done but by the grace of baptism. ' ' 2. That they ought to refute and take any of the Anabaptists' and Pelagians' opinions con- trary to the premises, and every other man's opinion agreeable unto the said Anabaptists' and Pelagians' opinions in this behalf, for detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned." (Wall's Hist. Infant Bapt., vol. 1, p. 524.) But the Ana- baptists replied: "That it is as lawful to christen a child in a tub of water at home, or in a ditch by the way, as in a fontstone in the church." (Ful- ler's Ch. Hist,, vol. 2, p. 71.) In 1538, according to Bishop Burnet, ' ' There was a commission sent to Cranmer, Stokesley, Sampson, and some others, to enquire after Ana- baptists, to proceed against them, to restore the penitent, to burn their books, to deliver the ob- stinate to the secular arm." In 1539, King Henry married Lady Anne of Cleves. Prom that time Puller says: "Dutch- men flocked faster than formerly to England. Many of these had active souls; so that whilst their hands were busy about their manufactures, their heads were also beating about points of THE EPISCOPALIANS. 77 divinity. Hereof they had many rude notions, too ignorant to manage them themselves, and too proud to crave the direction of others. Their minds had a by-stream of activity more than what sufficed to drive on their vocation; and this waste of their souls they employed in needless specu- lations, and soon after began to broach their strange opinions, being brandod with the general name of Anabaptists. These Anabaptists, for the main, are but 'Donatists new dipped;' and this year they first appeared in our English Chronicles; for I read that four Anabaptists, three men and one woman, all Dutch, bare fagots at Paul's cross, November 24th, and, three days after, a man and a woman of their sect were burned at Smithfield." (Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 97.) In 1540, Parliament decreed against some who held "that infants ought not to be baptized, and if baptized, to be rebaptized when they came to years of discretion.'' (Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. 5, p. 69.) In 1542, Parliament passed the following very remarkable law: -'All books likewise impugning the holy sacrament of the altar, or maintaining the damnable opinions of the Anabaptists, are prohibited under forfeiture and fines. The read- ing of the Bible is likewise prohibited to all un- der the degrees of gentlemen and gentlewomen." (Collier's Eccl. Hist,, vol. 5, p. 95.) Queen Elizabeth ordered, 1560, all Anabap- 78 CLOSE COMMUNION. tists, foreign and English, to leave the kingdom in twenty-one days, because their "misbelief gained ground " and many ' ' were miserably mis- led." (Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. 6, p. 332.) From this period although the Baptists greatly increased yet they were bitterly persecuted. I give here the testimony of the celebrated Dr. Featley, a most violent enemy and persecutor of the Baptists. He says: "So we may say the name of the father of the Anabaptists signifyeth in English a senseless piece of wood or block, a very blockhead was he, yet out of that block were cut those chips that kindled such a fire in Germany, Halsatia, and Servia that could not be fully quenched, no, not with the blood of 150,000 of those killed in war or put to death in several places by the magistrates. This fire in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James and our pre- cious sovereign till now was covered under the ashes, or if it broke out at any time, by the care of the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates it was soon put out. But of late since the unhappy dis- tractions which our sins have brought upon us, the temporal sword being other ways employed, and the spiritual locked up in the scabbard, this sect among others hath so far presumed upon the protection of the State, that it hath held weekly conventicals, rebaptized hundreds of men and women together in the twilight in the rivu- lets and several arms of the Thames and else- THE EPISCOPALIANS. 79 where, dipping them over head and ears." (The Dippers Dipped, or the Anabaptists Plunged over Head and Ears. London, 1647. Preface, p. 3.) The feeling of Bishop Latimer toward the Baptists was the common one. He said in a ser- mon before Edward VI : " The Anabaptists that were burnt here in divers towns in England went to their death even intrepid, as ye will say, with- out any fear in the world, cheerfully. Well, let them go." All that could be said of these people was that they were Baptists. Hess, in his Life of Zwingle, says of them : ' ' Their morality was rigid, their exterior simple; they disdained riches, or affected to do so; and their austere demeanor impressed the multitude with reverence, and at the same time their doctrines seduced them." In America when they had power the Epis- copalians were no better. One law passed in Virginia will give an idea of their intolerance. I quote from Henning's Statutes at Large, Laws of Virginia, vol. 2, p. 165, December 14th, 1662: "Whereas many schismatical persons out of their averseness to the orthodox established religion, or out of the new-fangled conceits of their own heretical inventions, refused to have their children baptized. Be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all persons that, in contempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, shall refuse when they may cany their child to a lawful minister in that county to have them 80 CLOSE COMMUNION. baptized shall be arnersed two thousand pounds of tobacco; half to the informer, half to the publique. " And these statutes were put into execution. A Baptist minister in jail in Virginia, put there by Episcopalians, was no uncommon thing. Dr. Hawks, who was himself an Episcopalian, says of the Baptists of Virginia: "Their first preachers came from the North, and some few arose in the South : all met with opposition from those in power. 'The ministers (says Leland) were imprisoned, and the disciples buffeted.' This is but too true. No dissenters in Virginia experienced for a time harsher treatment than did the Baptists. They were beaten and impris- oned; and cruelty taxed its ingenuity to devise new modes of punishment and annoyance. The usual consequences followed; persecution made friends for its victims; and the men who were not permitted to speak in public, found willing auditors in the sympathizing crowds who gath- ered around the prisons to hear them preach from grated windows." (Contrib. Eccl. Hist. U. S., vol. 1, p. 121.) With this history of persecution and bloodshed the Episcopal Church can lay no claim to open communion. We therefore justly arrive at the conclusion that the Episcopalians are close com- munionists. I know none who demand more at the Lord's Table. The Episcopalians do not ask, nor expect others to participate with them. THE PRESBYTERIANS. -1 CHAPTER VII. THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE PRESBYTE- RIAN CHURCH. ARE THE PRESBYTERIANS CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? ON this communion question the declarations and acts of the Presbyterian Church have been very explicit. They have spoken in no un- certain terms. I present the facts : 1. Among Presbyterians, conversion, baptism and church membership are prerequisites to the Lord's Supper. The Confession of Faith says: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, baptism and the Sup- per of the Lord." (Art. 27.) This is the exact order we claim. Calvin says in the Catechism of the Church at Geneva: "Is it enough to receive both of the sacraments once in a lifetime? It is enough so to receive baptism, which may not be repeated. It is different with the Supper. What is the differ- ence? By baptism the Lord adopts us and brings us into his church, so as thereafter to regard us as a part of his household. After he has admit- ted us among the number of his people he testi- G 82 CLOSE COMMUNION. ties by the Supper that he takes a continual in- terest in nourishing us." Henry Bullinger says: "Unto the baptism of our Lord Christ, is coupled the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord which we call the Lord's Supper. For, those whom the Lord hath regenerated with the laver of regeneration, those doth he also feed with his spiritual food; and nourish them unto eternal life: wherefore it fol- loweth necessarily, that we entreat next of the holy Supper of the Lord." (Sermons on the Sacraments, p. 197.) Rev. Wm. C. Roberts, D. D. , Moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly, and Secretary of the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyte- rian Church of the United States, says: New York, May 10, 1892. Rev. J. T. Christian, Jackson, Miss. Dear Bro.: Yours of the 4th inst. has just come to hand. The terms of admission to the Lord's Supper in the Presbyterian Church are credible evidence of conversion. We require that at the beginning of a holy life. We require baptism before one is to be publicly recognized as a church member. We do not deem church mem- bership essential to salvation, but we hold that every converted person will necessarily desire to be identified with God's people. There are no other prerequisites to membership in the Pres- byterian Church. THE PRESBYTERIANS. 83 Hoping that the above will be satisfactory, I remain, Yours fraternally, Wm. C. Roberts. I have at hand a remarkably fine letter from Dr. Theodore Cuyler, for thirty years pastor of Lafayette Square Presbyterian Church, Brook- lyn. N. Y. He says: Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church. | Brooklyn, April 3, 1890. J Dear Brother: In reply to your questions I would say: 1. The terms of communion in the Presbyte- rian Church require a previous open confession of the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. That presupposes a membership in some evan- gelical church. 2. Baptism is an essential part of an open pro- fession of Jesus Christ, and of reception into the visible church. 3. I do not suppose there is any difference be- tween the Presbyterians and the Baptists in the terms of communion. I write in haste; but allow me to express my devout gratitude for all that the great Baptist church is doing for the maintenance of sound evangelical doctrine and for the spread of the kingdom of Christ. Yours fraternally, Theodore L. Cuyler. 84 CLOSE COMMUNION. The American Presbyterian says: "Open com- munion is an absurdity, when it means commun- ion with the unbaptized. " Dr. Philip Schaff says: "The communion is for baptized believers, and for them only. Bap- tism is the sacramental sign and seal of regener- ation and conversion; the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of sanctification and growth in spirit- ual life." (Teaching, p. 193.) The eminent Presbyterian preacher of New Orleans, Dr. B. M. Palmer, says: "The terms of communion with us are the profession of saving faith in Christ and the public acknowledgment of this in baptism. " Dr. John Dick says : ' ' Every person who has been baptized does not possess the moral quali- fications which would entitle him to be accounted a disciple of Christ. He may be an open apostate from the faith; or he may be so ignorant of religion, and so irregular in his conduct, that it would be an abuse of charity to consider him as a Christian. Hence we demand, in candidates for the Lord's table, a competent measure of knowledge, a profession of faith in Christ, and a behaviour that will justify us in believing them to be sincere. 'All ignorant and ungodly per- sons,' says our church, ' as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so they are unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake THE PRESBYTERIANS. 85 of these holy mysteries, or be admitted there- unto.'" (Lect. Theol., p. 421.) It has already been intimated, in the above, that the participant in the Lord's Supper must be a member of the church. The Confession emphasizes that the administration of the Lord's Supper is the distinctive act of a "particular church." I read: "The ordinances established by Christ, the head, in a particular church, which is regularly constituted with its proper officers, are prayer, singing praises, reading, expounding and preaching the Word of God; administering baptism and the Lord's Supper; public solemn fasting and thanksgiving, catechising, making collections for the poor, and other pious pur- poses; exercising discipline; and blessing the people." (Form of Govern. , chap, vii.) Nothing can be more evident from these state- ments than that the Presbyterians demand con- version, baptism and church membership before the Lord's Supper. 2. Presbyterians demand that the Supper shall be administered by a duly ordained minister. Of Baptism it is declared: "Baptism is not to be unnecessarily delayed; nor to be administered, in any case, by any private person; but by a min- ister of Christ, called to be steward of the mys- teries of God. " (Directory for Worship, chap. vii. ) Of the Lord's Supper it is said: ' ' The Lord Jesus hath in this ordinance, appointed his ministers 86 CLOSE COMMUNION. to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a com- mon to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communi- cants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation. " (Con. Faith, Art.xxix,sec.iii.) And the same thing is taught in the Larger Cate- chism, question 169. Dr. A. Green, in his Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, vol. 2, p. 358, says: "It is held by us essential, that a regularly ordained minister of the gospel should administer this ordinance." 3. Presbyterians declare that the Baptists are no closer than others. This can be proved from many sources. The New York Observer, the oldest Presbyte- rian paper in this country, says: "It is not a want of Charity which compels the Baptist to restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. Presbyterians do not invite the un- baptized, however pious they may be. It is not uncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of the Baptists to confine their communion to those whom they consider the baptized. " The Interior, Chicago, the organ of the Western Presbyterians, says: "We agree with the Bap- tists in saying that unbaptized persons should THE PRESBYTERIANS. 87 not partake of the Lord's Supper. Their view- compels them to think that we are not baptized, and shuts them up to close communion. Close communion is, in our judgment, a more defensi- ble position than open communion, which is justified on the ground that baptism is not a pre- requisite to the Lord's Supper. To charge Bap- tists w T ith bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their system is absurd." Dr. John Hunter, for thirty years pastor at Jackson, Miss., says: "I do not know that there is any special difference in the terms of admis- sion to the communion table betw T een Baptists and Presbyterians; that is to say that both re- quire personal faith in an atoning Saviour, and both require communicants to be baptized." Dr. Griffin says: "I agree with the advocates of close communion in two points: (1) that bap- tism is the initiating ordinance which introduces us into the visible church; of course, where there is no baptism there are no visible churches; (2) that we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and, of course, are not church members, even if w T e regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from his principles as to wish to commune with me at the Lord's table, while yet he refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is such a relationship established between the two ordinances that I have no right to sepa- 88 CLOSE COMMUNION. rate thein; in other words, I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the church." Dr. John Hall, one of the greatest preachers in this country, says: "I think that all evangel- ical churches look for baptized persons as com- municants. The Baptists differ from their breth- ren as to the time and mode of baptism. I do not think the Baptists and Presbyterians differ in any other respect as to the terms of commun- ion at the Lord's table." The Baptists are not, therefore, illiberal on account of this practice. It is conceded that we have a right to have principles, and to stand by them. This is all we have ever asked. 4. Presbyterians claim that they have a right to make such laws as they may choose to govern the approach of communicants to their table. In doing this they contend that they have not gone beyond their rights, although they should make stringent laws governing their own mem- bers. Hence I read in the Confession of Faith: "That in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of ad- mission into its communion, and the qualifica- tions of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ has appointed : that in the exercise of this right, they may, notwithstanding, err, in THE PRESBYTERIANS. 89 making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow: yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty, or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own." (Con. Faith, Form Govern., B. I, sec. 2.) These Church Rights were fully endorsed by the General Assembly in 1839. That body said: "Every Christian church, or association of churches, is entitled to declare the terms of ad- mission into its communion.** The Presbyterians not only assumed that they had a right to make such laws, but they made them and carried them into execution. On October the 20th, 1645, the Presbyterians in the English Parliament passed a very full and ex- clusive law on this subject. It was known as: "An ordinance of the Lords and Commons as- sembled in Parliament about Suspension from the Lord's Supper.'' (Rushwood, vol. 6, pp. 210- 212.) That law resulted in the XXXth Article of the Confession of Faith, which is the law of the Presbyterian Church to-day. That Article reads in sections iii and iv: "Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from like offenses; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindi- cating the honour of Christ, and the holy pro- fession of the Gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the 90 CLOSE COMMUNION. church, if they should suffer this covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. "For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admoni- tion, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.*' The Larger Catechism, Q. 173, is in full accord with the above article. It reads: "May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's Supper, be kept from it? Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwith- standing their profession of the faith and desire to come to the Lord's Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament by the power which Christ has left in his church, until they receive instruction and manifest their reformation. " And for fear that somebody might not consider the Confession of Faith a close communion docu- ment it is put down under the Directory of "Wor- ship, chapter VIII: "I. The communion, or supper of the Lord, is to be celebrated frequently; but how often, may be determined by the minister and eldership of each congregation, as they may judge most for edification. "II. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. THE PRESBYTERIANS. 91 • ' III. It is proper that public notice should be given to the congregation, at least, the Sabbath before the administration of this ordinance, and that, either then, or on some day of the week, the people be instructed in its nature, and due prep- aration for it; that all may come in a suitable manner to this holy feast." Dr. A. A. Hodge sums up the entire matter in these words : ' 'All church power must be exer- cised in an orderly manner through the officers spoken of above, freely chosen for this purpose by the brethren; and it relates: 1. To matters of doctrine. She has a right to set forth a public declaration of the truths which she believes, and which are to be acknowledged by all who enter her communion. That is, she has a right to frame creeds or confessions of faith, as her tes- timony for the truth and her protest against error. And as she has been commissioned to teach all nations, she has the right of selecting teachers, of judging of their fitness, of ordaining and sending them forth in the field, and of re- calling and deposing them when unfaithful. 2. The Church has power to set down rules for the ordering of public worship. 3. She has power to make rules for her own government; such as every church has in its book of disci- pline, etc. 4. She has power to receive into fel- lowship, and to exclude the unworthy from her own communion." (Com. on Con. Faith, pp. 501, 502.) 92 CLOSE COMMUNION. The conclusion is inevitable, that if Presby- terians have laid down such stringent rules in the observance of the Supper, and claim that they have a full right so to do, they cannot con- sistently object to any practice that may exist among the Baptists. 5. The history of the Presbyterian Church has been one of strict communion. A study of their history developed the fact that they have not sought communion with other denominations; nor has there been inter- communion among the various Presbyterian bodies. I invite your atten- tion to the practice of the Presbyterians in a number of countries. The Presbyterians originated in Switzerland with John Calvin. He was by no means an open communionist. So far from this being the case he instituted the most rigid laws against others; and even put Servetus to death because he was not in sympathy with his views. The celebrated Francis Turretin, Professor of Theology in Ge- neva, shows the spirit of that country toward others. He says : ' ' Since magistrates are keep- ers of both tables, and the care of religion per- tains to them, they ought to provide that it should suffer no injury, and should in wisdom oppose those who assert it, lest the poison insin- uate itself more widely, and be diffused through the whole body. But magistrates cannot protect religion, unless they restrain the obstinate and THE PRESBYTERIANS. 93 factious contemners thereof. Such interference, both the glory of God, of which they are the defenders, and the safety of the commonwealth, of which they are the guardians, demand. If less evils are restrained by heavy penalties, this, which is the greatest, which injures the trust of God, which blasphemes his name, which rends the Church, which corrupts the faith, and brings into danger the safety of the faithful, should not be permitted to go unpunished. Rather is there frequently required, that a speedy and powerful remedy be applied; inasmuch, as from this quar- ter, the destruction of the whole body is threat- ened, unless the application be quickly made." (De Polit. Ecc. gubern., Tim. iii, Loc. xviii, quaesti xxxiv, p. 278.) In Scotland it was required: "That all kings and princes, at their coronation, and reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise, by their solemn oath, in the presence of their eternal God, that during the whole of their lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to the utmost of their power, ac- cording as he hath required in his most holy word, contained in the Old and New Testament; and, according to the same word, shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy word, the due and rightful adminis- tration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm, (according to the 94 CLOSE COMMUNION. Confession of Faith immediately preceding) and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion con- trary to the same; and shall rule the people com- mitted to their charge, according to the will and command of God, revealed in his foresaid word, and according to the laudable laws and constitu- tions received in this realm, no wise repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the kirk of God, and the whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of their empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the aforesaid crimes." (Coronation Oath in the National Covenant.) In Scotland there was a general form of ex- pulsion of unworthy persons from the Lord's table, in connection with the ministration of the sacrament. This was called excommunication or ' ' fencing the tables. " (Fisher's Ch. Hist. , p. 368. ) It was further required that office holders should be communicants in the Presbyterian Church. The first Confession of Helvetia declares: "Seeing that every magistrate is of God, his chief duty, except it please him to exercise tyranny, consists in this : to defend religion from all blasphemy, to promote it, as the prophet teaches, out of the word of God, to see it put in practice, as far as it lies in him." The latter TIIK PRESBYTERIANS. 95 Confession, which was expressly approved by the Church of Scotland and other Presbyterians, says: "Magistracy, of whatever sort it be, is ordained of God himself, for the peace and tran-" quility of mankind ; so that the magistracy ought to have the chief place in the world. If he be an adversary of the Church, he may greatly hin- der and disturb it; but if he be a friend and member of the Church, he is a most profitable member, and may excellently aid and advance it. His principal duty is to procure and maintain peace and public tranquility; which doubtless he will never do more happily than when he is sea- soned with the fear of God, and true religion, particularly when we shall, after the examples of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, advance the preaching of the truth, and the pure unadulterated faith, shall extirpate falsehood, and all superstition, impiety and idol- atry, and shall defend the Church of God; for indeed we teach that the care of religion doth chiefly appertain to the holy magistrate." The Confession of Saxony says : ' ' The word of God doth in general, teach this, concerning the power of the magistrate; first, that God wills that the magistrates, without all doubt, should sound forth the voice of the moral law among men, according to the ten commandments, or law natural, by-laws forbidding idolatry and blas- phemies, as well as murders, theft, etc. . for well 96 CLOSE COMMUNION. it has been said of old: "The magistrate is a keeper of the law, i.e., of the first and second table, as concerning discipline and good order. This ought to be their special care (of kingdoms and of their rulers), to hear and embrace the true doctrine of the Son of God, and to cherish the churches, according to Ps. ii and xxiv, and Isaiah xlix, and kings and queens shall be thy nurses, i. e. , let commonwealths be nurses of the church, and to godly studies." The Dutch Confession says : God ' ' hath armed the magistrate with a sword, to punish the bad and to defend the good. Furthermore, it is their duty to be careful not only to preserve the civil polity, but also to endeavor that the ministry be preserved: that all idolatry and counterfeit wor- ship be abolished, the kingdom of Antichrist be brought down, and the kingdom of Christ be en- larged; in fine, that it is their duty to bring it to pass, that the holy word of the Gospel be preached everywhere, that all men may serve God, purely and freely, according to the pre- scribed will of his word." The French Confession says: "God hath de- livered the sword unto the magistrate's hand, that sins committed against both tables of God's law, not only against the second, but the first also, may be suppressed." There is nothing of open communion in these Presbyterian laws and Confessions of Faith. THE PRESBYTER1 A NTS. 97 When we recollect that these heretics and blas- phemers were none other than Baptists, and that the magistrates were to root them out, and either banish them from the country or burn them at the stake, we shudder. These things settle be- yond a doubt that the Presbyterians of Europe were not open communionists. In the United States the history of Presbyte- rianism is against open communion. I present a statement from Thomas Jefferson on Presbyteri- anism. He says: "The atmosphere of our coun- try is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of tol- eration, and freedom of religion, it could have risen to the height you describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism. Here Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, join together in hynming their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so in the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival, if they had power. Systematical at grasping at an ascendency over all other sects, they aim at en- grossing the education of the country, they are hostile to every institution that they do not di- 98 CLOSE COMMUNION. rect; are jealous of seeing others begin to attend at all to that object." (Works, vol. 4, p. 358.) On the same subject he says in his letter to William Short: "The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest, the most intolerant of all sects; the most tyrannical and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could now be ob- tained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekin- dle in this virgin hemisphere the flames in which their oracle, Calvin, consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not subscribe to the proposition of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to ex- terminate all heretics to the Calvinistic creed. They pant to re-establish, by law, that holy in- quisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion." (p. 322.) When the great struggle came in Virginia for the complete disestablishment of the Episcopal Church the Presbyterians passed many noble resolutions. But when, at length, the General Assembly passed a law, that ' ' a general assess- ment for the support of religion ought to be ex- tended to those who profess the public worship of the Deity," and there was a chance for the Presbyterians to receive State aid, they faltered. (Journal House of Delegates, October, 1784, 32.) Rives says this was " in a memorial presented by the united clergy of the Presbyterian Church." (Life and Times of Madison, vol. 1, p. 601.) Dr. Foot, a Presbyterian historian of Virginia, THE PRESBYTERIANS. 99 says that the Hanover Presbytery prepared for the Legislature, November 12th, 1784, a plan of assessment as follows: "1. Religion as a spiritual system is not to be considered as an object of human legislation, but may be in a civil view, as preserving the exist- ence and promoting the happiness of society. 2. That public worship and public periodical in- struction to the people, be maintained in this view by a general assessment for this purpose. 3. That every man, as a good citizen, be obliged to declare himself attached to some religious community, publicly known to profess the belief of one God, His righteous providence, our ac- countableness to Him, and a future state of re- wards and punishments. 4. That every citizen should have liberty annually to direct his as- sessed proportion to such community as he chooses. 5. Provides that twelve tithables shall exclusively direct the application of the money contributed for their support." (Sketches of Virginia, p. 338.) President Madison, writing of this struggle, under date of April 12th, 1785, says of this pro- posal to continue taxation : ' ' The Episcopal peo- ple are generally for it — the tax. The Presby- terians seem as ready to set up an establishment which is to take them in, as they were to pull down that which shut them out. I do not know a more shameful contrast than misrht be found 100 CLOSE COMMUNION. between their memorials on the latter and the former occasions." (Rive's Life Madison, vol. 1, p. 630.) Referring to the Presbyterians in this crisis Dr. Hawks says: "When that great end (the giving a death blow to the legalized superiority) was once obtained, and every religious society stood upon the same level, the question in dis- pute assumed to these allies a very different aspect, and they deserted the standard under which they had before achieved their victory. They had prostrated the church; they had proved themselves not at all reluctant to strip her clergy of that competent maintenance which was secured to them by the possession of prop- erty; but they now manifested an aversion, more rational than consistent, in being left to find a precarious support for themselves, in the tender mercies of a set of voluntary contributors." (Hawks' Hist. Prot. Epis. Ch., pp. 151, 152.) In every country where Presbyterians have had power they have persecuted. I do not regard the people who are Presbyte- rians as worse than others; but the trouble is in the organic law of Presbyterianism. Perhaps Dr. Guthrie has rightly put it: "So I fear that, on departing from the Church of Rome, we car- ried into our Protestantism — as was not un- natural — some of her ancient superstitions; just as our fathers carried into their practices some THE PRESBYTERIANS. 101 of her intolerant principles. We cannot approve of their intolerance, yet it admits of an apology. They had been suckled by the wolf, and it is no great wonder that, with the milk of the WOLF, THEY SHOULD HAVE IMBIBED SOME OF her nature." (Gospel in Ezek., p. 213.) The Presbyterian Churches of this country do not commune with their European brethren. Dr. Breckinridge, in his debate with Archbishop Hughes of the Catholic Church, says: "Mr. Hughes says: And if they have changed, as he asserts, let the next General Assembly break commimion with their sister Presbyteries in Europe, in whose Confessions of Faith the prin- ciples of intolerance are avowed as a doctrine. Now the truth is, Mr. Hughes, ignorantly I would fain hope, has entirely falsified the facts. We hold no such communion with any such churches. The Church of Scotland has an es- tablishment, and retains the intolerant doctrine. The consequence is we have no communion with her. The Irish Church (the Synod of Ulster) receives the regium donum. We have no recip- rocity with her." (Hughes and Breckinridge Debate, p. 527.) We have a more recent example. The Pan- Presbyterian Council at Philadelphia, in 1880, refused to observe the Lord's Supper together, upon the ground that the Supper is a Church ordinance, to be observed only by those who are 102 CLOSE COMMUNION. amenable to the discipline of the body, and there- fore not to be observed by separate Church or- ganizations acting together. Substantially upon this ground the Old School General Assembly long before, being invited to unite at the Lord's table with the New School body with whom they had dissolved ecclesiastical relations declined to do so. (See Strong's Systemat. Theol., p. 549.) Dr. Engles, editor of the Philadelphia Presby- terian, September 12th, 1840, took the ground that the Old School Presbyterians could not commune with the Methodists and the New School Presbyterians. In reply to some resolu- tions of the West Hanover Presbytery, Virginia, formally condemning this doctrine, he observes: ' 'As Presbyterians we profess to receive our de- nominational distinction from the symbols of faith which we adopt; and we regard other de- nominations as having their distinctive belief and character, of which we judge by their public symbols. The opinion that Confessions or doc- trinal formularies are only obligatory on the ministry, and not on the people of a church, is, in our judgment, a most dangerous one; the adoption of it must at once destroy the homo- geneity of a church, and give full license to the people to embrace every form of error. On the contrary, it is presumed that a Presbyterian be- lieves in Presbyterian doctrine, or why is he a Presbyterian? And that a Methodist believes in THE PRESBYTERIANS. 103 the doctrines of his own church, or why is he not something else? The Methodists and Presbyte- rians alike believe that they have very good rea- sons for being as they are; nay, so potent are those reasons regarded to be, that neither imag- ines he could ever be induced to change his posi- tion. Now all we have contended for is consist- ency in carrying this principle out into practice. ' 'As our Methodist brethren * * * have taken umbrage at our language, let us ask them if they are prepared to advise their people, on all favor- able occasions, to go and commune with the Presbyterians? Do they wish them to think there is no difference between the denominations? Do they regard the difference as so trivial as to in- vite entire oblivion of them by their flocks, when they stray into Presbyterian folds? We judge not. Why then should they be angry with us for following their example? Holding the faith we do * * * can we, or ought we to say to the sheep of our fold — Yonder are pastures in which we believe there are poisonous weeds growing, but still there can be but little danger of occa- sionally feeding there? In this matter we have never found our Methodist brethren a particle more liberal than ourselves. We have never found them backward in decrying Presbyterian- ism; and we, on the other hand, candidly tell them, as we have often told them before, that we 104 CLOSE COMMUNION. consider their system as very erroneous. For each of us thus to think is our right, in the exer- cise of Christian liberty, but is it quite possible that we should forget this, and lay aside our strong feelings on the subject, while we com- mune together? " Of the New School Presbyterians Dr. Engles says : ' ' The West Hanover resolutions express as much solicitude to be on as good terms with the New School as with the Methodists. If we un- derstand them, they wish the whole world to know that they distinctly disavow the exclusive- ness which would refuse to commune with the men whom they, as Presbyterians, helped out of the Church. If we mistake not they took an honorable part in the exclusive measures by which the New School lost their statutes in our church; we say, their statutes in our church, for although the exclusion in question did not affect' their ecclesiastical organization, all the world knows that the excluded party are not now, and never have been since the passage of the acts, in the communion of the Presbyterian church. When, therefore, this Presbytery publicly says that they wish, with all ' liberality and Christian courtesy,' to hold communion with them — what must they think? If such language does not sound like a bitter mockery in their ears, we are not well skilled in sounds. The measure by THE PRESBYTERIANS. 105 which the New School was excluded from the Presbyterian church was either righteous or un- righteous; if the former, why should we make any professions of attachment which our actions do not sustain, or if the latter, why do we not magnanimously avow it, and invite them back in a body? We believe it was righteous, and whether right or wrong in our belief, we contend that, while the causes exist which led to it, it is ut- terly inexpedient to hold communion with those churches." (Philadelphia Presbyterian, Septem- ber 12th, 1840.) From the Synodical proceedings of one of the Valley States we read: The Committee on Bills and Overtures, to whom was referred the ques- tion : " Is it proper that there should be inter- communion between Presbyterians and those de- nominations who hold Arminian sentiments?" presented the following report which was adopt- ed: "That after giving it all the attention which the importance of the subject demands, they are of the opinion that for Presbyterians to hold communion in sealing ordinances with those who deny the doctrines of grace, through the blood of Christ, etc., is highly prejudicial to the truth as it is in Jesus. Nor can such intercommunion answer any valuable purpose to those who prac- tice it, as two cannot walk together unless they be agreed. Yet, as there are persons who hav*' 106 CLOSE COMMUNION. received distorted views of the doctrines of grace, who notwithstanding admit these doc- trines in fact, although they are jDrejudiced against the terms generally used in the discus- sion of these subjects, your committee are of the opinion that, if such manifest a desire to hold communion with us, that, after being conversed with, and having received satisfaction on these and other points on which their church and ours disagree, and having obtained satisfactory evi- dence of their piety, charity requires that they should be admitted to occasional intercommun- ion." (Union Evangelist, and Presbyterian Ad- vocate, 1820, vol. 2, pp. 96-99.) And from the proceeding of one other Synod we read; ' ' The committee are of the opinion that for Presbyterians to hold communion in sealing ordinances with those who belong to churches holding doctrines contrary to our standards, is incompatible with the purity and the peace of our church, and highly prejudicial to the truth as it is in Jesus. Nor can such communion answer any valuable purpose, etc. In accordance with these views, your committee are of opinion that the practice of inviting to the communion all who are in good standing in their own churches, is calculated to do much evil, and should not be continued, while every church session is, how- ever, left at liberty to admit to occasional com- THE PRESBYTERIANS. 107 munion members of other denominations, after having conversed with them, and received satis- faction of their soundness in the faith, and Chris- tian practice." (Extracts from Synodical Rec- ords, 1832, ut supra, vol. 3, p. 240.) We are certain, therefore, that open commun- ion among Presbyterians is of recent origin, and contrary to the well known history of Presbyte- rianism. So much so that Dr. David Montfort says : ' 'As to how far catholic or open communion has been practiced, I am not very accurately in- formed. The language of the divines of Westmin- ster afford no evidence to me that it was sustained by them. It is very certain that four different denominations subscribing this same confession of faith, and adhering most tenaciously to it, dis- countenanced the practice altogether. I am ex- ceeding happy to be informed that in the Synod of Pittsburg, where in our great struggle, Pres- byterianism prevailed in its greatest purity, it is not generally practiced. The practice is of re- cent date. My own recollection, and the testi- mony of older men, assure me that the practice of our forefathers was exceedingly strict. That it was rarely, if at all, the case with them for their own members to commune out of the par- ticular church to which they belonged. That a sojourner was not admitted except on a certifi- cate of his good standing in his own church. So 108 CLOSE COMMUNION. far were our forefathers from the present prac- tice of laxness in this day." From the above history Presbyterians can hardly censure the Baptists for being close com- munionists. We have no close communion rec- ord like this. It cannot be denied that Presby- terians concede all we claim as to the terms of communion, and further declare that we are con- sistent in our practice. THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 109 CHAPTER VIII. THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE CONGREGA- TIONAL CHURCH. ARE THE CONGREGATION- ALISTS CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? I PRESENT the testimony that the Congrega- tionalists have the same terms of approach to the Lord's table as have the Baptists. The Congregationalists require conversion, baptism, church membership as prerequisites to the Lord's Supper. This we learn from various sources. Dr. Henry M. Dexter says: " Only members in good standing in the visible church, have a right to partake of the Lord's Supper." (Congrega- tionalism, p. 163.) George P. Fisher, D. D. , Professor of Ecclesi- astical History in Yale University, says: "After the rite of baptism had been administered, they gathered in an assembly for common prayer. Then they saluted one another with a kiss; and the service concluded with the administration of the communion, prayers and thanksgiving, to which the congregation responded ' amen,' form- ing a part of the service. " (Begin. Christ. , p. 566. ) Dr. Dwight, President of Yale College, says: " It is an indispensable qualification for this or- 110 CLOSE COMMUNION. dinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church in full standing. By this I intend that he should be a man of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized. '' (Syst. Theol., Ser. 160, B. 8, ch. 4, sec. 7, vol. 4, pp. 365, 366.) The Independent, one of the most widely circu- lated, and perhaps the most influential Pedobap- tist paper in the country, in an editorial, says: ' ' Leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must be baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. This is the position generally taken. But Baptists regard- ing sprinkling a nullity — no baptism at all — look upon Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, as unbaptized persons. " ' ' The other churches can- not urge the Baptists to become open commun- ionists till they themselves take the position that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbap- tized as well as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table." (Editorial, July, 1879.) These authorities prove beyond a doubt that Congregationalists demand of communicants the same qualifications as do the Baptists. The Congregationalists teach that Pedobap- tists are close communionists, and that the Bap- tists are consistent in their practice. The Congregationalist, the organ of the New England Congregational Churches, says : ' ' Con- THE CONG REG ATIOXALLSTS. Ill gregationalists have uniformly, until here and there an exception has arisen of late years, re- quired baptism and church membership as the prerequisite of a seat at the table of the Lord. It is a part of the false ' liberality ' which now prevails in certain quarters, to welcome ' every- body who thinks he loves Christ ' to commune in his body and blood. Such a course is a first step in breaking down that distinction between the church and the world, which our Saviour empha- sized; and it seems to us it is an unwise and mis- taken act for which no Scripture warrant ex- ists." (Editorial, July 9th, 1879.) Rev. G. W. Wright says: "The intelligent con- sistent defence of close communion on the part of the Baptists does not proceed on the supposi- tion that immersed persons are the only regen- erated believers; but they base their refusal to invite unbaptized persons to the Lord's table on the same grounds of order and expediency on which other denominations refuse to invite un- baptized persons to commune with them." (Bib- liotheca Sacra for 1874.) The Independent says: "We have never been disposed to charge the Baptist churches with any special narrowness or bigotry in their rule of ad- mission to the Lord's table. We do not see how it differs from that commonly admitted and -es- tablished among Presbyterian churches." Said Henry Ward Beecher, in the Christian 112 CLOSE COMMUNION. Union: "A Pedobaptist, who believes that bap- tism is prerequisite to communion, has no right to censure the Baptist churches for close com- munion. On this question, there is a great deal of pulling out of motes by people whose own vision is not clear." In another issue of the same paper he says: "We have no disposition to join in the censure which is so freely bestowed upon Baptists for their principle and practice of re- stricted communion. Their course on this ques- tion, however mistaken, is certainly consistent, and we must yield them the respect due to all who adhere firmly to their conscientious convic- tions." The Advance, of Chicago, in an editorial, No- vember 10th, 1868, says: "As to the question of invitation to the Lord's table, while sympathiz- ing with much that is urged in favor of separa- ting that ordinance from church membership, and throwing it open to all upon their individual re- sponsibility after due warning, we have not yet seen our way clear to adopt that view. Neither New Testament practice, nor a wise regard to the effect, appear to us to favor such a method. The mode of the institution of the Lord's Sup- per, the apostolic explanations and instructions, and the primitive practice, agree in presenting it as an ordinance of the church distinctively — standing as one of the two sacraments which mark and bless the professed disciples of Christ. THE CONGREGATIONALJSTS. 113 Besides, the idea of each participant coming as an individual soul, upon his own responsibility merely, robs the ordinance of its distinctive or- ganic meaning as a supper — that is, a joint meal of the members of a family, and not the catching up of a morsel by hungry strangers who com- pose a chance crowd." Listen again to the testimony of an eminent Congregationalist, Rev. Dr. Woolcot Caulkins, in the Andover Review: "It has never been denied that the Puritan way of maintaining the purity and doctrinal soundness of the churches is to secure a soundly converted membership. There is one denomination of Puritans which has never deviated a hair's breadth from this way. The Baptists have always insisted that regenerate persons only ought to receive the sacraments of the church. And they have depended absolutely upon this provision for the purity and doctrinal soundness of their churches. They are strictly Congregational in polity. But they have never imposed a creed test for membership. It is true that they have adopted in general confessions various standards — a recension of the Westmin- ster Confession (Philadelphia, 1742), and the New Hampshire Confession (1833), and some churches have confessions of their own. But they ex- pressly repudiate the imposition of any formal creed upon any church or upon any member." To the question whether Baptists have failed 114 CLOSE COMMUNION. to maintain sound doctrine, Dr. Caulkins replies by quoting the words of Dr. J. L. Withrow, Pres- byterian, Boston : "I suppose there is not a de- nomination — I speak in no fulsome praise, but literally — I think there is not a denomination of Evangelical Christians that is throughout as sound theologically as the Baptist denomination. I believe it. After carefully considering it, I believe I speak the truth. Sound as my own de- nomination is, sound as some others are, and I do not cast unfriendly reflections upon any par- ticular denomination, I do say, in my humble judgment, there is not an Evangelical denomina- tion in America to-day that is as true to the sim- ple, plain Gospel of God, as it is recorded in the Word, as the Baptist denomination." High praise, this. The practice of Congregationalists has been against open communion. They passed in Amer- ica the most stringent laws against Other denomi- nations. They had scarcely landed in New Eng- land until they were burning witches, whipping and banishing Baptists. In 1644, the General Court of Massachusetts passed an act in which it was said: "Forasmuch as experience hath plen- tifully shown and often proven that since the rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealths, and the infectors of persons in matters of religion, and the troublers of THE CONGREGATION ALISTS. 1 I." churches in all places where they have been, and that they who have held that the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or heresies, together with, though they have concealed the same till they have spied out a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them by way of scruple or question * * * it is ordered and agreed that, if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to induce others from approbation or use thereof * * * every such person shall be sentenced to banishment." This punishment was visited upon many. "Baptists," says Fisher, who is himself a Con- gregationalist, "were stigmatized as ' schismati- cal persons, filled with the new-fangled conceits of their heredical inventions.' " (Fisher's Church Hist., p. 476.) So late as 1679 there was a law passed against Baptists being permitted to build houses of worship. And when the First Baptist Church of Boston erected a house a Synod met the following September and gave it as its opin- ion that "the cause of the judgments of God upon the land was the allowing of those Baptists to worship by themselves; " therefore their meet- ing house was nailed up, by order of the court, in March, 1680, and Dr. Increase Mather pub- lished a book in which he said that ' ' Antipedo- baptism was a blasted error. " 116 CLOSE COMMUNION. At the period of the Revolutionary War Dr. George P. Fisher says: "In places where no con- gregations had been gathered by dissidents from the prevailing system, individuals, whatever their religious belief might be, were conrpelled to contribute to the support of the Congrega- tional worship there existing. This requirement was more and more counted a hardship. It is believed that in all of the colonies there were reli- gious tests in some form. Even in Pennsylvania and Delaware, none could vote save those who professed faith in Christ. When the revolution- ary contest began, it was natural that there should spring up movements to abolish the reli- gious inequalities which were a heritage from the past. The Baptists, who were outnumbered by none of the religious bodies except the Con- gregationalists, and who had felt themselves especially aggrieved, at once bestirred them- selves in Massachusetts and Virginia to secure the repeal of obnoxious restrictions." (Church Hist., pp. 559, 560.) Those who settled New York were as rigid in their opinions as their New England brethren. "In 1656 it was ordained that all parishes should be forbidden to hold conventicles not in harmony with the established religion as set forth by the Synod of Dort. Fines were imposed on every preacher who broke this law, and on every one THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 11? who should attend a meeting thus prohibited." (See Fisher's Ch. Hist., p. 477.) With a history as intolerant as this, Puritan- ism, or as it was afterwards called Congrega- tionalism, could hardly say anything against Baptist Close Communion. We never banished any one, we have never unchristianized any one, all we have asked is that we shall quietly, in the fear of God, be allowed to regulate our own affairs. 118 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER IX. THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE METHODIST CHURCH. ARE THE METHODISTS CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? THE WESLEYS AND DR. COKE. THE Methodist Church, in the same manner as the Baptists, requires baptism as a pre- requisite to the Lord's Supper. The Methodist Discipline, Article 1G, lays down the order upon which I have been insisting: "There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." Dr. Hibbard says: "It is certain that baptism is enjoined as the first public duty after disciple - ship; or, it may be regarded as the very act it- self, or process, of visible discipleship. The very position, therefore, that baptism is made to oc- cupy, in a relation to a course of Christian duty, viz., at the commencement, sufficiently estab- lishes the conclusion that the ordinance of the supper, and all other observances which have an exclusive reference to the Christian profession, must come in as subsequent duties." (Hibbard on Baptism, pp. 176, 177.) Dr. Adam Clarke says: "As no person could THE METHODISTS. 119 partake of the paschal lamb before he was cir- cumcised (Ex. 12:43-48), so, among the early- followers of God, no person was permitted to come to the eucharist till he had been baptized." (Works, vol. 3, pp. 149, 150.) Dr. Bennett in his recent able work on Archae- ology makes a similar statement. His work is edited and endorsed by two other able Method- ists, one of whom is a bishop — George R. Crooks and Bishop John M. Hurst. Here is the com- bined authority of three of the foremost men in that denomination in this country. It is further stated that the theology of the volume is in ' ' harmony with the doctrinal standards of the Methodist Episcopal Church. " Dr. Bennett says: ' ' None but the believers or the baptized are ad- mitted to the meal — to feast on the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh." (Archae- ology, p. 419.) The history of the Methodist Church is one of close communion. There are no people more rigid in their requirements. If the Discipline is enforced, I know no one except a Methodist who can approach their table. Perhaps the facts I here present from their foremost bishops, writ- ers and scholars will surprise you. The entire Wesley family were violently op- posed to all dissenters from the established Church of England. They could not tolerate Baptists and Presbyterians, and indeed did not 120 CLOSE COMMUNION. fellowship any outside of the Episcopal Church. Herbert S. Skeats says of the father of Mr. John Wesley: "His father had not only conformed to the church, but was one of the most bitter, un- scrupulous, and malignant opponents of dissent. " (History Free Churches of England, p. 24.) John Wesley was violent in his opposition to others. He says very plainly that baptism pre- cedes communion. In a sermon which he preached upon, ' ' Do this in remembrance of me," he laid down baptism as a prerequisite to communion. (Wesley's Sermons, vol. 4, p. 153.) In his Journal, vol. 1, p. 188, he says: "In the ancient church every one who was baptized com- municated daily." No Baptist ever insisted upon this doctrine more strongly than did Mr. Wesley. In practice Mr. Wesley was as strict as any high-churchman in the land. Communicating upon a letter received from one J. M. Bolzins, he says: "And yet this very man, when I was in Savannah, did I refuse to admit to the Lord's table, because he was not baptized by a minister who had been episcopally ordained. Can any one carry high-church zeal farther than this? " (Journal, vol. 1, p. 466.) I should not only say that the door was closed, but locked and barred. Wesley wrote his brother-in-law, Wesley Hall, in 1745: "We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord's Sup- THE METHODISTS. 121 per, unless we had a commission so to do from those bishops whom Ave apprehend to be in a succession from the apostles. " (Tyerman's Life and Times of Wesley, vol. 1, p. 496.) Here is another specimen of close communion. It occurred in Norwich, England, April 1st, 1759. Mr. Wesley says: "I met all at six, requiring every one to show his ticket when he came in; a thing they never had heard of before. I likewise insisted on another strange regulation; that the men and women should sit apart. A third was made the same day. It had been a custom ever since the tabernacle was built, to have the gal- leries full of spectators while the Lord's Supper was administered, This I judged highly im- proper and therefore ordered none to be admit- ted, but those who desired to communicate." (Journal, vol. 2, p. 17.) About this time Mr. Wesley rebaptized live Presbyterians, and called their baptism lay bap- tism, because they had not been episcopally or- dained. I will let Bishop McTyeire recite this interesting occurrance. Says the Bishop: "In- credible as it may seem, John Wesley, in that very church, a few days afterward solemnly and rather demonstratively rebaptized five Presby- terians, who had received lay baptism in their infancy — that is, in the jargon of apostolic suc- cession, they had been baptized by Dissenting ministers — possibly by his own grandfather, Dr. 122 CLOSE COMMUNION. Annesley. Charles, about the same time, gave episcopal baptism to a woman who was dissatis- fied with her lay baptism; denominating the or- dinance ' hypothetical baptism ' — that is, Chris- tian baptism, provided the former administration of the ordinance by a Dissenting minister were not in accordance with the mind of God. " (Mc- Tyeire's Hist. Method., pp. 147, 148.) That ought to be close enough to satisfy our Presbyterian brethren. I read in Tyerman's Oxford Methodists, preface, page vi: "Even in Georgia, Wesley excluded Dissenters from the holy communion, on the ground that they had not been properly bap- tized, and he would himself baptize only by im- mersion, unless the child or person was in a weak state of health. " Skeats gives a somewhat somber account of this memorable trip of Mr. Wesley to Georgia. He says: "He went there with a noble and self- sacrificing purpose, but with all of the ecclesi- astical tendencies of a High Churchman, com- bined with a somewhat superstitious faith in what may be described as Christian magic. In- stances of the latter may be found in the whole of his journals. The first occurs in his voyage to Georgia. A woman who thought she was dying, wished to receive the communion. 'At the hour of receiving, ' says Wesley, ' she began to recover, and in a few days was entirely out of THE METHODISTS. 123 danger. ' One of his first acts of ministerial duty in Georgia was to baptize an infant. ' The child was ill,' remarks Wesley, 'then, but recovered from that hour. ' His visit to America was a fail- ure, and his rigid and priestly adherence to the rubrics of the Established Church, which brought upon him a law- suit, ultimately compelled his return to England." (Hist. Free Churches of Bug., pp. 252, 253.) In fact, so severe was Mr. Wesley that he was accused of being a papist. Southey, who wrote a standard life of Wesley, says: "He was ac- cused of making his sermons so many satires upon particular persons, and for this cause his auditors fell off; for, though one might have been very well pleased to hear the others preached at, no person liked the chance of being made the mark himself. All the quarrels which had oc- curred since his arrival were occasioned, it was affirmed, by his intermeddling conduct. ' Beside, ' said a plain speaker, to him, 'the people say they are Protestants; but as for you, they can- not tell what religion you are of: they never heard of such religion before, and they do not know what to make of it.' ' (Southey's Life of Wesley, vol. 1, p. 115.) In fact, "he was looked upon," says Tyerman, "as a Roman Catholic— (1) Because he rigidly excluded all Dissenters from the holy communion, until they first gave up their faith and principles, and, like Richard 124 CLOSE COMMUNION. Turner and his sons, submitted to be rebaptized by him; (2) Because Roman Catholics were re- ceived by him as saints; (3) Because he endeav- ored to establish and enforce confession, pen- ance, and mortification; mixed wine with water at the sacrament; and appointed deaconesses in accordance with what he called the Apostolic Constitutions. He was in fact, a Puseyite, an hundred years before Dr. Pusey was born. " (Life of Wesley, vol. 1, pp. 147, 148.) And Wesley con- fessed that for ten years he was a papist and knew it not. Of the Oxford Methodists the late Bishop Mc- Tyeire, of the Southern Methodist Church, says: "He maintained the doctrine of apostolic suc- cession, and believed no one had authority to administer the sacraments who was not episco- pally ordained. He religiously observed saint- days and holidays, and excluded Dissenters from the holy communion, on the ground that they had not been properly baptized. He observed ecclesiastical discipline to the minutest points, and was scrupulously strict in practicing rubrics and canons * * * Sacramentarian, ritualist, legalist: What lack I yet?" (Hist. Methodism, p. 62.) Bishop McTyeire sums Wesley up as a close communionist of the strictest character. Meth- odists do not get open communion from Mr. Wesley. Says the Bishop : ' ' Following a primi- THE METHODISTS. 127) tive but obsolete rubric, he would baptize chil- dren only by immersion ; nor could he be induced to depart from this mode unless the parents would certify that the child was weakly. Per- sons were not allowed to act as sponsors who were not communicants. No baptism was recog- nized as valid unless performed by a minister episcopally ordained; and those who had allowed their children to be baptized in any other manner were earnestly exhorted to have them rebap- tized. His rigor extended even so far as to re- fuse the Lord's Supper to one of the most devout men of the settlement, who had not been bap- tized by an episcopally ordained minister; and the burial service itself was denied to such as died with what he deemed unorthodox baptism." (Hist. Method., p. 90.) The Baptists never did require as much as is here demanded. Mr. Wesley demanded baptism, even insisted that communicants must be bap- tized by a minister episcopally ordained. He excluded from his table all Dissenters, that is to say Baptists, Presbyterians, and others, would not permit spectators, and required a ticket for admission. ' ' Can any one carry high-church zeal farther than this"? " Charles Wesley was even more violent in his feelings than was John Wesley. He wrote to one of his best friends that he would rather see him "smiling in his coffin" than to see him a dissent- 126 CLOSE COMMUNION. ing (or Presbyterian) preacher. Bishop Mc- Tyeire says: "His high-church feelings could hardly endure the innovation of lay preaching; but the administration of the sacraments by men not episcopally ordained was quite out of the question; it would make Dissenters out of them ipso facto, and bring on separation. He wrote to John Nelson: 'John, I love thee from my heart; yet, rather than see thee a Dissenting minister, I wish to see thee smiling in thy coffin. ' * * * Yet this good man — this primitive Methodist — was so wedded to the Established Church that unless John Nelson, and others like him, could be 'episcopally ordained' he would rather see John ' smiling in his coffin ' than upon a Presby- lerial ordination administer baptism or the Lord's Supper to a Methodist congregation.'' -(Hist. Method., pp. 181, 182.) He not only said he would rather see his friend " smiling in his coffin" than to see him a Presbyterian preacher; but he likewise said he would rather see his children Roman Catholics than Dissenters. Skeats says: "Charles, who was always ' harping on the Established Church, ' remarked that he would sooner see his children Roman Catholics than Protestant Dissenters. He applied, publicly, in one of his sermons, the shipwreck of Paul to the difficulty of being saved out of the Church of England." (Hist. Free Churches of Eng., p. 382.) THE METHODISTS. 127 His biographer sums up his life in these words: "He denied the validity of baptism when admin- istered by any except the Episcopal clergy, to whatever section of the church "universal the ad- ministrator might belong; calling it 'lay bap- tism,' and urging upon those who had received it the necessity of being re-baptized. Healthy children, he insisted upon baptizing by trine im- mersion, plunging them three times into the water." (Jackson's Life of Charles "Wesley, vol. 1, p. 54.) Charles Wesley was a "close communionisf with a vengeance. Indeed, I have shown by un- doubted authority that the whole Wesley family were close communionists. The first Methodist Conference believed as Mr. Wesley did on this subject. The ten preachers present did not consider themselves as having received episcopal ordination: and hence had no right to administer baptism or the Lord's Sup- per. To this end they passed the following rules: "1. Every preacher who acts in connec- tion with Mr. Wesley and the brethren who labor in America is strictly to avoid administering the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper 2. All people among whom we labor are to be earnestly exhorted to attend the church (mean- ing, of course, the Episcopal church), and to re- ceive the ordinances there; but in a j^articular manner to press the people in Maryland and Vir* 128 CLOSE COMMUNION. ginia to the observance of this minute." (Mc- Tyeire's Hist. Meth., p. 276.) Previous to this time the Methodists did not pretend to be anything except a society in the Church of England; but the Revolutionary War had overthrown that Church in America. The Methodists were thus left without a church or ordinances. An appeal was made to Mr. Wesley. He hesitated. At length Mr. Wesley selected a young man, and wrote Dr. Lowth, Bishop of Lon- don, and asked for his ordination, which the Bishop did not grant. ' ' Thereupon, on August 10, 1780, he wrote a letter to the bishop, pointing out the great evil he had done to spiritual religion in America by that refusal. Before finishing his letter, Mr. Wesley thus plainly writes his mind: Your lordship did not see good to ordain the pious young man I recommended, but your lord- ship did see good to ordain and send into Amer- ica other persons who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who knew no more of saving souls than of catching whales. In this respect I mourn for poor America." (McTyeire's Hist.' Method., p. 318.) On account of this peculiar state of affairs in America there was great strife among the Meth- odists. Stevens gives this account: ' ' Meanwhile none of our preachers being ordained, the socie- ties were dependent upon the clergy of the Eng- lish church in this country for the sacraments. THE METHODISTS. 129 At the Revolution most of these left the country, and the Methodists were then deprived of the sacraments. Many insisted upon having them without ordination. A general strife ensued, a large portion of the Southern church revolted. A compromise was effected till they could apply to Mr. Wesley for a more thorough arrange- ment, with powers to ordain and minister the sacraments. In meeting their demand he or- dained and sent over Dr. Coke, with episcopal powers, under the name of superintendent, to ordain Francis Asbury a 'joint superintendent ' and ordain the preachers to the office of deacons and elders."' (Church Polity, pp. 86, 87.) But the whole thing resulted in the declaration that baptism administered by a man with episcopal ordination was necessary to the Lord's Supper. The so-called ordination, mentioned above, of Dr. Coke by Mr. "Wesley is one of the stran- gest events in history; but it reveals a chapter on close communion unparalleled in the history of the world. To understand these matters it must be recol- lected that Dr. Coke was a man of great ambi- tion; and the obtaining the office of a bishop seems to have been his absorbing aim. I wish to state that only which can be clearly proved. Tyerman, who is himself a noted Methodist, says: "With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, and his general excellences, it is no detraction to 130 CLOSE COMMUNION. assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and that the height of his ambition was to be a bishop." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 434.) Things had reached such a pass among the Methodists of the United States that something must be done. There was no one authorized among them to administer baptism or the Lord's Supper. Wesley was already well ad- vanced in years, and so Dr. Coke wrote Mr. Wesley proposing to go to America for him. Wesley at length decided to make Coke ' ' super- intendent" of the work in America. Such a high-churchman was Dr. Coke that he appears to have had scruples whether Mr. Wesley had any such power. Stevens says: "When Mr. Wesley proposed to Dr. Coke his ordination to this new office, some six or seven months before it was confirmed, the doctor was startled (as Drew tells us in his life of Coke), and doubted Wesley's authority to ordain him, as Wesley him- self was not a bishop. " (Church Polity, pp. 92, 93. ) These scruples appear to have speedily passed away, and Dr. Coke was not only anxious to be " superintendent," but bishop as well. He then applied to Wesley for ordination, but Wesley possessed no such power. Tyerman says: ' 'There can be no question that there is force in Dr. Whitehead's critique, that 'Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that Mr. Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke." : Our author continues: THE METHODISTS. 131 ' ' The ordination of Dr. Coke is a perplexing puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a dea- con and a priest of the Church of England ; and hence, his ministerial status was the same as Wesley's. What further ordination was needed? Wesley intended none; but Coke wished it." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 432.) Upon this subject Dr. Whitehead, who wrote the official Life of Wesley, says: "That the per- son who advised the measure, would be proved to have been a felon to Methodism, and to have struck an assassin's knife into the vitals of its body." (Hawk's Eccl. Hist., vol. 1, p. 171.) Wesley was bitterly opposed to the office of bishop. In a letter to Francis Asbury, dated London, September 20th, 1788, he says: "How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder and start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave or a fool; a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content: but they shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop. For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this." The facts are these: Wesley wanted some one to go to America, and Dr. Coke wanted to go. Dr. Coke stated that if Wesley would send him as his official representative he would be received in America. To this end Wesley privately laid his hands upon Coke and called him "superin- tendent." Wesley did not ordain him, nor any 132 CLOSE COMMUNION. one else, bishop; nor was Coke called a bishop for a number of years, and never by Wesley's authority. Tyerman undoubtedly gives a correct history of this affair. He says: " Shall Wesley or some one else go from England to give them ordina- tion? Wesley, a man of action, decided to send Coke, and Coke consented; but before starting, he wished to have an additional ordination himself. What was that ordination to be % The only one possible was this. Wesley was the venerable father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He was not able to visit them himself; but sends them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends, that it is more than possible, that some of the American preachers and societies will refuse his authority. To remove this objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in a private room, holds a religious service, puts his hands upon the head of Coke, and (to use his own words) sets him apart as a superintendent of the work in America, and gives him a written testimonial to that effect. This was all that Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we greatly doubt that it was all that the departing envoy wished." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 433.) Dr. Coke not only knew that Wesley did not ordain him a bishop, but made repeated efforts to be made a bishop of the Episcopal Church. I shall mention some of these attempts. Dr. Coke appealed to Bishop White of Penn- THE METHODISTS. 133 sylvania to give him Episcopal ordination. Here is a part of his letter to the bishop: "He (Mr. Wesley) did indeed solemnly invest me, so far as he had the right so to do, with Episcopal au- thority, but did not intend, I think, that our en- tire separation should take place. * * * Our ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up the right of administering the sacraments: I do not think the generality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a reordina- tion, if other hinderances (a classical education) were removed out of the way. " (White's Memoirs of the Protestant Epis. Church, pp. 424-9.) He further requested that Bishop White would burn this letter. Tyerman, in commenting upon this, says: ' ' Some years after this, Coke, unknown to Wes- ley and Asbury, addressed a confidential letter to Dr. White, bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant any- thing, meant that he would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English Church, on condition that he himself was ordained to be their bishop." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 434.) On March 29th, 1799, Dr. Coke wrote the Bishop of London, and asked him for episcopal ordination. In that letter he says: "A very con- siderable part of our society have imbibed a deep prejudice against receiving the Lord's Supper from the hands of immoral clergymen. The 134 CLOSE COMMUNION. word immoral they consider in a very extensive sense, as including all those who frequent card- tables, balls, horse-racing, theaters, and other places of fashionable amusements. I have found it in vain to urge to them that the validity of the ordinance does not depend upon the piety or even the morality of the minister; all of my argu- ments have had no effect. In consequence of this, petitions were sent, immediately after the death of Mr. Wesley, from different Societies to our Annual Conferences, requesting that they might receive the Lord's Supper from their own preachers, or such as Conference might appoint to administer it to them. For two years this point was combatted with success; but some of our leading friends conceiving that a few exempt cases might be allowed, opposition to the meas- ure was overruled. These exempt cases, as had been foreseen, annually increased; so that now a considerable number of our body have deviated in this instance from the Established Church; and I plainly perceive, that this deviation, un- less prevented, will, in time, bring about a uni- versal separation from the Establishment. "But how can this be prevented? I am inclined to think, that if a given number of our leading preachers, proposed by our General Conference, were to be ordained, and permitted to travel through our connection, and administer the Sac- raments to those societies who have been thus THE METHODISTS. 1-35 prejudiced as above, every difficulty would be removed. I have no doubt that the people would be universally satisfied. The men of greatest influence in the connection would, I am sure, unite with me; and every deviation from the Church of England would be done away. "In a letter which a few months past I took the liberty of writing to your lordship, on the business of our societies in Jersey, I observed, that for a little time I had been warped from my attachment from the Church of England, in con- sequence of my visiting the States of America; but like a bow too much bent, I have again re- turned. But I return with a full conviction that our numerous societies in America would have been a regular Presbyterian church, if Mr. Wes- ley and myself had not taken the steps which we judged it necessary to adopt." (Drew's Life of Coke, pp. 289, 290.) The Doctor then set the time that he would call upon the bishop and re- ceive ordination. The bishop waited nearly a month before he replied to this letter, then de- clined to accede to this request, and stated that if they had " such tender consciences " about re- ceiving the Lord's Supper from ' ' immoral men " the same thing ought to apply to ordination as well. These failures did not discourage him. Almost to the hour of his death, Dr. Coke knocked at the Episcopal door for ordination. Tyerman 136 CLOSE COMMUNION. gives these further examples: "In 1794, he se- cretly summoned a meeting, at Litchfield, of the most influential of English preachers, and passed a resolution, that the conference should appoint an order of bishops, to ordain deacons and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is a well-known fact, that, within twelve months of his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return most fully into the bosom of the Established Church, on condition, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, and the government would appoint him their bishop in India. These are unpleasant facts; which we would rather have consigned to oblivion, had they not been neces- sary to vindicate Wesley from the huge incon- sistency of ordaining a co-equal presbyter to be a bishop." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, pp. 434, 435.) The point I make is very clear. Dr. Coke did not think a man that had not received Episcopal ordination had a right to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper. In fact no man's high-church zeal outran his. Drew says of him: "In describ- ing the character of the clergy of America, he seems to have forgotten that he was still an Englishman; and he introduced his observations in a manner, that would seam, from his omitting, in the ardour of his zeal, the restrictive applica- tion, to imply an universal characteristic. On THE METHODISTS. 137 the subject of an Episcopal Establishment, under the immediate auspices of the State, he was equally negligent in marking the peculiar situa- tions of Great Britain and the United States; and he seemed hardly to be aware of the difficulty of vindicating the appendages of monarchy upon republican ground, or of expatiating upon the rights of independence on the continent without interfering with the regulations established in his native land." (Life of Coke, p. 97.) The very Discipline that he prepared was of the closest order. This is found in it: "Persons not belonging to the society may be admitted, provided they procure a recommendation from an Elder or a Deacon. But in no case is any per- son to be admitted, who is guilty of practices, for which, if a member he would be excluded from a Methodist society." (Drew's Life of Coke, p. 113.) The plain English of this is: An outsider may commune with us, provided he is willing to be a Methodist. 138 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER X. THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE METHODIST CHURCH. ARE THE METHODISTS CLOSE COM- MUNIONISTS? ASBURY AND HEDDING. THE DISCIPLINE. LIVING BISHOPS. WATSON AND OTHERS. ASBURY, who was the second bishop of the Methodist Church, was likewise a "close cominunionist. " He had serious doubts about be- ing ordained as "superintendent" by Dr. Coke. Dr. Hawks says: "On the 3d of November, 1784, Dr. Coke arrived in New York, and on the 14th met Mr. Asbury for the first time, who, upon learning of the new plan expressed strong doubts concerning it." (Hist. Eccl. U. S., vol. 1, p. 166.) When some of the Methodists had revolted against the Episcopalians, and went about to or- dain preachers of their own, it was Asbury who opposed and finally defeated the measure. Says Drew: "Mr. Asbury in the meanwhile, who had not yet shaken off the rusty fetters of 'Apostolic Succession,' found himself comparatively de- serted by those whose respect for him still re- mained undiminished. Against the illegality of their proceedings he bore a public testimony, denying the authority by which the preachers THE METHODISTS. 139 acted, and declaring the ordination to which they had given existence, invalid. With individuals his arguments had weight, and many hesitated to follow the measure they had adopted. In this manner he proceeded, until he had proselyted some, had silenced others, and had shaken the faith of all; so that at a subsequent conference, he found means to procure a vote, which declared the former ordination unscriptural." It will thus appear that Asbury, like Coke, was a believer in an Episcopal ordination as neces- sary for the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper. In their notes on the Discipline Asbury and Coke say: "We must also observe, that our elders should be very cautious how they admit to the communion persons who are not in our so- ciety. It would be highly injurious to our breth- ren if we suffered any to partake of the Lord's Supper with them whom we would not readily admit into our society on application made to us. Those whom we judge unfit to partake of our profitable, prudential means of grace, we would most certainly think improper to be partakers of an ordinance which has been expressly instituted by Christ himself." (History of the Discipline, p. 377.) Now if this bit of history proves anything, it is, that the Wesleys, Coke and Asbury, were all close communionists in the strictest sense of 140 CLOSE COMMUNION. that term. They regarded Baptists and Pres- byterians as unbaptized, excluded Dissenters from the table, and were zealous for all other high-church practices. In fact for seven years after its organization the Methodist Church was without the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, simply because they would not recognize any save Episcopal ordination. This they did not have and could not get. If the Methodists do not hold these things to-day, they have only the Episcopalians to thank for not bestowing upon them the much coveted gift of Episcopal ordination. But close communion did not stop here. The old Discipline was very stringent in its require- ments. The following relates to the Lord's Supper: "Question. Are there any directions to be given concerning the administration of the Lord's Supper? "Answer 1. Let those who have scruples con- cerning the receiving of it kneeling, be permitted to receive it either standing or sitting. ' ' 2. Let no person that is not a member of our church be admitted to the communion, without examination, and some token given by an elder or deacon. "3. No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us, who is guilty of any practice THE METHODISTS. 141 for which we would exclude a member of our church."' Certainly no Baptist or Presbyterian would care to be examined by an "elder or deacon." Bishop Hedding in an able discourse says of these rules: " Is it proper for a preacher to give out a general invitation in the congregation to members in good standing in other churches to come to the Lord's Supper? " To this the Bishop gives the following answer: '"No; for the most unworthy persons are apt to think themselves in good standing, and sometimes persons who are not members of any church will take the liberty from such an invitation to come. And again, there are some communities called churches, which, from heretical doctrines or immoral prac- tices, have no claim to the privileges of Chris- tians, and ought not to be admitted to the com- munion of any Christian people. The rule in that case is as follows: 2. Let no person be ad- mitted to the communion without examination, and some token given by an elder or deacon. 3. No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a member of our church." (Administration of the Discipline, pp. 72, 73.) But the most stringent of these rules is still in force. The Discipline now says: "No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us 142 CLOSE COMMUNION. who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a member of our church." (Discipline, 1890, sec. 408, p. 257.) The question arises: For what would a mem- ber be excluded from the Methodist Church? The Discipline answers: A member shall be ex- cluded for endeavoring "to sow dissension in any of our Societies by inveighing against either our doctrine or discipline." (Dis., 1890, sec. 283, p. 165.) It is said of a traveling preacher: "What shall be done with those ministers or preachers who hold and disseminate, publicly or privately, doc- trines which are contrary to our Articles oi Religion? ' ' Let the same process be observed as in the case of immorality." (Sec. 260, p. 152.) Now read this : ' ' No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a mem- ber of our Church." (Dis., sec. 408, p. 257.) It is quite certain that if these rules were en- forced that no one save a Methodist could ap- proach a Methodist communion table. There are many things a Baptist would reject in the Discipline and Articles of Faith. The Presby- terians could not abide the Arminianism and Episcopacy of the book. The truth is that a man holding the Presbyterian view of the Scrip- tures would be excluded from a Methodist THE METHODISTS. 143 Church, on the enforcement of these rules, as immoral. And the Discipline expressly says that if a man holds views contrary to the Articles of Faith he shall not approach the Lord's Table. I suppose that no creed in Christendom has been so often revised and radically changed as has been the Methodist Discipline. With all of its changes and emendations it is still a close communion book. I shall mention other par- ticulars. 1. The Methodists are exclusive in dress. "The putting on of gold and costly apparel" is forbidden. (Sec. 29, p. 30.) The older Disciplines went so far as to prescribe the cut of a woman's bonnet and the number of ruffles on her dress. 2. The Methodists are exclusive in their class- meetings. "Question 1. What directions are given concerning class-meetings? Answer 1. Let the membership of every church, wherever it is practicable, be divided into smaller companies, called classes, according to their respective places of abode; and let the members be exhorted to attend the meeting of the same."' (Sec. 229, p. 135.) 3. The Methodists are exclusive in their love feasts. "Question: What directions are given concerning love feasts? Answer 1. Love feasts shall be held quarterly, or at such other times as the preacher in charge may consider expedient, w ith closed doors, to which, besides Church-mem- 144 CLOSE COMMUNION. bers, other serious persons may be admitted by him." (Sec. 227, p. 134.) 4. The Methodist church is exclusive in song books. Let the people ' ' use our own Hymn and Tune Books." (Sec. 223, p. 133.) 5. The Methodist church is exclusive in trad- ing. "It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation. ' ' By doing good, especially to them that are of the household of faith, or groaning to be SO ; employing them preferably to others, buying one of another, helping each other in business; and so much the more because the world will love its own, and them only." (Sec. 29, pp. 30, 31.) This is a remarkable case of boycotting. 6. The Methodists are exclusive in their Sun- day-schools. "Question: What directions shall be given concerning Sunday-schools? "Answer 1. Let Sunday-schools be formed in all our congregations where ten persons can be collected for that purpose; and let mission schools be formed wherever practicable. "Answer 2. Let all the Sunday-schools con- nected with our congregations be under the con- trol of our own church; and let them use our own Catechisms, Question Books, and periodical literature. "Answer 3. The Quarterly Conference of each circuit and station shall be a Board of Managers, having the supervision of all of the Sunday- THE METHODISTS. 145 schools within its bounds. It shall elect at the fourth Quarterly Conference of each year, on nomination of the preacher in charge, a superin- tendent for each Sunday-school under its care: provided, that when a vacancy occurs in the su- perintendency of any Sunday-school during the interim of the Quarterly Conference, the preacher in charge shall appoint a superintendent to serve until the meeting of the next Quarterly Confer- ence: and provided, also, that the preacher in charge shall appoint a superintendent for any new school that may be organized between the meetings of the Quarterly Conference. ' 'Answer 4. It shall be the duty of the preacher in charge of every circuit and station to be pres- ent in all of the Sunday-schools in his charge as often as practicable, to catechise the children, to preach to them as often as convenient, to ex- hort them to attend regularly upon divine ser- vice, to see that they are instructed in the doctrines and usages of our Church, and to look after their spiritual welfare as a part of his regular pastoral charge. He shall also lay before the Quarterly Conference, at each quarterly meeting, to be en- tered upon its journal, a written statement of the number and state of the Sunday-school in his charge, and the pastoral instruction of children, and make a report of the same to his Annual Conference." 10 146 CLOSE COMMUNION. Everything about this Sunday-school has the principle of close communion. Here are six specifications of close commun- ion. They cover the most minute details of human life, even down to the minor particular of wearing apparel. As long as these rules and regulations stand on the Methodist law book it does not become them to discuss Baptist close communion. It is so understood by the Bishops. Rev. Thos. Bowman, D.D., Bishop of the M. E. Church, says: St. Louis, May, 31, 1892. Dear Brother: The following are the words we use, when inviting people to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper: " Ye that do truly and ear- nestly repent of your sins and are in love and in charity with your neighbors and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; draw near with faith, and take this Holy Sacra- ment to your comfort." Prom this you will see: 1. That we expect those who come to be Chris- tians. 2. We suppose them to be baptized. 3. As a rule we expect them to be members of some church. In our church, those who are probationers are included. With best wishes yours, Thos. Bowman. THE METHODISTS. 147 Rev. E. R. Hendrix, Bishop of the M. E. Church South, says: Kansas City, Mo., May 12th, 1892. Mr. J. T. Christian, Jackson, Miss. : Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 5th inst. , which came during my absence from home, I will say that our invitation to the Lord's Supper is in this language : ' ' Ye that do truly and earnestly repent of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God and walking from henceforth in his holy ways, draw near with faith, and take the holy sacrament to your comfort, and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees." As you will see such an invitation implies a holy life which is supreme. While as a rule only church members (which means baptized persons) partake of the Lord's Supper, yet where a penitent is deeply perplexed and is slow to obtain pardon for his sins, a wise pastor some- times brings him to the test of the sacrament where in the very act of presenting himself there have been cases of happy conversion, the weak faith being strengthened by the outward and visible signs which enable the penitent to discern the Lord's body. Yours sincerely, E. R. Hendrix. 148 CLOSE COMMUNION. Or as Bishop J. C. Keener, of New Orleans, writes under date of May 12th, 1892: "No change in the conditions for the last one hundred years. " I will quote two recent writers of the Method- ist Church. Rev. Miles G. Bullock, a prominent Methodist writer of New York, says on this subject in a book with the title, "What Christians Believe": ' 'A Baptist maintains that only believers are to be baptized; hence, infant baptism is nonsense; baptism is baptism by immersion; baptized be- lievers only have any right to the Lord's Supper. How can they, therefore, consistently invite or allow me, having only been sprinkled, and that in infancy, to commune with them? Do they keep me away from the Lord's Table, or is it I who am responsible for neglect of this sacra- ment, having refused to comply with the essen- tial conditions of its reception ? Close commun- ion, as it is generally termed, is the only logical and consistent course for Baptist churches to pursue. If their premises are right, the conclu- sion is surely just as it should be. 'But,' says one, whose prejudices are all awake, ' why will they not commune with those believers in other churches who have been immersed? ' For the consistent reason that such persons have violated the New Testament order in communing with unbaptized believers, and are, therefore, not considered in good standing. They do not feel THE METHODISTS. 149 willing to countenance such laxity in Christian discipline. Let us honor them for stern stead- fastness in maintaining what they believe to be a Bible precept, rather than criticise and cen- sure because they differ with us concerning the intent and mode of Christian baptism, and believe it to be an irreparable condition of coming to the Lord's Supper.*' The New York Christian Advocate said in an editorial in 1884: "We do not believe in adminis- tering the sacrament to children, nor to any one that, on their personal character, moral or men- tal, are not, in the opinion of the church, suitable to be received intelligently on probation in the church, with reference to admission into full membership, if they live consistent Christian lives and show that they have been converted.'* It is therefore evident not only that the Meth- odist Church has rules governing the approach to the Lord's table, but if they were enforced, no one save a Methodist could commune at it. If any thing is proved by these extracts it is that every church has the right to judge of the qualifications of those who come to its table. I would go further and state that the Lord's Sup- per is placed within, and directly under the con- trol of the church. "The eucharist," says Dr. Hibbard. '"is a church ordinance and as such can be properly participated in only by church mem- bers. As a church ordinance, it never can be 150 CLOSE COMMUNION. carried out of the church. This is so evident that no words can make it more plain, or add to its force." (Baptism, p. 185). In principle are the Baptists any more close than are the Methodists? I shall let Dr. Hib- bard give answer. He says: "Before enter- ing upon the argument before us, it is just to remark that in one principle the Baptists and Pedobaptists churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essential to constitute visible church membership. This also we hold. The only question, then, that here divides us, is, What is essential to valid baptism ? The Bap- tists, in passing the sweeping sentence of dis- franchisement upon all other Christian churches, have acted upon a principle held in common with all other Christian churches; viz., that baptism is essential to church membership. They have denied our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have been excluded from their table. That they err greatly in their views of baptism, we, of course believe. ' '■But according to their views of baptism, they cer- tainly are consistent in restricting thus their com- munion. We would not be understood as passing a judgment of approval upon their course; but we say, their views of baptism force them upon THE METHODISTS. 151 the ground of strict communion, and herein they act upon the same principle as other churches, i.e., they admit only those whom they deem baptized persons to the communion table. Of course they must be their own judges as to what baptism is. It is evident that, according to our views of bap- tism, it is equally evident, they can never recip- rocate the courtesy. And the charge of close communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us inasmuch as the ques- tion OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM IS DETERMINED BY AS LIBERAL PRINCIPLES AS IT IS W T ITH ANY OTHER PROTESTANT CHURCH, SO far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned; i.e., it is determined by valid baptism." (Hib- bard on Bapt., P. 2, p. 174.) Richard "Watson, and Methodism boasts of no greater, lays down these rules to govern the Lord's Supper: "1. The very nature of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper excludes from participating in it not only open unbelievers, but all who reject the doctrine of the atonement made by the vicarious death of Christ for 'the remission of sins.' Such persons have indeed tacitly acknowledged this, by reducing the rite to a mere commemoration of the fact of Christ's death, and of those virtues of humility, benevolence, and patience, which his sufferings called forth. If, therefore, the Lord's Supper be in truth much more than this; 152 CLOSE COMMUNION. if it recognize the sacrificial character of Christ's death, and the doctrine of faith in his blood, as necessary to our salvation, this is ' an altar of which they have no right to eat ' who reject these doctrines; and from the Lord's table all such persons ought to be repelled by ministers, when- ever, from compliance with custom, or other motives, they would approach it. "-2. It is equally evident that when there is no evidence in persons of true repentance for sin, and of desire of salvation, according to the terms of the Gospel, they are disqualified from partak- ing at 'the table of the Lord.' They drink and eat unworthily, and' fall therefore into ' condem- nation. ' The whole act is indeed on their part an act of bold profanation or of hypocrisy; they profess by this act to repent, and have no sorrow for sin; they profess to seek deliverance from its guilt and power, and yet remain willingly under its bondage; they profess to trust in Christ's death for pardon, and are utterly unconcerned concerning either; they profess to feed upon Christ, and hunger and thirst after nothing but the world; they place before themselves the suf- ferings of Christ; but when they ' look upon him whom they have pierced, ' they do not ' mourn because of him,' and they grossly offend the all- present majesty of heaven, by thus making light of Christ, and grieving the Holy Spirit. "3. It is a part of Christian discipline in every THE METHODISTS. 1 ." )', religious society to prevent such persons from communicating with the Church. They are ex- pressly excluded by apostolic authority, as well as by the original institution of this sacrament, which was confined to Christ's disciples; and ministers would partake of other men's sins, if knowingly they were to admit to the Supper of the Lord those who in their spirit and lives deny him." (Inst. Theol., vol. 2, pp. 669, 670.) The New York Christian Advocate, the ablest Methodist paper on this continent, says: "There is no authority, Scriptural or Methodistic, for making the invitation general. The man who will not subject himself to the discipline of the Christian Church, and ally himself with its mem- bers, has no right to ask or receive communion at its hands. The course pursued by some min- isters degrades the church and sacraments. Every person should be formally recognized as a disciple of Christ; it should not be left to his own judgment. Years ago a minister said: 'We sit in judgment upon no one. If in his heart he feels that he loves the Lord, he can come and commune with us.' And the meanest loafer in town, in debt to half of the church for money spent upon his vices, unkind to his heart-broken wife, and expelled from another church, marched forward with a smirk upon his face to take com- munion. After what the minister had said, he could not consistently refuse him. but nearly 154 CLOSE COMMUNION. every important member of the church expressed his disapproval in such terms that the experi- ment was not tried there again." It would, therefore, be wise for some persons to learn this further lesson given by the New York Christian Advocate: ' 'The regularBaptist churches in the United States may be considered to-day as practically a unit on three points — the non-use of infant baptism, the immersion of believers only upon a profession of faith, and the adminis- tration of the holy communion to such only as have been immersed by ministers holding these views. In our opinion the Baptist Church owes its amazing prosperity largely to its adherence to these views. In doctrine and government, and in other respects, it is the same as the Con- gregationalists. In numbers, the regular Bap- tists are more than six times as great as the Congregationalists. It is not bigotry to adhere to one's convictions, provided the spirit of Chris- tian love prevails. " With the above facts before me, taken as they are from the Discipline and the ablest writers of that denomination, I am led to believe, that in principle and often times in practice, the Meth- odist Church is very stringent in its terms of communion. I am equally sure that the Meth- odists, if they should carry out their own prin- ciples, would be far more stringent than the Baptists. It is also quite certain that the Meth- THE METHODISTS. L55 odist circuit riders, and some others, who throw down all barriers, and give an indiscriminate in- vitation for all persons, good and bad, to partake of the Lord's Supper, act contrary to the Disci- pline and teachings of their church. It is then a point made out that the requirements of the Baptists in their terms of communion, are nc more rigid than are the Methodists. 156 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XI. THE TERMS OP COMMUNION AMONG THE DISCI- PLES OR OP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ARE THE DISCIPLES CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? THIS denomination believes with all others that faith, baptism, and church member- ship are prerequisites to the communion. They go further than some and state that baptism is immersion and deny infant baptism. Hold- ing such views, how they can be other than "close communionists, " and be at all consistent, I do not know. I do not wish to speculate so I shall let their foremost men answer. I begin with Alexander Campbell. He says: ' ' We do not recollect that we have ever argued out the merits of this free and open communion system. But one remark we must offer in pass- ing, that we must regard it as one of the weakest and most vulnerable causes ever plead; and that the ' great ' Mr. Hall, as he is called, has in his defence of the practice, made it appear worse than before. In attempting to make it reason- able, he has only proved how unreasonable and unscriptural it is." (Mil. Har., vol. 2, p. 393.) In reply to a question from Mr. Jones of Eng- land, Mr. Campbell says: "Your third question THE DISCIPLES OK CHRISTIANS. \"u is, Do any of your churches admit unbaptized persons to communion, a practice that is becom- ing very prevalent in this country? Not one so far as is known to me. I am at a loss to un- derstand on what principle — by what law, prece- dent or license, any congregation founded upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone, could dispense with the practice of the primitive church — with the com- mandment of the Lord and the authority of his apostles." (Mil. Har., vol. 6, p. 18.) In his debate with Mr. Rice, Mr. Campbell says: "We have no open communion with us, as they in England have. The principle is not at all recognized among us. In England there are large communities of free communion Bap- tists, who admit Pedobaptists as freely as they do the baptized. We have no such a custom among us." (Debate with Rice, p. 810.) In the Christian Baptist, Mr. Campbell says: "But I object to making it a rule, in any case, to receive unimmersed persons to church ordi- nances: 1st. Because it is nowhere commanded. 2nd. Because it is nowhere precedented in the New Testament. 3rd. Because it necessarily corrupts the simplicity and uniformity of the whole genius of the New Testament. 4th. Be- cause it not only deranges the order of the king- dom, but makes void one of the most important institutions ever given to man. It necessarily 158 CLOSE COMMUNION. makes immersion of non-effect. 5th. Because in making a canon to dispense with a divine in- stitution of momentous import, they who do so assume the very same dispensing power which issued in that tremendous apostasy which we and all Christians are laboring to destroy. If a Christian community puts into its magna charta, covenant or constitution, an assumption to dis- pense with an institution of the Great King, who can tell where this power of granting license to itself may terminate." (Christ. Bapt., vol. 6, Ans. to Query 9, p. 528.) Mr. Campbell was certainly no open commun- ionist. The Apostolic Times, a very widely circulated paper, says: "I do not believe that the unim- mersed can sit at the Lord's table; at least I do not believe that they do it. Hence, with me, a table set by them is not the Lord's table; and I would not eat at it. * * * From the preceding it would appear that I am a close communionist. This I certainly am, in the severest, true sense of the term." (Editorial, February 29th, 1872.) Another number of the Apostolic Times says: "Open communion will not only kill Baptist churches; but any other churches holding im- mersion as the one baptism, in which it is adopted." In the Christian Quarterly, for January, 1875, Robert Graham, President of Hocker Female THE DISCIPLES OK CHRISTIANS. 159 College says: "In regard to what is called open or close communion the position of the Disciples is peculiar. Pedobaptist churches are usually open or free communionists. This they can be in harmony with their principles. All churches agree that baptism is a prerequisite to commun- ion at the table of the Lord; and as Pedobaptists accept sprinkling, and pouring and immersion as valid forms of baptism, they can receive at the table of the Lord any one who has been baptized, and is living a godly life. Baptists, however, do not allow anything to be baptism but the im- mersion of a believer; and in this the Disciples are in perfect agreement with them; hence nei- ther of the churches can consistently advocate open communion." The late Isaac Errett, for many years editor of the Standard, says: ''Restore baptism to its place as the ordinance in which the believing penitent puts on Christ, and receives the assur- ance of the forgiveness of sins. Restore the Lord's Supper to its place as the weekly feast of Christians." By Christians he means only the baptized. (Walks About Jerusalem, p. 147.) Moses E. Lard says: "In the outset of the reformation, our motto was: And thus saith the Lord for every article of our faith, a precept, or precedent for all we do. In the light of this cherished postulate, what defence can we plead for our act, when we sit down to commune with 160 CLOSE COMMUNION. the unimmersed. * * * But suppose a man to be a true believer in Christ, to be truly penitent, to be sprinkled and not immersed, and sincerely to think this baptism, to be strictly a moral man, and to feel in his heart that he is a Christian — what then? May he not commune? I answer, yes: provided it can be shown that sincerely thinking so transmutes an act of sprinkling into an act of immersion or causes God to accept the thing He has not appointed for the thing he has." (In Quarterly, 1863, pp. 41, 52.) It seems that some Baptist minister in the East had presided at the communion table in a " Chris- tian Church," and some of the "Disciples" were loudly praising him for liberality. Rev. E. W. Herndon, Editor of the Quarterly Review, replies: ' 'A Baptist is a ' brother among brethren' when he will violate his party obligations and partake of the Lord's Supper with the disciples of Jesus. This man knows that his religious organization holds that it is wrong for him to do this thing, yet he does it, and continues to hold his fellow- ship with it, and receives pay from its members for preaching its doctrines. Is he honest? We have heard that Spurgeon permits members of other religious organizations to commune with him, but not long since he denounced those he called Campbellites as heretics. * * * Our duty is to proclaim the terms of naturalization, and it is God's prerogative to decide who have complied THE DISCIPLES OR CHRISTIANS. 161 with the terms. We have no right to proclaim the terms, and then say that citizenship may be acquired by other means. According to the above, a Baptist is a 'brother among brethren,' and just as much a citizen of the Kingdom of God as those for whom he was presiding. If he is a 'brother among brethren,' then he is one of the famil}- and our debates with Baptists must cease. If the Baptists will permit it, disciples of Jesus, when living in a locality where there is no congregation of disciples, may and should take membership in a Baptist organization, assist in supporting the pastor and their missionary enterprises, if this position is correct. We do not so read the Bible. It may be possible that these editors are more liberal in their fellowship and fraternity than God. We may be narrow, but we endeavor to be consistent, and we think that we are not narrower than the Word of God." (Christian Review, 1887, p. 637.) Prof. J. W. McGarvey, of the Bible College, Lexington, Ky., says: "We believe that faith, repentance and baptism are the Scriptural pre- requisites to the Lord's Supper, and that no be- liever is entitled to the ordinance until he has been baptized. We believe the privilege belongs to all baptized believers, and to those who are leading an orderly life, and to none others." (Apostolic Times, November 17th, 1874.) n 162 CLOSE COMMUNION. The American Christian Review, Cincinnati, Ohio, says: " It is contrary to the Word of God to break bread and to partake of the cup with persons who have never been immersed into the death of Christ. See Rom. 6." These writers undoubtedly teach close com- munion. WHAT IS BAPTISM? 163 CHAPTER XII. WHAT IS BAPTISM? FROM the standard authorities of all of these denominations, as well as from the Scrip- tures, I have demonstrated that conversion, bap- tism and church membership precede commun- ion. Dr. Knapp sums up the matter when he says: ' ' None but actual members of the Christian church can take part in the Lord's Supper; those who are not Christians are excluded from it. On this point there has been a universal agreement. For by this rite we profess our interest in the Christian church, and our belief in Christ." (Theology, p. 502.) From this argument there is but one point of divergence, What is church order? If that point were settled, there would be no further contro- versy. The point of difference is baptism in its act, subjects and design. We regard sprinkling and pouring, infant baptism, and when the rite is administered with the wrong design, as no baptism. Hence we accept the principle of Ter- tullian: "They who are not rightly baptized, are doubtless not baptized at all." (De Baptismo, cap. xv, p. 230.) So certain are we that those who practice such things have departed from 164 CLOSE COMMUNION. church order that we believe that they have de- barred themselves from the table of the Lord. I shall go into no extended arguments on these subjects, but shall content myself with some passing reflections. The argument for immersion as the act of Christian baptism is overwhelming. Even our English Bible teaches immersion; although it is an Episcopal translation rendered under rules, that forbade the translation of baptize, and com- manded that the word should be merely trans- ferred. I have those rules before me. Rules three and four are the ones in point, so I simply quote them: "(3.) The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, namely, as the word ' church ' not to be translated congregation, etc. (4.) When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept that has been most commonly used by the most eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the pro- priety of the place, and the analogy of faith." (See Puller's Church History of Britain, vol. 3, p. 229.) That "baptize" was included among these ecclesiastical words is evident from the preface that King James' translators put to their Bible. I find the following: "Avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words and betake them to others; as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation for church; as on the other side they had shunned WHAT IS BAPTISM? 165 the obscurity of the Papists in their azymes, tunike, rational, holocaust, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full." Yet taking King James' translation immersion is the evident meaning of baptism. Read such passages as these: "And there went out unto John all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusa- lem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins," Mark 1:5; "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him," Mark 1:9,10; "And John was also baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized," John 3:23; "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip," Acts 8:38,39; "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even we also should walk in the newness of life," Rom. 6:4; "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph. 4:5. I have already showed that baptize was trans- ferred and not translated. It is a Greek word in English dress. Dr. Edward Beecher says of it: 166 CLOSE COMMUNION. "I remark, then, that to transfer words from one language to another, is not to mistranslate, but simply to take a word from the stores of one language, and by it to enrich those of another. The sense of such a word is to be fixed, as in the sense of all other words, by the association of ideas. For example, to dip, is of Saxon origin, and belongs to the native stores of our language. On the other hand the word immergo did not be- long to our language, but to the Latin. At length, from a form of this verb, the word im- merse was transferred to our language, and immersio was transferred to immersion. In like manner baptize and baptism have been trans- ferred from the Greek." (Baptism with Refer- ence to its Modes and Subjects, p. 122.) We are therefore justified in appealing to the Greek for the original meaning of the word bap- tize. It will there be found to have a special and not a general meaning. As John Pye Smith says: ' ' The New Testament has no generic term to des- ignate Baptism and the Lord's Supper." (First Lines of Christian Theology, Art. Bapt. ) In the original Greek, beyond question, baptize means to dip. I shall quote the two most learned Greek Lexicons published, Liddell and Scott, and Thayer. Liddell and Scott define the word : " To dip in, or under water." Thayer says: "To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge. In the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite WHAT IS BAPTISM? 167 of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received by Christians and adjusted to the nature and contents of their religion, viz: an immersion in water. " How immersion was changed into sprinkling is equally evident. The brilliant Pressense says: ' ' To comprehend the value of this august symbol (baptism), we must consider it under its primi- tive form. I declare at the outset, that I admit the right of the church to modify the form and rite according to times and places. The new covenant is not bound, as was the old, to a Le- vitical code which rules absolutely all the details of worship, all religious usages. The details are left to Christian liberty; and forms may be varied, provided the spirit of the gospel is not changed. Let it, then, be well understood that we raise no objection to the actual form of bap- tism in our churches. We believe that it would be an act of Judaism to protest against it, giving thereby an exaggerated importance to a question of this nature. The "West can reproduce with difficulty the ceremonies of the East, and we understand very well that sprinkling has been substituted for immersion. Nevertheless, to seize with entire clearness the primary idea of the sacrament of regeneration, we must in some way make a primitive baptism assist us. The neo- phyte was first plunged into the water; and 168 CLOSE COMMUNION. then, when he had emerged, he received the im- position of hands. These two acts of baptism represented the two grand sides of the Christian life — repentance and faith, death and the new life. The neophyte is buried under the waters in sign of his voluntary death to self, in which every serious conversion begins: he becomes one who is planted in the crucifixion of his Saviour. Then he emerges to light in sign of his inward renewal: he becomes one who is planted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus is figured in a manner the most expressive and solemn all this grand drama of regeneration. " (For further information on this subject consult the author's work: Immersion, the Act of Christian Baptism, Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, Ky. ) The Scriptures are equally opposed to infant baptism. The commission under which we bap- tize reads: "Go ye therefore and teach all na- tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. " (Matt. 28:19,20.) Mark's words are: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15,16.) Without doubt, in these passages, discipleship and faith precedes WHAT IS BAPTISM? 169 baptism. Infant baptism must, therefore, di- rectly nullify the words of the Lord Jesus. John the Baptist declared his baptism was "unto repentance," Matt. 3:11; Jesus "made" disciples before he baptized them, John 4:1; and in the apostolic times ' ' they that gladly received the word were baptized," Acts 2:41. From these, and other passages too numerous to quote, it is evident that infant baptism has no place in the Scriptures. Infant baptism originated not in the Scrip- tures, but in the unholy doctrine of baptismal salvation. In Lecky's ' ' History of Rationalism" occur the following burning lines: "According to the unanimous belief of the early church all who were external to Christianity were doomed to eternal damnation, and therefore the new- born infant was subject to the condemnation un- less baptism had united it to the church. At a period which is so early that it is impossible to define it (we are able now to define it) infant baptism was introduced into the church; it was universally said to be for the remission of sins, and the whole body of the fathers without excep- tion or hesitation pronounced that all infants who died unbaptized were excluded from heaven. All through the Middle Ages we trace the influ- ence of this doctrine in the innumerable super- stitious rites which were devised as substitutes for regular baptism. Nothing, indeed, can be 170 CLOSE COMMUNION. more curious, nothing can be more deeply pa- thetic than the record of the many ways by which the terror-stricken mothers attempted to evade the awful sentence of the church. Some- times the baptismal water was sprinkled upon the womb; sometimes the still-born child was baptized in hopes that the Almighty would ante- date the ceremony. These and many similar practices continued all through the Middle Ages in spite of every effort to extirpate them, and severest censures were unable to persuade the people that they were entirely ineffectual, for the doctrine of the church had wrung the mother's heart with an agony that was too poignant even for that submissive age to bear. Weak and su- perstitious women, who never dreamed of rebel- ling against the teaching of their clergy, could not acquiesce in the perdition of their offspring, and they vainly attempted to escape from the dilemma by multiplying superstitious practices or by attributing to them a more than orthodox efficacy. " It is said that this is not believed among Meth- odists, Presbyterians and others, "at the pres- ent day. I answer that infant baptism is not practiced among Presbyterians, Congregational - ists and Methodists to-day as at an earlier time. But much of this superstition still exists; else why are ministers hastily sent for to baptize children supposed to be dying? As churches be- WHAT IS BAPTISM? 171 gin to abandon the doctrine that baptism is necessary to the infant's salvation they begin also to abandon infant baptism. Just in propor- tion as the New Testament ideas prevail, this rite, which is a survival of heathen superstition and Roman tradition, and is utterly without the warrant either of Scripture or reason, falls into disuse. The recent debates over the Westmin- ster Confession have brought before the minds of all the fact that early Calvinistic theologians taught that dying infants might be sent to perdi- tion, though as non-elect rather than as unbap- tized. " Pedobaptists fully acknowledge that the Scrip- tures are as silent as the grave on the subject of infant baptism. Hear only a few scholars. Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, and among Southern Meth- odists there has not arisen a greater, says : ' ' But what we wish, in this connection, to emphasize most particularly, is the wonderful contrast be- tween the silence of Christ and the everlasting clamors of his Church. Though he uttered not one express word on the subject of infant bap- tism, yet, on this very subject, have his pro- fessed followers filled the world with sound and fury. The Apostles imitated his silence. But yet, in spite of all of this, have the self-styled ' successors of the Apostles. ' and the advocates of their claims, made the universal Church, and all the ages, ring with controversies, loud and 172 CLOSE COMMUNION. long and deep, respecting the rite of infant bap- tism. Let us follow, then, step by step, the rise of the traditions of the Church, and the inven- tions of men, by which the beautifully simple ordinance of Christian baptism has been so frightfully disfigured, and made to obscure the freeness, the fulness, and the glory of the Gos- pel of Christ, as well as to outrage the reason and moral sentiments of mankind. It will be found, unless we are very greatly mistaken, that the authors of these traditions and inventions, have been wise above what is written, and foolish above what could be conceived." (Southern Re- view, April, 1874, p. 336.) Dr. Bennett, a more recent Methodist writer, says: "With the most of theologians the exercise of faith is regarded as the necessary condition of the efficient operation of the sacrament. * * * Thus the first converts, whose names and the circumstances of whose baptism are recorded in the Scriptures, were of adult ago. That infants and young children were baptized during the apostolic age is nowhere positively affirmed in the New Testament. " (Archseology, pp. 390, 391.) Dr. Meyer, the most learned of modern com- mentators, says: ' ' Therefore the baptism of even the children of Christian parents, of which there is not a trace in the New Testament, was not, as Origen supposed, an apostolic custom, inasmuch as it met with early and prolonged resistance; WHAT IS BAPTISM? 173 but it is a practice that arose after the age of the apostles, by a gradual process in connection with the development of church life and of church doc- t rine. There is no reliable testimony concerning it until the age of Tertullian, who opposed it with earnestness. It was defended, however, by Cyprian ; but it was only in the time of Augus- tine that it became general." (Com. Acts 16:15.) Dr. Harnack, the foremost living Church His- torian, says: "The introduction of the practice of pedobaptism into the church is hidden in ob- scurity. If it owes its origin to the indispensa- bleness of the same to salvation, this is an argument that the superstitious view of baptism had become greatly strengthened." (Harnack: Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bk. 1, ss. 358, 359.) We think our friends of other denominations are radically wrong on the design of baptism. In some way or another they make baptism essential to salvation. "We believe that a man is saved through faith, without works, by the aton- ing mercy of the Lord Jesus. We do not believe that a man is saved by priestly manipulations, by ordinances, nor by churchly functions. So we stand against baptismal salvation in all of its forms. That others hold baptismal salvation is be- yond doubt. Episcopalians believe in baptismal salvation. 174 CLOSE COMMUNION. Nothing is more manifest than that baptismal salvation is taught in the Prayer Book. In the Public Baptism of Infants the minister prays: ' 'Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all who need, the helper of all who flee to thee for suc- cour, the life of those who believe, and the resur- rection of the dead; we call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming to the holy baptism, may receive the remission of sin, by spiritual regen- eration." In the Catechism which every one must learn before he is confirmed I find : "What is your name? ' ' Answer : N. or M. "Who gave you this name? "Answer: My sponsors in baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. ' ' How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in his church? "Answer: Two only, as generally necessary to salvation; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. " And in the Order of Confirmation the Bishop prays: "Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins; Strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost." WHAT IS BAPTISM? 175 There is no kind of doubt that this is baptismal salvation. And this is so understood by Episco- pal writers. Dr. Wall says: "Most of the Pedobaptists go no further than St. Austin does; they hold that God, by his Spirit, does at the time of baptism seal and apply to the infant that ij there dedi- cated to him the promises of the covenant of which he is capable, viz : adoption, pardon of sin, translation from the state of nature to that of grace, etc. On which account the infant is said to be regenerated of (or by) the Spirit. " (Hist. Infant Baptism, vol 1, p. 175.) Lord Macaulay says of the Episcopalian Church: "A controversialist who puts an Ar- minian sense on her articles and homilies will be pronounced by candid men to be as unreasonable as a controversialist who denies that the doc- trine of baptismal regeneration can be discovered in her liturgy. " (Hist. Eng., vol. 1, p. 41.) Presbyterians make baptism a means of grace. They still call baptism and the Lord's Supper by the popish name of ' ' sacraments. " The doctrine is thus expressed in the Confession of Faith: "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits ; and to confirm our interests in him, as also to J3ut a visi- ble difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly 176 CLOSE COMMUNTON. to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his word." (Article XXVII.) The view of Calvin is thus stated by Dr. Schaff : "He taught that believers, while they receive with their mouths the visible elements, receive also by faith the spiritual realities signified and sealed thereby — namely, the benefit of the aton- ing sacrifice on the cross and the life-giving virtue of Christ's glorified humanity in heaven, which the Holy Ghost conveys to the soul in a supernatural manner. " Or in the words of Dr. Nevin: "The living energy, the vivific virtue, as Calvin styles it, of Christ's flesh, is made to flow over into the communicant, making him more and more one with Christ himself, and thus more and more an heir of the same immortality that is brought to light in his person." Or as Dr. Nevin puts it in another place: The Church ' ' makes us Christians by the sacrament of holy baptism, which she always held to be of supernatural force for this very purpose." (Christ. Nurture, p. 97.) If this is not sacramen- tal salvation, I do not know how to name it. Dr. Guthrie says: "And prone, as we of Scot- land are, to boast that our fathers, with Knox at their head, came forth from Rome with less of her old superstitions about them than the most of other churches, to what else than some linger- ing remains of popery can we ascribe the ex- treme anxiety which some parents show to have WHAT IS BAPTISM? 177 baptism administered to a dying child'? Does not this look very like a rag of the old faith? It smells of the sepulcher." (Gos. in Ezek., p. 213.) Dr. Charles Hodge is good authority. He says: "Baptism, however, is not only a sign and a seal; it is also a means of grace, because in it the blessings which it signifies are conveyed, and the promises of which it is the seal, are as- sured or fulfilled to those who are baptized, pro- vided they believe." "It does not follow from this that the benefits of redemption may not be conferred on infants at the time of baptism. That is in the hands of God. What is to hinder the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ, or their receiving the renewing of the Holy Ghost, so that their whole nature may be developed in a state of reconciliation with God ] Doubtless this often occurs; but whether it does or not, their baptism stands good; it assures them of salvation if they do not renounce their baptismal covenant,"' (Syst. Theology, vol. 3, pp. 589, 590.) Methodists believe in baptismal salvation. They call baptism a sacrament and ascribe to it grace. Sacraments are thus mentioned in the Discipline: "Sacraments, ordained of Christ, are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by the which he does work invisibly in us. and doth not 12 178 CLOSE COMMUNION. only quicken, but also strenghten and confirm our faith in him." (Discipline, p. 18.) In the Administration of Infant Baptism it is said: "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to this child, now to be baptized with water, that which by nature he cannot have : that he may be bap- tized with the Holy Ghost, received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same " (Discipline, p. 258.) How baptism can give to an infant that ' ' which by nature he cannot have" and be "made a lively member of" the Church I do not know. If this is not baptismal salvation I am mistaken. Indeed, Dr. Bledsoe says : ' ' Now the man knows absolutely nothing on the subject of our late article (and had, therefore, better say nothing), who does not know that, the history of infant baptism, is, in a very great measure, the history of baptismal regeneration itself. An edition of Shakespeare's Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted, would not be a more ridiculous produc- tion than a history of infant baptism without the introduction of baptismal regeneration." (South- ern Review, July, 1874, p. 148.) WHAT IS BAPTISM? 179 Lest I may be mistaken in my view of the Dis- cipline I shall give Wesley's own words. He says: ' ' By baptism, we, who were by ' nature the children of wrath," are made the children of God. And this regeneration which our church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being grafted into the body of Christ's Church we are made the children of God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, • Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ' (John 3:5.) By water, then, as a means — the water of baptism — we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the Apostles, 'the washing of regeneration.' Our Church therefore ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the in- ward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is in- fused, which will not be wholly taken away, un- less we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long continued wickedness. " (Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 248, 249.) The above language cannot be explained so that it will not teach baptismal salvation. Tyer- man thus comments upon it: "This is strong and somewhat startling language, and yet not really 180 CLOSE COMMUNION. stronger than Wesley used in the sermon on the New Birth. " "In reference to infants he unques- tionably held the high-church doctrine of his father. It is no part of our proposed task either to justify or to condemn this opinion; our sole object is honestly to relate the facts." (Life of Wesley, vol. 2, pp. 264, 265.) If there be no sacramental efficacy in these ordinances, why will a Methodist minister hasten at midnight to baptize a dying infant, or give the communion to a dying man? Such a thing has doubtless been done. Wesley makes baptismal salvation his primary reason for infant baptism, and it is the only ground upon which that rite can be defended He says: "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, un- less this be washed away by baptism. It has been already proved, that this original stain cleaves to every child of man; and that hereby they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation. It is true, the Second Adam has found a remedy for the disease which came upon all by the offense of the first. But the benefit of this is to be received through the means which he hath appointed; through baptism in particu- lar, which is the ordinary means which he hath appointed for that purpose; and to which God hath tied us, though he may not have tied him- WHAT IS BAPTISM? 181 self. Indeed, where it cannot be had, the case is different; but extraordinary cases do not make void a standing rule. This therefore is our first ground. Infants need to be washed from origi- nal sin; therefore they are proper subjects of baptism." (Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 251, 252.) The Disciples, or Christian Church, hold the doctrine of baptismal salvation. They make faith, repentance and baptism as the necessary conditions of salvation. This theory debases re- pentance and faith to mere carnal ordinances; and exalts baptism to an extraordinary degree. That I am not mistaken appears from the fol- lowing authors: Alexander Campbell says: ' 'If blood can whiten or cleanse garments, certainly water can wash away sins. There is, then, a transferring of the efficacy of blood to water; and a transferring of the efficacy of water to blood. This is a plain solution of the whole matter. God has trans- ferred in some way, the whitening efficacy, or cleansing power, of water to blood; and the ab- solving or pardoning power of blood to water. This is done upon the same principle as that of accounting faith for righteousness. What a gra- cious institution. God has opened a fountain for sin, for moral pollution. He has given it an ex- tension far and wide as sin has spread — far and wide as water flows. Wherever water, faith, and the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are, 182 CLOSE COMMUNION. there will be found the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Yes; as God first gave the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given the efficacy of blood to water. This, as was said, is figurative, but it is not a figure that misleads, for the meaning is given without a figure; viz: immersion for the remission of sins. And to him that made the washing of clay from the eyes, the washing away of blindness, it is competent to make the immer- sion of the body in water efficacious to the wash- ing away of sin from the conscience. " (Millenial Harbinger, Extra, p. 41, 1830, vol. 1.) Again: "I am bold, therefore, to affirm, that every one who, in the belief of what the Apostle spoke, was immersed, did, in the very instance in which he was put under the water receive the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If so, then who will not concur with me in saying that Christian immersion is the gospel in water." (Christian Baptist, p. 417.) Once more: "If being born of water means immersion, as clearly proved by all witnesses; then, remission of sins cannot, in this life, be constitutionally enjoyed previous to immersion. If there be any proposition regarding any item of the Christian institution, which admits of clearer proof, or fuller illustration than this one, I have yet to learn where it may be found." (Christian System, p. 217.) Scores of other passages can be given from WHAT IS BAPTISM? 183 the writings of Mr. Campbell quite as strong as these. Isaac Errett, late editor of the Christian Stand- ard, says: "The gospel, while proclaiming jus- tification by faith to the sinner, has linked it with the ordinance of baptism, ere the promise 'shall be saved' can be lawfully approached." (Walks About Jerusalem, p. 79.) 0. A. Burgess says : " Is there found anywhere in the New Testament any other institution what- ever of God's appointment that sets forth the pardon and acceptance of the sinner under the figure of a birth? * * * There can no more be such a thing as a birth into the kingdom of Christ without water baptism than a child can be said to be born before it has been really born of the mother. It is monstrous to suppose that a single parent is requisite in the new birth and there can be no such thing as the sinner becom- ing a new creature in Christ Jesus until he comes forth out of the womb of the waters, and having been made dead to sin, is made alive to God." (Thompson-Burgess Debate, pp. 203, 204.) Moses E. Lard says: "When we cross the line out of the world into the kingdom we cease to be a Jew, cease to be a Gentile; and when we cease to be these we cease to be the children of the wicked one, and become the children of Gk)d. But we never cease to be Jew and Gentile till we enter Christ and we never enter him till baptized 184 CLOSE COMMUNION. into him. Then, therefore, do we cease to be the children of Satan and become the children of God." (What Baptism is For, No. 8, pp. 5, 6.) Robert T. Mathews, Pastor at Lexington, Ky. , says: "It is the representation of salvation in reality — the representation of a real cleansing from sin, the representation of a real death to sin, and of a real resurrection to a new life — this spiritual realness alone giving sense and pro- priety to baptism in its element and action. There is a real presence and power of God in baptism. 'Having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, ' says Paul again, making baptism a picture of purification, and so representing it because something more than water is there — the very word of God in all of its spirit and life, being there. * * * Baptism and salvation cou- pled in the world-wide commission, baptism and forgiveness heard together in Apostolic preach- ing, and penitent believers universally, readily, gladly baptized — what was their baptism but a real confirmation of a real salvation in a real ex- perience of their lives? " (Evangelistic Sermons, pp. 123, 124.) E. W. Herndon says : ' ' Then, a baptism for any other purpose except the remission of sins, is not Christian baptism; then the elements of Christian baptism are, immersion in water of a believer for the remission of sins.*' (Christian Review, 1888, p. 447.) WHAT IS BAPTISM? L s ."> Growing out of these views of baptism we dif- fer with the whole pedobaptist world on the sub- ject of a converted church membership. We be- lieve that God's Word teaches that a man should be a professed Christian before he unites with the church; others believe that the unconverted should join the church as a means of grace. This can be proved from many sources. Presbyterians hold to an unconverted mem- bership. This is plainly taught by the Presby- terian standards. I read in the Confession of Faith, Article XXV, that the visible church "con- sists of all those throughout the world, that pro- fess the true religion, together with their children.'' Again Article XXVIII: "Not only those who do actually profess faith and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing par- ents are to be baptized/' In the Longer Cate- chism, Question 62: "What is the visible church? The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." And in the Form of Government, Chapter 2: "A particular church consists of a number of pro- fessing Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated together, for divine worship, and godly living, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures; and submitting to a certain form of government. " The Confession of Faith is confirmed by the highest Presbyterian authorities. 186 CLOSE COMMUNION. Dr. Charles Hodge says: "The visible Church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate. * * * Our Lord expressly forbids the attempt being made. He compares his external king- dom, or visible Church, to a field in which tares and wheat grow together. He charges his dis- ciples not to undertake to separate them, be- cause they could not, in all cases, distinguish the one from the other. But both may be allowed to grow together unto the harvest. " (Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 548.) Dr. A. A. Hodge says : ' ' Children born within the pale of the visible Church are dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years of dis- cretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober, and steady, and to have sufficient knowl- edge to discern the Lord's body, they ought to be informed in their duty and privilege to come to the Lord's Supper." (Page 644.) Again, Dr. Hodge states: "The Baptist churches, denying altogether the right of infant church member- ship, receive all applicants for the communion as from the world, and therefore demand positive evidences of the new birth of all. All the Paedo- baptist churches, maintaining that all children baptized in infancy are already members of the church, distinguish between the admission of the children of the church to the communion and the admission cle novo to the church of the un- baptized alien from the world." (Outlines of Theology, p. 645.) WHAT IS BAPTISM? 1 M 7 Tlie Methodists receive unconverted people into their church. Samuel P. Jones, a distinguished Evangelist of that Church, says: "Down at Huntsville, Ala., one of the leading citizens took me out to one side and said: * I want to be a Christian, I want to love God and do right, but I can't believe in the divinity of Christ to save my life.' 'Shut your mouth,' I said, ' don't come to me with talk like that. Do just like Christ told you to do and if you don't make the landing I will swim out to you and drown with you. You come to the meeting to-night and be the first one up there when I call for sinners to come forward. ' 'If I join the church, Mr. Jones, I can't believe.' ' Shut your mouth, I am prescribing for you, and if you will take my remedy, I will warrant the cure.' He walked up and joined the church that night. I said: ' Well, you have joined the church; you must take up family prayer, and if I call on you to pray in church you must get down and do your level best. I will get you out if you will keep your mouth shut.' I led him out sure enough. That night he took up family prayer and started right. I went back to Huntsville afterward, and asked: ' How is Bro. Ford getting on? ' ' He is the best we have. ' ' How is he on the divinity?' 'O, he has quit all of that long ago." If you will give God your heart he will take care of your head. I don't know whether I am ortho- 188 CLOSE COMMUNION. dox or not, but you can attend to the orthodoxy when I am gone." The above extract does not read like a chapter from the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. T. O. Summers says: "We do not mean to say that no one is eligible to baptism who has not an assurance of the pardon of his sin and the regeneration of his nature, through faith in Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost. Par from it. Of course, those who enjoy the witness of adoption are proper candidates for the ordi- nance; but so also are all of those who do not enjoy it, yet are desirous of obtaining it and are seeking its possession. Indeed, baptism is ad- mirably suited to their case. It symbolizes the grace which they seek, and thus assists them in their efforts to acquire it: the ordinance thus proves a means whereby the penitent subject re ceives the inward and invisible grace which it is designed to represent. " (Summers on Baptism, pp. 21, 22.) Holding as we do these widely diverging views from others, views which in their very nature are revolutionary and destructive of the founda- tion principles of pedobaptism, it would be im- possible for us to approach the Lord's Supper with them. We hold that baptism is an absolute qualification to the Lord's Supper, and that sprinkling and pouring, infant baptism and an un- converted membership invalidate the ordinance. WHAT IS BAPTISM? l s '.» We cannot, therefore, approach the Table with such jiersons, because thereby we would be par- takers of their errors and disobedience. This is not abuse, but the inevitable conclusion of irre- sistible logic. "We are in no wise responsible for this state of things. We put no barriers in the way of a full and free approach to the Lord's Table. We only insist upon the divine order of 1 1 10 Scriptures, and a perfect obedience to the commands of Christ. Our Pedobaptist brethren are responsible for the divisions about the Lord's Supper; for if they will abandon these unscrip- tural acts and come back to the simplicity of the Gospel we will at once have, "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism." 190 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XIII. ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? THE trouble in the whole communion ques- tion lies not in what the Scriptures say about it, but in the anti- scriptural things inter- jected into the observance of the Lord's Supper. The things which separate the Baptists from others are not the scriptural terms of faith, bap- tism, church membership and the Lord's Sup- per; because on these things for the most part we are all agreed, but others insist in either breaking down these barriers to the table, or adding other conditions upon which the Scrip- tures are silent. It is not bigotry, nor because the Baptists regard all others as heathen, that they keep a close table. The real difference between Baptists and others is that we hold that the Lord's Supper is a symbolic act; while others hold that the Sup- per is a means of grace. We hold that it is a church act; others make it a test of Christian fellowship which we never do. This distinction is important, and should constantly be borne in mind. The charge has been so persistently made that the Baptists by their practice unchristianize all ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? 191 others that I shall let some of our representative men speak. Rev. J. M.Pendleton, D.D., and he has aright to speak for Baptist people, says: " Baptists do not deny that there are pious men and women in Pedobaptist churches, so called, but they do deny that these churches are formed according to the New Testament model. They are without bap- tism, and, to use the words of a very distin- guished Pedobaptist, Dr. E. D. Griffin, 'where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches." (Baptist Principles, p. 172.) Dr. John A. Broadus, President of the South- ern Baptist Theological Seminary, says: "The blessing thus received is not supposed to be essentially different in kind from other spiritual blessings, nor to be associated with mere divine appointment with this particular means of grace. Hence no spiritual loss is necessarily inflicted by failing to invite to this ceremony persons who have made a credible oral profession of faith, but have not yet submitted to the prerequisite cere- mony." (Commentary Matt., p. 530.) Dr. A. Hovey, President of Newton Theolog- ical Seminary, says: "Most of the difficulty, if not indeed all of it, which is felt in many minds in relation to our practice as Baptists on the sub- ject of communion at the Lord's table, has arisen from the habit so common among people of con- founding Christian communion with Church com- 192 CLOSE COMMUNION. munion. But they are separate and distinct acts, and ought not to be thus confounded. Let this distinction be fairly understood and properly observed, and we shall hear much less about the 'exclusiveness,' or ' illiberality, ' or 'bigotry,' of the Baptists in their spiritual observance of this significant and impressive ordinance of the Gos- pel. This ordinance is not a test of Christian fellowship, and cannot be so used without per- verting its spiritual design." Prof.T.F. Curtis, an able writer on Communion, says: " True communion is a spiritual — and not a visible thing. It may, in part, be symbolized, as in united prayer, or the Lord's Supper; but no Chris- tian ever yet, on the most extensive sacramental occasion, partook of the same elements with one thousandth part of those with whom he would acknowledge true Christian communion, for this he has, with all saints in heaven, as well as on earth. Nor will the two ever be coextensive, until he shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to eat bread in the kingdom of God, at the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Curtis on Communion, p. 35.) Dr. W. W. Gardner in his able work on Church Communion distinguishes between Christian and church communion. He says: "Christian com- munion is based upon Christian fellowship. Christian communion extends to all Christians, as such, irrespective of positive ordinances and ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IX CHARITY? 193 visible church relations, and embraces all those scriptural acts and exercises by and in which mutual Christian fellowship is expressed and enjoyed. Such communion is fully enjoyed in heaven. "Church communion is based upon church fellowship, growing out of mutual church rela- tions. Church communion is necessarily limited to the members of the same particular church, for such only sustain mutual church relations. It embraces all of those church acts and privi- leges by which church fellowship is expressed and enjoyed, and in which none but members of the same church have a right to participate." (Church Communion, pp. 22, 23.) Dr. P. H. Mell, late Chancellor of the Univer- sity of Georgia, says: "There can be no scrip- tural communion excepting as performed by a local gospel church ; there can be no local gospel church excepting as composed of individual members; there can be no individual members excepting as they are received on a vote of a local church ; none are eligible to be voted for as church members excepting such as have been baptized on a profession of their faith in Christ; nothing is scriptural baptism but immersion upon a profession of faith in Christ; therefore, there can be no scriptural communion which has not been preceded by that ordinance, scriptural immersion." (Ford's Repos., 1878, p. 251.) 13 194 CLOSE COMMUNION. Dr. Armitage says: "If fellowship amongst Christians is purchased by sitting with each other at the same table, their love is bought at a very light cost. Oneness with Christ himself, the brotherhood of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, mutual burden-bearing and mutual watch- care, formed the visible bond of fellowship in the Apostolic Churches. This sort of unity cost them something, it was not a vaporing senti- ment, it was worth all that it cost. There is not a case in ecclesiastical history where the Supper has held any single congregation together for a day. Churches of all names who celebrate it constantly, live in open contention year by year. The love of Judas for John was cramped into a close corner when they sat at the same table, and ate the sop from the same dish. If Christians are not one on a much higher plane than that of eating and drinking the Supper with each other, their true unity is a hopeless business. In fact, as if to prove the perfect emptiness of this pretension, in some Protestant commun- ions, the Supper itself has been the subject of hot dispute, the chief bone of contention from century to century. The greatest bitterness has been indulged, and anathemas have been bandied about, pro and con, with a freedom which has marked no other form of discussion, and by men, who regularly meet at the same table." (History Baptists, pp. 146, 147.) ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? 195 These are all representative Baptists. They unanimously declare that Baptists pass no sen- tence of disfranchisement upon any. They be- lieve that the observance of the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance; and they do not extend it beyond their own discipline. The attitude of Baptists on this subject is not one of war but of strict neutrality. Dr. W. C. Wilkinson aptly puts it: " Restricted communion, as practiced by Bap- tists, is not positive, it is strictly negative. It does not turn away; it simply does not invite. Not inviting, it naturally does not accept invita- tions. This is really the whole. Restricted com- munion does nothing more than just maintain this attitude of not doing. What could be less offensive?" (Baptist Principles, p. 199.) With us it is solely a matter of principle, and not of impatience toward others. Dr. Charles Hodge, and I am glad to agree with this eminent Presbyterian, puts this in a strong way. He says: "As Christ is the only head of the Church it fol- lows that its allegiance is to him, and that when- ever those out of the Church undertake to regu- late its affairs, or to curtail its liberties, its mem- bers are bound to obey him rather than men. They are bound by all legitimate means to resist such usurpations, and to stand fast in the liberty where with Christ has made them free. They are under equal obligation to resist all undue assumption of authority by those within the 196 CLOSE COMMUNION. Church, whether, it be the brotherhood or by individual officers, or by Church councils or courts. The allegiance of the people terminates on Christ. They are bound to obey others only so far as obedience to them is obedience to Him. In the early ages some endeavored to impose on Christians the yoke of the Jewish law. This, of course, they were bound to resist. In the fol- lowing centuries, and by degrees, the intolerable rituals, ceremonies, fasts, festivals, and priestly, prelatical, and papal assumptions, which oppress so large a part of the Christian world, have been imposed on the people in derogation to the au- thority of Christ as the sole head of the Church. Councils, provincial and ecumenical, have not only prescribed creeds, contrary to the Scrip- tures, but also have made laws to bind the con- science, and ordained observances which Christ never enjoined. As Christ is the head of his earthly kingdom, so is he its only lawgiver. He prescribes the terms of admission into his king- dom. These cannot be rightfully altered by any human authority. Men can neither add to them, nor detract from them. " (Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 606, 607.) To all of which we say amen and amen. POSITIVE AND MORAL LAW. 197 CHAPTER XIV. POSITIVE AND MORAL LAW. IT has always occurred to me that the advocates of open communion have confounded two things that are widely different — positive and moral law. A moral law is right in the nature of things, and is based upon the immutable and universal principles of truth and justice. On the other hand positive law depends for its authority upon the will of the divine Lawgiver. A moral duty is commanded because it is right, a positive duty is right because it is commanded. A moral law can be obeyed in any way that comports with its spirit; a positive law must be obeyed to its very letter. Of this kind is the observance of the Lord's Supper. We have no choice save to obey the laws of its observance as given in the New Testament. The Bible puts great emphasis upon the obe- dience of positive law, and signal have been the punishments inflicted upon those who have vio- lated positive laws. Adam and Eve were driven from the garden as the result of the disobedience of a positive law. Moses was not permitted to see the promised land, and Saul was rejected as King of Israel, all because of disobedience of 198 CLOSE COMMUNION. positive law. These examples show us, that God does not treat lightly a disobedience of any of his commands. It is not a question of ' ' essen- tials or non-essentials," but how can I obey the Lord. The Nashville Christian Advocate, in a recent editorial laid down the right principle: "But when the proposition is made to change the nature of the Lord's Supper * * * we are against that, now and forever. The canon of accommo- dating Scripture to our own ideas and changing the constitutional principles in the interest of these views, is rationalism of the most irrational and ruinous kind. When our pet views lead us to criticise the acts of Christ, or change the prin- ciples and institutions that he established, it is time for us to halt and retrace our steps and re- model our views." Bishop Hoadly, of the Episcopal Church, is much to the point. He says : ' ' The partaking of the Lord's Supper is not a duty of itself, or a duty apparent to us from the nature of things, but a duty made such to Christians by the posi- tive institution of Jesus Christ. All positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely on the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently to the due manner of performing them. For there being no other foundation for I'OSITIYi: AM) MORAL LAW. 199 them with regard to us, but the will of the insti- tutor, this will must, of necessity, be our sole ili icction, both as to our understanding their true intent, and practicing them accordingly; because we can have no other direction in this sort of duties, unless we will have recourse to mere in- vention, which makes them our own institutions, and not the institutions of those who first ap- 1 minted them. It is plain, therefore, that the nature, the design, and the due manner of the Lord's Supper, must, of necessity, depend on what Jesus Christ, who instituted it, has said about it." (Works, vol. 3, p. 845.) Just here comes in the mistake, and misappre- hension, that exists in so many minds. The "communion of saints" is confounded with the Lord's Supper. Communion of saints is morally right; it is one of the things that will happen of its own accord. I heartily believe in ' ' the com- munion of saints." But there is a vast difference between Church communion and Christian com- munion. They are separate and distinct acts and should never be confounded. With the Bap- tists Church communion is no test of Christian fellowship. Here is where we are often misun- derstood. When we gather around the Lord's table it is not to show our love for one another, or our opinion of others; but to show forth the Lord's death till he come again. It is not a test 200 CLOSE COMMUNION. of Christian fellowship at all. Before one calls us illiberal, it would be well for him to under- stand our position. There is not an example in the Scriptures where the Lord's Supper is made a test of Chris- tian charity. It is always declared to have another design. In Matt. 26:28,30, it "is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." His atoning blood is the great theme of the Scriptures. In 1 Cor. 11:24-29, is the additional idea that we do this "in remembrance" of what Christ has done for us. The eloquent Melvill caught the spirit of this when he said: "Inasmuch as the bread and the wine represent the body and blood of the Saviour, the administration of this ordinance is so commemorative of Christ's having been of- fered as a sacrifice, that we seem to have before us the awful and mysterious transaction, as though again were the cross reared, and the words, ' It is finished, ' pronounced in our hear- ing." (Thoughts, p. 240.) Of course we cannot call to recollection brethren who are present with us. We are not to fasten our minds upon our brethren; but upon the all sufficiency of the grace of God and his wonderful work for us. The very moment we turn our eyes from these lofty themes, and commenoe to think about our- selves and others, we degrade this memorial POSITIVE AND MORAL LAW. 201 feast. It is not of flesh and blood that we are to think, but of the crucified and exalted Christ. It is not a communion, or feast, with our breth- ren, but with Christ. This forever does away with much sentimen- tality about "communion with mother," and my great "liberality," and "how T bigoted somebody else is." 202 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XV. OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS GOSPEL DIS- CIPLINE. ONE of the most fatal objections to open communion is that it breaks down all bar- riers to the Lord's table, puts it beyond church discipline, and allows the profane and profligate to participate. The Scriptures undoubtedly place the observance of the Supper under the control of the church, and does not extend it be- yond the discipline of the church. The church cannot divest itself of responsibility as to the character of its communicants. This is the exact idea of the Greek Koinonia, communion. Here is the authority of the Greek Lexicons. Thayer says: "Fellowship, association, com- munity, joint participation, intercourse." And the verb is defined, ' ' to make one's self a sharer or partner." Liddell and Scott says: "Association, partner- ship, society." The commentators are also agreed. Meyer says: "This is the theocratic bond of participation, whereby the man stands bound to the sacrificial altar, who eats of the sacrifice be- longing to it as such. The Israelite who refused OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 203 to eat of the flesh of the sacrifice as such, would thereby practically declare that he had nothing to do with the altar, but stood aloof from the sphere of theocratic connection with it. The man on the other hand, who ate a portion of the flesh offered upon the altar, gave proof of the religious relation in which he stood to the altar itself." (Com. 1 Cor. 10:18.) The reasoning is conclusive. By participating at the Lord's table together we declare ourselves to be partners, and members of the same organi- zation, or church, and mutually responsible for the right administration of the supper. Only members of the one body, the church, can join in this participation, since no others can be partners in this matter. Paul's reasoning is to the point. He says: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? Seeing that we who are many, are one bread and one body: for we all partake of the one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? What say I then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have communion with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the 204 CLOSE COMMUNION. cup of devils: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the tables of devils. " (1 Cor. 10:16-21, Revised Version.) We are therefore persuaded that the joint participation in the sup- per means a joint membership in the church. Dr. Hibbard says : ' ' Those who meet at the Lord's table signify thereby that they have mutual fellowship in the faith, experience and practice of the gospel. Hence, Paul calls it the 'communion of the body and blood of Christ;' ' for we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread. ' ' Or says Dr. A. Clarke: "The original would be bet- ter translated thus : ' Because there is one bread, or loaf, we, who are many, are one body. ' (1 Cor. 10:16,17.) This feasting together declares a com- munity of interest in the merits of the same Jesus whose sacrificial death is exhibited in the distributed elements, and proves the disciples of Christ to be ' one body.' How, then, can an or- dinance which manifestly declares its recipients, though ' many ' individuals, to be ' one body, ' be administered to those who are not of that body?" (On Baptism, P. 2, p. 185.) The Advance, of Chicago, an able Congrega- tional journal, reasons thus, in an editorial, No- vember 10th, 1868: "It is a mistake, contrary to the name, the idea, and the apostolic. description of this sacrament, to make it only the sign of a faith in Christ, by the individual. The word OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 205 koinonia, communion, contradicts it, meaning the common participation of many in sign of their being one, as Paul explains it, First Corinthians x:16,17, ' The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the com- munion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread. ' A church cannot, then, divest itself of all responsibility for fellow communicants. If any ordinance is in meaning and act purely an individual acknowledgment of Christ, in which the recipient alone is concerned, and others are not responsible, baptism may be so considered. The Supper, on the contrary, is the appointed method of expressing our com- munion with each other; and this is the very ground of our complaint against the Baptists, that by their close communion they withhold the appointed sign of fellowship from visible, professed Christians, who are organized as such into churches, and whose spiritual character they neither deny nor doubt. It is the Lord's table, and we express a general confidence in the Chris- tian character of those who are invited to par- take with us, and are bound, therefore, reason- ably to protect it from improper approach by requiring that those who come to it should be members of Christian churches."' The Independent in an editorial, August 18th, 206 CLOSE COMMUNION. 1892, says: "A leading Baptist paper in the United States says: 'There is for the open com- munion Baptist nothing to justify a separation from his pedo-Baptist brethren.' ' ' This is perfectly correct. There is no reason whatever why open communion Baptists, like the free Baptists, for example, should form a separate denomination from Christians who hold the same faith and the same form of govern- ment, but who usually baptize by a different method. If they can fellowship as churches in separate denominations, they can fellowship as churches in the same denomination. If Free Baptists and Congregationalists, for example, are not united in one denomination, it is not be- cause they are kept apart by anything essential or anything which they think to be important, but simply because they have not taken the trouble to come together. That they have not taken the trouble is not to their credit. ' ' Close communion is the only logical position which can be taken by those who believe that all other denominations except themselves dis- obey a plain, binding command of God. That is the position which close communion Baptists take. They say that the command is to believe and be baptized, and that the two commands are equally binding even if not of equal saving value." All that I am insisting upon is that the Lord's OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 207 Supper is a church ordinance, and that no one can participate in it who is not subject to the discipline of the church. Dr. Hibbard, the great Methodist, frankly says: "On the contrary, the eucharist, from its very nature, is a church ordi- nance and as such can be properly participated in only by church members. As a church ordi- nance, it can never be carried out of the church. This is so evident that no words can make it more plain, or add to its force." (Hibbard on Baptism, P. 2, p. 185.) The Scriptures are plain. All who will not obey the commands of Christ are to be treated as disorderly, and no disorderly person is to be ad- mitted to the Lord's Supper. "Now we com- mand you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition received of us. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thes. 3:6,14.) And that this is to apply to the Lord's Supper we are plainly told : ' ' But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idol- ater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat." (1 Cor. 5:11.) If this is not true, church discipline is worse than useless. An open communion church could 208 CLOSE COMMUNION. turn out a member for outrageous wickedness, to- morrow he goes and joins some other denomina- tion, and the next Sunday, when the open com- munion table is spread, he comes up smiling, and communes with the very church that excluded him. The result of the whole matter is that the church is disgraced; its discipline dishonored and rendered nugatory, and all on account of the un- reasonable practice that is called open com- munion. I quote again from the Advance: "As to the effect of a table open to all, it appears to us to be subversive of church discipline, and to tend in the end to decrease rather than to increase the number of attendants. ' * Of what use is it to excommunicate a repro- bate, by vote of a church, during the week, and then to communicate with him if he chooses to come, at one of these open tables, on the next Lord's day! And then the Unitarians andUni- versalists, practicing on that plan, have found that few wanted what everybody could have. When the boundary line of church and world is thus removed, there is no rush into the church, because church ceases to mean anything. In no denomination is the Lord's table so crowded as where it is made strictly a church ordinance, and no one is invited unless he has openly and per- manently professed Christ by uniting with the church." OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. I'll'. I If the Supper is not under the control of the church, who is responsible for its right adminis- tration? Will you say there are, and ought to be, no limits thrown around the Lord's table? Will you say that devils and wicked men ought to sit down to it, and make it a feast of drunken mad- ness instead of Christian joy'? If there are quali- fications, who is to judge of those qualifications? Manifestly the church of God. By all of these admissions it would necessary follow that in pre- scribing terms to the Lord's table we have not gone beyond our right, But rather, we have taken the terms prescribed in the word of God, and thrown them around the table as a safe- guard. We propose to be liberal, and no more liberal, than was Christ our Lord. You talk much about a common table, why not have a common baptism? If you will obey the commands of the Bible, there will be no strife on this subject. Hence George T. Ladd says: "But this right of discipline cannot be duly exercised, except upon the principle of a regenerate membership. The wrong in communing in the most holy sac- raments acts with these, who, neither in faith nor conduct, claimed the spiritual communion upon which the sacraments take place, could be amended only by an application of the same prin- ciple. 'The people are the church,' said Robin- son, ' and to make a reformed church there must first be a reformed people.' It is only by the 14 210 CLOSE COMMUNION. grace of God in their hearts, he goes on to main- tain, that the people, ' being first fitted for and made capable of the sacraments and other ordi- nances, might afterward have communicated in the pure use of them.' Christ believed on and confession is, in judgment of them all, and ac- cording to the words of Davenport, 'the rock whereon a particular visible church is built. ' It was, therefore, as a f undamental doctrine, almost without a single exception even so much as questioned by our early authorities, that the Cambridge Platform laid down its definitions." (Principles of Church Polity, p. 51.) And there is no way to purify the church ex- cept by discipline. It is not a matter of liberality, but of church duty, to reject from the table of the Lord those who have never obeyed the requirements of God's word. Dr. Hibbard, and I am delighted to agree so readily with this great Methodist, makes another point so just that I am constrained to quote him again. "If it be a responsible act to reject them," says he, "in the absence of an express interdict; certainly it is not less respon- sible to admit them in the absence of an express command. If, in rejecting them, there is danger of offending a 'little one that believes' in Christ; so also, in receiving them, there is danger of diverting the ordinance from its intended appli- cation, and profaning its sanctity. If express OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 211 precept is what the advocates of mixed commun- ion demand, certainly they are in no better case than we are. And we have the same authority for rejecting, as they have for receiving unbap- tized persons to the table of the Lord; and, as far as we can judge, they incur a responsibility of no less magnitude than we ourselves. The truth is, that the preponderance of Scrip- ture EVIDENCE IS AGAINST MIXED COMMUN- ION." (On Baptism, p. 186.) 212 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XVI. INFANT COMMUNION. I HAVE already showed that our terms of com- munion are as liberal as those of any other denomination of Christians. May I suggest that we are more liberal at the Lord's table than the most of Christian denominations. We do com- mune with our own membership, the most of other denominations do not. The Methodists do not commune with all of their members. The Presbyterians do not. These denominations have baptized members that are not admitted to their own table. An infant, though it may have been made "federally holy," or '"brought by baptism into the Church of Christ," is excluded from a Methodist or Presbyterian communion table. We are at least liberal enough to commune with our own members. I am not trifling. There is quite as much to prove infant communion as there is to prove in- fant baptism. They rest upon the same argu- ment; and the traditional history that would prove the antiquity of the one would prove the antiquity of the other. The Greek Church when it baptizes an infant also admits it to the Lord's table and feeds the child with a spoon. INFANT COMMUNION. 213 I shall introduce some authorities on infant communion. Bingham says : Nor was this confirmation after baptism "only true with respect to adult per- sons, but also with respect to infants, who were anciently confirmed with the imposition of hands and the holy chrism, or unction, as soon as they were baptized; which will, perhaps, seem a para- dox to many who look no further than the prac- tice of later ages: but it may be undeniably learned in two ways. 1. From the plain testi- mony of the ancients declaring it to be so; and 2. From that known custom and usage of the church, in giving the eucharist to infants, which ordinarily presupposes their confirmation." (An- tiquities Christian Church, B. XII, C. 1, vol. 1, p. 544.) Salmasius, a learned Catholic, says: "It was the invariable practice to give the catechumens the eucharist immediately after they were bap- tized. Afterwards the opinion prevailed that no one could be saved unless he were baptized, so the custom of baptizing infants was introduced. And because to adult catechumens, as soon as they were baptized, no space of time intervening, the eucharist was given, so after pedobaptism was introduced, this was also done in the case of infants." (Trans., p. 495.) Bishop Bossuet affirms: "The church has al- ways believed, and still believes, that infants are 214 CLOSE COMMUNION. capable of receiving the eucharist as well as baptism, and finds no more obstacle to their com- munion in the words of St. Paul, ' Let a man ex- amine himself and so let him eat; ' than she finds to their baptism in these words of the Lord, 'Teach and baptize.' But as she knew that the eucharist could not be absolutely necessary to their salvation, after they had received the full remission of sins in their baptism, she believed it was a matter of discipline to give or not to give the communion in this age; thus it is that during the first eleven or twelve centuries she, for good reasons, gave it; and for other reasons, equally good, has since then ceased to give it. " (Traite Com., P. i, p. 3.) Gieseler says: "The use of exorcism is dis- tinctly mentioned, and all who had been baptized, even the children, partook of the eucharist." (Church History, vol. 1, p. 159.) Lundy, Episcopalian, says: "All, therefore, whether young or old, whether infants at the breast or those who had attained their full growth and maturity of body and mind, were alike baptized and alike partook of this heavenly manna. Otherwise, they must have perished. Baptism and the Eucharist, therefore, are for infants, just as much as for adults; and the Eucharist was given to infants in the universal church until the Council of Trent abolished the practice. Rather, it was the common use in the INFANT COMMUNION. 215 two Churches, of the East and the West down to the twelfth century, when the Latin Church be- gan to discontinue the practice, until its official abolishment by the Council of Trent in the six- teenth century. It was the twenty-first session of that Council, the fifth under Pius IV, that decreed an anathema against all who held or taught that both species of bread and wine were necessary to the validity of the Eucharist, coup- ling with this the anathema against the com- munion of infants. The first canon of that ses- sion is this: ' If any one shall say, from the Word of God that it is necessary to salvation for each or all the faithful of Christ that they ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be accursed.' And then follows canon IV, which is this: ' If any one shall say, that the communion of the eucharist is necessary for children before they come to years of discretion, let him be accursed. ' : ' (Monumen- tal Christianity, p. 376.) Dr. Coleman. Presbyterian, says: "After the general introduction of infant baptism the sacra- ment continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. The reason alleged by Cyprian and others for this practice was, that age was no impediment. Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The custom continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third Council of Tours, A. D. 216 CLOSE COMMUNION. 813; and even the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545, only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously ob- served by the Greek Church." (Ancient Chris- tianity Exemplified, C. 22, sec. 8, p. 310.) Schaff, Presbyterian, says: In North Africa, "in Cyprian's time, we find the custom of infant communion (administered with wine alone) which was justified from John 6:53, and has continued in the Greek (and Russian) church to this day, though irreconcilable with the apostle's requisi- tion of a preparatory examination." (History Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 239.) Dr. Bennett, Methodist, says: "Since the church from the beginning of the third century accounted infants as proper subjects of infant baptism, and regarded this as the proper initia- tory rite into the Church— ratifying the mem- bership by the holy unction and confirmation - she consistently admitted infants to the Lord's Supper. Of this there is abundant proof as early as the third century." (Archaeology, p. 424.) The fathers make the practice of infant com- munion well nigh universal. For the East, where it still flourishes, we have the testimony of the so-called liturgy of Clement, in which little chil- dren (paidia) are ordered to receive immediately after all who have any special dedication, ' ' and then all the people in order. " (Constit. Apostles, 1. viii, c. 13.) Pseudo-Dyonisius, possibly of the INFANT COMMUNION. 217 fifth century, but more probably of the sixth, says that ' ' children who cannot understand di- vine things are yet made partakers of divine generation, and of the divine communion of the most sacred mysteries." (De Eccl. Hierarch., c. vii, sec. 11.) Evagrius, who completed his his- tory in 594, proves the continued observance of the rite, where he mentions an "ancient custom" at Constantinople, "when there remained a good quantity of the holy portions of the undefiled body of Christ our God, uncorrupted boys from among those who attended the school of the undermaster were sent to consume them. " (lib. iv. c. 36.) There is a story told by John Moschus, A. D. 630, of some children who imitated among themselves the celebration of the Eucharist, as they had witnessed and taken part in it them- selves." (Pratum Spirit., c. 196.) The earliest witness in the Latin church is Cyprian, who writing in 251, relates how the agitation of an infant to whom the cup was of- fered, led to the discovery of its having been taken to a heathen sacrifice. He also represents the children of apostates as able to plead at the day of judgment: "We have done nothing; nor have we hastened of our own accord to those profane defilements, forsaking the meat and cup of the Lord." (De Lapsis.) Augustine says: "They are infants; but they are made partakers of his Table, that they may have life in them- selves." (Sermon 174, sec. 7.) 218 CLOSE COMMUNION. The same practice was common in England. Hart says: "Infant communion was a very- ancient practice, and is said to have prevailed generally in the church for six hundred years. In the address of our countryman ^Elfric to the priesthood at the delivery of the chrism, he says : ' Ye should give the Eucharist to children when they are baptized, and let them be brought to mass that they may receive it all the seven days that they are unwashed. ,: (Eccl. Rec, p. 188.) So late as A. D. 1073, infant communion was still practiced in England. (Wilkin's Concilia Magnse Brit., vol. 1, p. 361.) It is useless to assert that this is of no impor- tance. Dr. Dwight declares this is a matter of much importance, and that the teaching of the Pedobaptists on this point is erroneous. Says he: "It is objected further that all baptized per- sons are by that class of Christians to whom I have attached myself, considered as members of the Christian church; yet those who are baptized in infancy, are not treated as possessed of that character; particularly, they are not admitted to the sacramental supper; nor made objects of ecclesiastical discipline. As this object has in my own view, a more serious import than any other which has been alleged, it deserves par- ticular consideration. In the first place, I ac- knowledge without hesitation, that the conduct of those with whom I am in immediate commun- INFANT COMMUNION. 219 ion, and so far as I know their opinions also, with regard to this subject, are in a greater or less degree, erroneous and indefensible." (Dwight's Theology, Sermon 157, vol. 4, p. 317.) From the above reasoning I reach two conclu- sions: 1. Infant communion is as authoritative as infant baptism. 2. And what is more to our point, as long as our Pedobaptist friends disre- gard the voice of all antiquity, and will not com- mune with their own children, they ought not to accuse us of being illiberal. We, at least, do commune with our own membership. 220 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XVII. OPEN COMMUNIONISTS DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. OPEN communionists make a great show of Christian union; and yet they say the most bitter and harsh things against each other. They make a show of endorsing each other when they celebrate together, which is seldom, the Lord's Supper; and the rest of the time they spend in denouncing each other's doctrines. This is nei- ther good sense nor good policy. I shall indicate some points of difference among open commun- ionists. 1. Some one may say that to have an open table is not an endorsement of each other's doc- trines. I claim that where one denomination sits down to the Lord's Supper with another denomi- nation it thereby says we have no differences be- tween us. It is an endorsement of the other's position; and it is invariably so understood by the people. It says: "Your church is as good as mine ; and really there is no difference between us." If that is the truth, why have two separate organizations? For men to sit down to the Lord's table proclaiming that there is no difference be- tween Christians, and then to get up and perpet- DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 221 uate party strife and antagonistic organizations, is sinful in the sight of God. Every reason that would proclaim a common table, would demand a union between such parties. I have no faith in the so-called liberal principles of those who preach unity at an open table, and practice dis- sensions away from it. That open communionists understand that joint participation is an endorsement of each other's doctrines is made clear by Dr. Dwight. He says : ' ' In baptism, Christians appear as sub- jects to this ordinance but once in their lives; and most of them at this appearance, being in- fants, are altogether passive. At the Lord's Supper they are always voluntary, active par- takers; and appear often in this character, throughout their whole Christian life. They ap- pear at the table of Christ in a body ; as members of him, the Head. They appear as Christian friends and brethren; and are, all members one of another. They appear as open professors of his religion; as his followers; as attached to his cause; as interested in his death; as expectants of his coming; as voluntary subjects of his gov- ernment. They exhibit themselves as being united in one Faith, one Baptism, one Worship, one System of Doctrines, and Duties, and one scheme of Communion, and Discipline; as having one common interest, one common pilgrimage, and one final home. All of these things are ex- 222 CLOSE COMMUNION. hibited and established by the Lord's Supper." (Theology Explained and Defended, vol. 4, p. 364.) How Methodists, Presbyterians, the ' 'Christian Church," and others can endorse each other's doctrines, as they do at the Lord's table, is be- yond my conception. But I shall proceed to point out some differences. 2. They differ in doctrines. Take the Presby- terians and Methodists on the single point of predestination. John Wesley called predestina- tion by every foul name. He says in his sermon on Free Grace, number 54: "This doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happi- ness and good works, but has also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Chris- tian revelation. * * * It represents our blessed Lord, as a hypocrite, a deceiver, of the people, a man void of sincerity. * * * It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil; as more false, more cruel, more unjust. * * * This is the blasphemy for which I abhor the doctrine of predestination." John Calvin was scarcely less bitter in his de- nunciation of Arminianism. He says : ' ' The ene- mies of God's predestination are stupid and ignorant and the devil hath plunged out their eyes." "Such men fight against the Holy Ghost, like mad beasts, and endeavor to abolish the holy Scripture. There is more honesty in the DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. -S.\ Papists than in these men; for the doctrines of the Papists are a great deal better, more holy, and more agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, than the doctrines of these vile and wicked men, who cast down God's holy election — these dogs that bark at it. and swine that root it up." Methodists and Presbyterians may not now vilify each other in this way, but they are no nearer agreed on predestination than were Calvin and Wesley. John Wesley's brother, Charles Wesley, wrote a polemical poem on "The Horrible Decree," in which his poetic genius left him, as may be in- ferred from the following specimens: u Oh horrible Decree, Worthy of whence it came. Forgive their hellish blasphemy, Who charge it on the Lamb. To limit thee, they dare Blaspheme thee to thy face, Deny their fellow worms a share In thy redeeming grace." In a poem on Predestination, he prays: "Increase (if that can be) The perfect hate I feel To Satan's Horrible Decree, That genuine child of hell; Which feigns thee to pass by The most of Adam's race, And leave them in their blood to die, Shut out from saving grace."' 224 CLOSE COMMUNION. Dr. Bledsoe, a great Southern Methodist, is reported to have said: "I would prefer to wor- ship a huge gorilla than the Presbyterian's God." How a staid, well regulated Presbyterian can sit down to the Methodist Supper and endorse such statements I do not know. But the Presbyterians have been scarcely less denunciatory of Methodist doctrines. John Cal- vin said as severe things about Arminianism as John Wesley had about predestination. The Presbyterians have not yet forgiven Wesley. Dr. Schaff sums up Wesley's position thus: ' ' Wesley began to thunder against the imaginary horrors and blasphemies of Calvinism which has since resounded from innumerable Methodist pulpits. He defines predestination to be 'an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God by virtue of which one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned, and that any of the latter should be saved ; ' and then he goes on to show that this doctrine makes all preaching useless; that he makes void the ordinances of God; and it tends directly to destroy holiness, meekness, and love. The comfort and happiness of religion, zeal for good works, and the whole Christian religion, that it turns God into a hypocrite and deceiver; that it overturns his justice, mercy and truth, and represents him 'as worse than the devil, DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 225 more false and more cruel and more unjust.' 'This,' says he, 'is the blasphemy clearly con- tained in the horrible decree of predestination, and for this I abhor it (however I love the people who assert it.)'" (Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, pp. 895, 896.) I submit that people who abuse each other in this manner ought not to talk of the sectarianism of the Baptists. Perhaps the ' 'Christian Church, "or "Disciples, " says more about Christian union than any other; and yet the "Disciples' 1 fearfully denounce those who do not agree with them. I present one exam- ple out of many that could be chosen. Rev. John F. Rowe, in an article on "Christian Unity," says: ' ' The very fact that the various denominations glory in distinctive titles — in the nomenclature of spiritual Babylon — convinces us of insincerity in seeking Christian union upon the basis of the Bible. While professing to be 'spiritually united,' because they cannot ecclesiastically harmonize, they live in constant fear of each other, and are envious of each other's popularity; and, rather than despise popularity and walk humbly with the humble Christ— walk in the pure light of God's word— they willfully adhere to what they know to be disturbing elements to the peace of the Church. In this state of mind they are neither spiritually nor ecclesiastically united. Whenever all of these parties as individuals shall 15 226 CLOSE COMMUNION. come to be united in Christ, their spiritual Head (and some think they see the golden day ap- proaching), all of this ecclesiastical trumpery will be relegated to the dark dominions of Baby- lon, whence it came. Christian unity stands still until this turn is made. It is the love of power — the love of ecclesiastical distinction — and the pride of opinionism, which prevents the consum- mation of Christian unity." (Christian Review, 1887, p. 233.) I have been long persuaded that those who are the loudest in their abuse of Baptists and Close Communion, and are disposed to make the most capital out of it, are insincere and make this a rallying cry of strife. Sectarianism and a desire for popularity is at the bottom of the whole open-communion business. Whenever you hear a man, or denomination, boasting how wonder- fully liberal he or it is, and that "one church is as good as another," you may know that the whole thing is false, and that he is the most bit- ter sectarian in the country. What we need at this time is Christian manliness, an open-hearted declaration of what we believe, an honest appeal to the word of God; then the day of Christian union is not far away. 3. In church government. Dr. Charles Hodge so admirably states the case that I gladly adopt his words. He says: "It is clearly impossible that Romanists and Protestants should be united DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 227 in the same ecclesiastical organization. It is no less impossible that anything more than a federal union, such as may exist between independent nations, can be formed between Prelatists and Presbyterians, between Baptists and Pedobap- tists, between Congregationalists and any other denomination recognizing the authority of Church Courts. The principles conscientiously adopted by these different bodies are not only different, but antagonistic and incompatible. Those who hold them can no more form one church than despotism and democracy can be united in the constitution of the same State. If by divine right all authority vests in the king, it cannot vest in the people. The advocates of these opposite theories therefore cannot unite in one form of government. It is no less obvious that if ecclesiastical power vests in one man — the bishop — it cannot vest in the presbytery. Episcopalians and Presbyterians cannot there- fore unite. The latter deny the right of the bishop to the prerogatives which he claims; and the former deny the right of the presbytery which it assumes. The same thing is equally plain of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The former regard themselves as bound by the decisions of sessions and presbyteries; the latter refuse to recognize the right of Church courts to exercise discipline or government. So long, therefore, so much difference exist among Chris- 228 CLOSE COMMUNION. tians, it is plain that Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, must form separate and independent bodies." (Church Pol- ity, p. 96.) If Dr. Hodge is right in this, and he undoubt- edly is, why do Methodists and Presbyterians on "sacramental occasions" go through the solemn mockery of saying : ' ' There is no difference, one church is as good as another." Why then not unite in one organization? If there " is no differ- ence " in keeping up different churches, and thus dividing the Christian world, they are sinning before God. There is a difference, great and mighty barriers have been placed in the way of Christian union. The very thing that would keep them from uniting in one organization would logically keep them from communing to- gether. Quit preaching union that never unites; and show us something of the beautiful fruits of real union. Not only are these denominations at war with one another, they are not at peace among them- selves. The various and sundry branches of Methodists ought to come to some agreement among themselves, before they preach too often on "Baptist close communion." In a number of the States two different Methodist bodies are striving to occupy the same territory. It is no uncommon thing to find in a little village, scarcely able to support one church, two rival Methodist DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 229 churches; and the vindictive rivalry is not edify- ing to an outsider. The "Northern and South- ern Methodists'' are not in heavenly accord. The following clipping from a well-known news- paper does not overstate the case : "The Southern Methodist church having, through its representatives in the Council, de- clined for the hundredth time to commit suicide as a church, and turn its effects over to the North, the Northern bishops could no longer re- strain the full expression of their brotherly love. In a recent consultation of war, not against the world, the flesh and the devil, but against South- ern Methodists, Bishop Fowler said: 'They are as thoroughly rebel as they ever were. ' ' That's so,' said Bishop Mallalieu, and added: 'We have gained the cause in Kentucky, Missouri and Ten- nessee, and driven the Southern Methodists to their dens ; and what we have done there we can do in the next belt. ' The 'dens' in Louisville are very handsome large buildings, filled with con- gregations. ' ' To say the least of it, the Methodist millen- nium is not yet." There is at this time, 1892, in progress a vio- lent discussion between the Northern and South- ern Methodists. Bishop Merrill, claiming to write in a spirit of conservatism, has written a book on the "Organic Union of American Meth- odism,"' that is little less than a smoking volcano. 230 CLOSE COMMUNION. He says of the Southern Methodists: "It was noticeable that the representatives of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church, South, remained silent on that occasion (at the Ecumenical Conference) so far as organic union was concerned. From that silence, and from the comments afterward made in their papers, it is readily inferred that those in position to direct public sentiment in the Southern Church are opposed to the agitation of this subject. For years past there has been a studied effort on their part to avoid this discus- sion." (Organic Union, p. 20.) And of the tremendous task of uniting these two Methodist factions, he says: "To expect this grand consummation to be brought about with- out an effort, would be visionary indeed. Time, study, preparation, and sacrifice will be required; and this, after the purpose has been formed to reach the end, as well as in the preliminary steps that lead to that purpose. He who fails to ap- preciate the magnitude of the undertaking is not prepared for the discussion of the subject, nor to sit in judgment on the issue when it is presented. No thoughtful person will look upon it as other than an enterprise of proportions equal to any- thing heretofore attempted in the history of religious denominations." (Organic Union, pp. 9, 10.) But the Bishop says he is not sanguines of this result in his day. Dr. E. E. Hoss, Editor of the Nashville Chris- DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 231 tian Advocate, ends a lengthy review of Bishop Merrill's book with a challenge for a public writ- ten discussion. Among other things, he says: "There is no mistaking Bishop Merrill's object. He avows that it is his desire to promote the consolidation of the various branches of Amer- ican Methodism into one compact and powerful organization. It is our duty to tell him with the utmost plainness of speech that his book will help to delay the consummation of such a result. Though he sets out with the manifest purpose to be fair and just, he does not go far till he shows that he is largely under the dominion of sec- tional and ecclesiastical prejudice. His method of approach to our Church is much as if he should say: 'Come, come my good brethren, in all of the disputes between us you have been wholly in the wrong. I call upon you in the most fraternal spirit to abandon your convic- tions, and to accept mine in their place. ' Whether this is the proper temper in which the healing of an old quarrel should be undertaken, we shall not pause to consider." (Christian Advocate, February 18th, 1892.) The fraternal messenger of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, South, sent to the General Con- ference, at Omaha, was hissed while on the floor of that body. The New Orleans Christian Advo- cate, May 26th, 1892, says: ' ' The dispatches state that when our frater- 232 CLOSE COMMUNION. nal messenger to the General Conference, at Omaha, Dr. J. J. Tigert, in the course of his speech to that body, remarked that the ' South- ern whites were the negroes' best friends,' the statement was greeted with hissings! This was an unpardonable offense. The M. E. Church had as well cease prating about fraternity and union, if our representative to their highest body is to be treated with such indignity and no protest made as publicly as the hissing was done! " I have no disposition to enter into a discussion of this nature, but I do wish to say, that until the Methodists quit perpetrating upon the Chris- tian world, such discussions as these, in all good conscience they ought to cease talking about ' ' Baptist close communion," even though it be as bad as the average Methodist pictures it to be. The Presbyterians are scarcely better off than the Methodists, with this additional difficulty that their discussions are on the most vital ques- tions of doctrine. And the Episcopalians come forward and de- clare that the Presbyterians are not ordained. Palmer says: "These questions, however, are not essential in the discussion of the Presbyterian ordinations; for it is certain, that such ordina- tions having been performed without any neces- sity, and in opposition to the authority of the bishops of Scotland, were in their origin illegiti- mate and schismatieal; and the Catholic church in DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. SA'A all ages has rejected such ordinations, and ac- counted them null; therefore the Presbyterian establishment being founded in schism, and destitute of an apostolic ministry, constitutes no part of the visible church of Christ." (Church of Christ, vol. 1, p. 4-43.) We Baptists humbly suggest that our own doctrines are scriptural and rational, and that our Methodist and Presbyterian brethren have ample opportunities to invest their spare time in looking after their own schisms. 4. Open communionists do not agree among themselves as to the nature and design of the Lord's Supper. They will sit down and eat of the bread and drink of the wine, and get up and wrangle over the significance of the thing they have done. One declares that he ate of the body and blood of the Son of God; and the other de- nies that it is more than a remembrance- of the Son of God. The mere observance of the Lord's Supper has never been a bond of union for a moment to a single congregation. The whole thing of open communion is farcical, unscrip- tural and impolitic. 234 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XIX. OPEN COMMUNION IS A WORN OUT HERESY BOR- ROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. THE fact is that the whole system of open communion originated with the Baptists, and has been borrowed from us by others. Pre- vious to John Bunyan, and some of his followers, open communion was not heard of in the world. Open communion was not found in the Bible, but borrowed from the Baptists. It is an old heresy that we well nigh discarded long ago, because it was not Scriptural nor practical, and in more recent years some people think they have made a great discovery. Among the Baptists of England open commun- ion has never had more than a transient popu- larity. Our Confessions of Faith have all, with one exception, and that one does not mention the subject, been in favor of restricted commun- ion. I quote these Confessions, not as authori- tative, for Baptists recognize nothing as author- itative except the holy Scriptures, but as giving our position and history in regard to this ordi- nance. (See Confessions of Faith of the Baptist Churches of England, London, 1854.) From the Schleitheim Confession, one of the BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 235 oldest Baptist documents known, 1527: "All who would break one bread for a memorial of the bro- ken body of Christ, and all who would drink one draught as a memorial of the poured out blood of Christ, should before hand be united to one body of Christ; that is, to the church of God, of which the head is Christ, to-wit, by baptism. " From the Confession of John Smyth and his church, 1610: "The holy Supper, according to the institution of Christ, is to be administered to the baptized; as the Lord Jesus hath commanded that whatsoever he hath appointed should be taught to be observed." From another and longer form of the same: ' ' That only the baptized are to taste the elements of the Lord's Supper." From the Confession of Seven London Churches, 1544: "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who, upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper." From the appendix to the above, prepared by Benjamin Cox: ' ' Though a believer's right to the use of the Lord's Supper do immediately flow from Jesus Christ apprehended and received by faith; yet inasmuch as all things ought to be done not only decently, but also in order, 1 Cor. 14:40; and the Word holds forth this order, that 236 CLOSE COMMUNION. disciples should be baptized, Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; and then be taught to observe all things (that is to say, all other things) that Christ com- manded the Apostles, Matt. 28:20; and accord- ingly the Apostles first baptized disciples, and then admitted them to the use of the Supper, Acts 2:4-42; we therefore do not admit any to the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any in the use of this ordinance, but disciples bap- tized, lest we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order. " From the Somerset Confession, 1656: "That it is the duty of every man and woman, that have repented from the dead works, and have faith toward God, to be baptized * * * And being thus planted in the visible church or body of Christ * * * do walk together in communion, in all the commandments of Jesus. * * * That we believe some of those commandments further to be as followeth: 1. Constancy in prayer. 2. Breaking of bread,*' etc. (The omissions are mainly passages of Scripture quoted in proof of the statements.) From a brief Confession of Faith (London, 1660): "That the right and only way of gather- ing churches (according to Christ's appointment, Matt. 28:19,20) is first to teach or preach the gospel (Mark 16:16) to the sons and daughters of men; and then to baptize (that is English, to dip) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 237 Spirit, or in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, such only of them as profess repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. * * * That is the duty of such who are consti- tuted as aforesaid, to continue steadfastly in Christ's and the Apostles' doctrines, and assem- bling together, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and prayers (Acts 2:42)." Prom an Orthodox Creed, 1678: "And no un- baptized, unbelieving, or open profane, or wicked heretical persons, ought to be admitted to this ordinance to profane it. " The only Baptist Confession extant that fails to speak explicitly for restricted communion is that of 1698, which is designedly silent for the reason stated in the appendix to that document: ' ' We are not insensible, that as to the order of God's house, and entire communion therein, there are some things wherein we (as well as others) are not at full accord among ourselves; as for instance, the known principle and state of the consciences of divers of us, that have agreed in this confession is such, that we cannot hold church communion with any other than baptized believers, and churches constituted of such; yet some others of us have a greater liberty and free- dom in our spirits that way; and, therefore, we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, that we might concur in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among ourselves 238 CLOSE COMMUNION. and with other good Christians, in those impor- tant articles of the Christian religion, mainly- insisted on by us; and this, notwithstanding, we all esteem it our chief concern, both among our- selves and all others that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, and love him in sin- cerity, to endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; and in order thereunto, to exercise all lowliness and meekness, with long- suffering, forbearing one another in love." After Bunyan's time the controversy dropped until the latter part of the eighteenth century. Baptists, and so far as I know no one else, held to open communion. Abraham Booth, in his able Vindication of the Baptists, gives the exact history of this thing. He says: "If we appeal to the persuasion and practice of Christians in all ages and nations, it will clearly appear, that baptism was universally considered, by the churches of Christ, as a di- vinely appointed prerequisite to the Lord's Sup- per, till about the middle of the last (eighteenth) century, here in England, when some few of the Baptists began to call it in question, and prac- tically to deny it. This our brethren now do who defend and practice free communion. * * * The ingenious author of the ' Pilgrim's Progress ' was one of the first in this Kingdom who dared to assert that the want of baptism is ' no bar to BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. L'3!) communion,' and acted accordingly." (Booth > Apology for the Baptists, Works, vol. 2, pp. 360, 361, 364.) Dr. Wall says the Baptists of his time were strict communionists. ' ' I know, " says he, ' ' that the antipsedobaptists do not admit to the Lord's Supper, when it is administered by themselves, any but that are baptized in their way. * * * One thing I am persuaded of concerning the anti- psedobaptists; and that is, that if they were con- vinced that this joining in the public service of the Church were lawful and practicable for them, they would join at another rate than some shifting people do nowadays. I take them gen- erally to be cordial, open, and frank expressers of their sentiments." (Wall's History Infant Baptism, vol. 1, pp. 686, 688.) That open communion originated with the Baptists, and was an unheard-of thing, is amply proved by Dr. John Dick, the eminent Presby- terian scholar. Dr. Dick says: "Our Lord has shown for whose use this ordinance is intended, by administering it to his disciples; and a con- clusion may be deduced from the passover, to which the Israelites alone had access, and those who had joined themselves to them by submit- ting to circumcision. ' This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat there- of. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover of the Lord, let 240 CLOSE COMMUNION. all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. ' Since circumcision was an indispensable qualification for eating the passover, it follows that baptism, which has suc- ceeded to it, is requisite to entitle a person to a seat to the table of the Lord. I do not know that this was ever called in question till lately, that a controversy has arisen among the English Bap- tists, whether persons of other Christian denom- inations may not be occasionally admitted to the holy communion with them; and it became neces- sary for those who adopted the affirmative, to maintain that baptism is not a previous condi- tion. This assertion arose out of the peculiar system, which denies the validity of infant bap- tism. But to every man who contents himself with a plain view of the subject, and has no pur- pose to serve by subtleties and refinements, it will appear that baptism is as much the initiating ordinance of the Christian, as circumcision was of the Jewish dispensation. An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the passover, and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist." (Dick's Theology, Lecture 92, p. 421.) It was the eloquent Robert Hall that made open communion popular. In common with all other Baptists he rejected infant baptism and BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 241 affusion. He did not believe that Pedobaptists were baptized at all. He likewise held that bap- tism was not a prerequisite to communion. Pastor Charles H. Spurgeon is often quoted in this connection. His view was somewhat peculiar. In speaking of a visit to Mr. Spurgeon, in May, 1881, Rev. H. L. Wayland, D.D., editor of the National Baptist, writes in that paper, July 7th, 1881, as follows: "Having heard varying state- ments as to his views of the communion question. I thought I would not lose the opportunity of learning at first hands what his position was. He said: 'We occupy a conservative position among our churches on that matter. I believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper are the priv- ilege of all Christians. I believe that any Chris- tian has a right to be baptized; and any Christian has a right to baptize, and especially any minister. So I believe any Christian has a right to partake of the Lord's Supper. When I am at Mentone, it is a great pleasure to me to break bread for all Christians who desire to unite in the Supper. But I do not believe that any one should be ad- mitted to the church without baptism. If any person of credible Christian character comes to us and asks to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, we give him the privilege for three months, at the end of that time we say to him : ' You have had an opportunity to know our views and our 16 242 CLOSE COMMUNION. practice; if you choose to unite with us, we shall be glad to receive you. If not, you had better go to those with whom you are in fuller sympathy. ' And in ninety- nine times out of an hundred the person says: 'I have seen your ways; and I am satisfied to be baptized. ' " No man denounced infant baptism, and espe- cially infant baptismal salvation, with more ter- rific severity than did Mr. Spurgeon. Yet he practically nullified this by allowing the unbap- tized to commune with his church; but he did not permit them to become members until they had been immersed upon a profession of their faith. At the end of three months, if such persons did not wish to be baptized, they were asked to dis- continue their approach to the communion table. Their non-membership, said Mr. Spurgeon, ren- dered them ineligible to church membership; their non-baptism, say I, rendered them ineligible to the Lord's Supper. I go farther than this, and say, that membership in a Scriptural church is a supreme prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, while baptism is a prerequisite because it is indispen- sable to church membership. All that is needed to refute the opinion of Robert Hall and Mr. Spurgeon is the commission of our Lord: "Go disciple all nations, baptizing them,'' etc. It is perfectly evident that discipleship preceded bap- tism, and between discipleship and baptism, BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 243 which is an immediate duty upon believing, there is no room for the observance of the Lord's Supper. I am sure that Spurgeon was not antagonistic to Baptist principles, as held by us in America. Dr. William E. Hatcher writes, in the Religious Herald, March 3rd, 1892: "But it yet remains to record his most emphatic and memorable utter- ance with reference to the American Baptists: 'I have,' he said, 'not one word of unfriendly criticism to utter against my Baptist brethren beyond the Atlantic. On the contrary, I believe that the Baptists of America are the best Bap- tists in the world, and that the best Baptists in America are the Baptists of the South. More- over, if I were to come to America to live, I would join a close communion church and con- form myself to its practices on the Communion question. ' As we talked further, he said that it was impossible for an outsider fully to under- stand the Baptist situation in England, and even the little that I saw and heard convinced me that American Baptists need to exercise charity and forbearance toward their English brethren. They have persecutions and complications to which we are strangers, and if they do not hold all of the distinctive views for which we stand, we ought, at least, to rejoice for such testimony, in favor of the truth, as they are so nobly bear- ing." 244 CLOSE COMMUNION. The Journal and Messenger publishes a paper on Spurgeon, read before the Cleveland Baptist Ministers' Conference, by the Rev. W. A. Perrins, late of Spurgeon's College, which gives valuable testimony concerning the great preacher's views on "close communion." Mr. Perrins says: "Wrong impressions have gone abroad in regard to his position in respect to the communion question. This has led some other denominations to claim him as their own. But he was a Baptist to the backbone and at heart a close communionist. My last interview with him, a few days previous to my leaving for this country, proves this. After a very lengthy conversation on subjects relative to American theology, he said: ' Have you made up your mind on the communion question? You are going to a country where the majority of Baptists are close communionists. Really, if I had to begin my ministry again, I should certainly commence with a close-communion church., I am led to believe the American Baptists are right, but I cannot alter the usages of my church, which have been of so long standing.'" Dr. Edward Parker, President of the Man- chester Baptist College, when in America in 1889, said that Mr. Spurgeon was hardly looked upon in England as an Open Communionist, and Mr. Spurgeon said of himself: "As compared BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 245 with the bulk of English Baptists, I am a strict communionist myself, as my church fellowship is strictly of the baptized."' Here then is the origin of open communion. John Bunyan was its father, and Robert Hall its most eloquent advocate. Whenever you hear other denominations boasting of their open com- munion, a quiet reminder would not be out of place, that open communion is a Baptist heresy, rejected by the most of Baptists, and that it was born over sixteen hundred years this side of the apostles. But up to this time open communion has not prevailed among the Baptists of Great Britain, nor is it likely to prevail. The open communion wing is rapidly declining, while the restricted communionists are constantly gaining ground. Rev. D. O. Davis, of Rockdale, England, ad- dressed the Southern Baptist Convention, in May, 1891. Among other things he said was that the close communionists constituted a ma- jority of the Baptists of Great Britain. His figures were as follows: "In Wales there are ninety thousand four hundred and seventy -nine Baptists, almost to a man close communionists. In Scotland, thirty -three thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, nearly all close communionists, so that we have in Wales and Scotland one hun- dred and twenty-five thousand one hundred and 246 CLOSE COMMUNION. sixteen close communionists. We have in Ens'- land at least sixty thousand close communionists. In the United Kingdom we have a total of one hundred and eighty-five thousand one hundred and sixteen close communionists. There are one hundred and thirty-four thousand six hundred and thirty-nine open communionists." THE END. INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS. PAGE Advance, The. . .112, 204, 208 Alexander, Dr. Archi- bald 25 Alford, Henry 36 American Christian lie- view 1<>2 American Presbyterian . . 84 Antioch, Council of 39 Apostolic Constitutions, 42, 45 Apostolic Times 158, 161 Armitage, Thomas 194 Asbury, Bishop 129, 131, 138-140 Assembly, General 89 Augustine 41, 44, 49, 217 Baird, Robert IT Bancroft, George 12 Bannerman 55 Baptism 163 Baptismal salvation, 173; taught by The Disci- ples, 181 ; Episcopali- ans, 173; Presbyteri- ans, 175; Methodists. . 177 Baptists, Bigoted, 8; Bi- ble Societies, 20; Char- ity, 190; Colleges, 16; Confessions of Faith, 234; misunderstood, 7; ignorance of, 15; mis- PAQE sions, 19; Newspapers, 17; Persecuted, 74-80, 92-101, 114-117; Reli- gious liberty, 12-1.",: writers 17 Barnes, Albert 26 Basil 42 Baumgarten 31 Bede, Venerable 43 Beecher, Edward 165 Beecher, Henry "Ward.. Ill Belgic Confession 62 Bengel 31 Bennett, Dr. C. W..119, 172, 216 Bingham 65, 213 Bledsoe, A. T. .171, 178, 224 Bloomfield 34 Blount, J. J 31 Bona venture 43 Booth, Abraham 238 Bossuet, Bishop 213 Bowman, Bishop 146 Breckinridge, Robert.. 101 Broadus, J. A 191 Brownwell, Dr 71 Bullinger 82 Bullock, M. G 148 Bunsen, Baron 40 Bunyan, John. . . 17, 234, 238, 245 Burgess, O. A 183 248 INDEX. PAGE Burial of the Dead 72 Burkitt, Wm 26,31, 34 Burnet, Bishop 76 Calvin, John.. 28, 31, 81, 92, 98, 176, 222, 224 Campbell, Alexander. . . 156-158, 181-183 Catholics 61 Carthage, Council of. 40, 44 Cary 67 Cassia 45 Catechism, Longer .90, 185 Caulkins, Dr. W 113 Cave 66 Chalmers, Thomas 15 Cheetham, S 46, 64 Christian Advocate, Nash- ville 198, 230 Christian Advocate, New York 149, 153, 154 Christian Advocate, New Orleans 231 Christian Antiquities, writers on 58 Christian Church not in agreement with Pedo- baptists, 225 Christian Quarterly 158 Christian union 10, 225 Church of England, Thirty-nine Articles of 62, 66 Church responsibility for discipline 202 Church, writers on 54 Clarke, Adam. . .26, 118, 204 Clement 41, 216 PAGE Close Communion, 7, 21; Christian Church, 156- 162 ; Congregational Church, 109; Episco- pal Church, 64; Meth- odist Church, 118; Presbyterian 81 Coke, Dr. Thomas,.. 129-139 Coleman, Lyman. 45, 59, 215 Collier 77, 78 Conference, First Meth- odist 127 Confirmation 68 Conyreyationalist, The... 110 Constitutions and Canons 72 Coronation Oath 93 Cox, Ben j 235 Cox, Homersham 52 Creeds, Confessions, etc. Testimony of 61-63 Curtis 192 Cuyler, T. L 18, 83 Cyprian 216, 217 Cyril of Jerusalem 41 Dabney, Dr 57 Davis, D. 245 Dexter, H. M 109 Dick, John 84, 239 Didache, The 41 Difference between chu- rch communion and Christian communion 190 Discipline, Methodist 63, 118, 141-146, 177 Dollinger 42, 47 Drew. .130, 135, 136, 137, 138 Dudley, Bishop T. U. . . . 73 INDEX. 249 PAGE Dutch Confession 96 Dwight, Dr. T..109, 218, 221 Ellicott, C. J 35 Engles, Dr 102 Episcopal Church, Terms of Communion in the. 64 Episcopalians and Pres- byterians not in har- mony 232 Errett, 1 159, 183 Evagrius 217 Evil Livers ... 71 Fathers, testimony of .39-49 Featley, D 78 Fisher, George P. 53, 94, 109, 115, 116 Foot 98 French Confession 96 Froude 75 Fuller, Thomas 76, 164 Gardner, W. W 192 Gervinus 13 Gieseler 51, 214 Gibbon 52 Gloag 26, 32 Godet 35 Graham, Robert 158 Greek Church 44, 61 Green 60, 86 Griffin, Dr 87 Gregory and Ruter 53 Guericke 48, 59 Guthrie 100, 176 Hall, John 88 Hall. Robert.... 24, 156, 240, 242 PAOE Haimack. Dr 173 Hart 218 Hase 18 Hatcher, Wm 243 Hawks 80, 100, 131, 138 Hedding, Bishop 141 Heidelberg Catechism. . 62 HelviticConfession,fh*st, 61, 94; second 62, 94 Hendrix, Bishop 147 Henning 79 Herndon, E. W 160, 1*4 Hess 79 Hibbard, Dr 29, 118, 149, 150, 204, 210 Hippolytus 40 Historical writers 50 Hoadley, Bishop 198 Hodge, A. A 91, 186 Hodge, Charles 34, 36, 177, 186, 195, 225 Hornbekius 60 Hoss, E. E 230 Hovey, A 191 Hunter, John 87 Immersion 164 Infant baptism 168 Independent, The. . . .110, 111. 205 Infant communion 212 Interior, The 21, 86 Irish Ai-ticles of Faith. 63 Jackson 127 Jacob 55 Jefferson, Thomas. . .97, 98 Jerome 41 Jobius 42 250 INDEX. PAGE John's baptism 24 Jones, S. P 187 Journal and Messenger... 244 Kaye, Bishop 55 Keener, Bishop 148 Killin, Dr 55 King, P 47, 65 Knapp, George.. .24, 27, 163 Kurtz 48, 51 Ladd 209 Latitudinarianism 8 Lard, Moses 159, 183 Latimer, Bishop 79 Lecky 169 Lerida, Council of 45 Liddell and Scott. . .166, 202 Litton 54 London, Bishop of 133 Lowth, Bishop, asked to ordain a Methodist. . . 128 Luther 60 Lundy 214 Macaulay 17, 175 Macknight 34 Madison, President 99 Malice 71 Manton, Dr 60 Marckius 57 Martensen, Bishop 58 Martyr, Justin 39 Mass, The 44-46 Mastricht 56 Mather, Increase 115 Mathews, R. T 184 McDowell 57 McGarvey, J. W 161 PAGE McTyeire, Bishop . .121, 124, 126, 128 Mell, P. H 193 Melvill 200 Membership, converted. 185 Merrill, Bishop 229, 231 Methodists not in har- mony among them- selves, 228; Close com- munionists, 118-155; Without sacraments for seven years 140 Meyer 35, 172, 202 Milman 52 Miscellaneous writers . . 59 Montf ort, David 107 Moschus, J 217 Mosheim 50 Neander 48, 50 Nevin 176 Observer, The 86 Old Catholic Church. . . 61 Olshausen 34, 35 Oosterzee 34 Open communion bor- rowed from the Bap- tists, 234; destroys Gos- pel discipline, 202;open communionists do not endorse each other. . . 220 Ordination, Episcopal. . 66 Orthodox Creed 237 Origin 41, 172 Palmer, B. M 84 Palmer 232 INDEX. 251 PAGE Pan-Presbyterian Coun- cil 101 Parker, E 244 Pendleton, J. M 191 Perrins 241 Pictetus 5(5 Positive and moral law. 197 Prayer Book 69-72, 174 Prerequisites to the Lord's Supper 23, 81 Predestination 223 Presbyterians and Meth- odists not agreed in doctrine, 103, 222; Con- fession of Faith, 81, 85, 88-90, 175, 185; internal troubles of, 229; origin of 92 Pressense 51, 1 <>7 Pseudo-Dyonisius 216 Quincey 16 Ravennellius 59 Recorder, Episcopal 64 Religious Herald 243 Resolutions of Southern Baptist Convention. 10, 11 Riddle 58 Rives 98 Roberts, W. C 82 Robertson, J. G 52 Rules for translating King James' Bible. . . . 164 Rushwood 89 Salmatius 213 Saxony, Confession of . . 95 PAGE Schaff, Philip. 12, 42, 44, 45, 48, 54, 84, 176, 216, 224 Schismatics 68 Schleitheim Confession. 234 Scholars, testimony of . 50-60 Scotch Confession 62 Scriptural statement. .21-38 Seven London Churches, Confession of 235 Skeats 12, 120, 124, 126 Smith, J. Pye 166 Smyth, John, Confession of 235 Sniveley 69 Somerset, Confession of. 236 Southey, Robert 123 Spanheim 51 Spurgeon, Charles H., 241-245; not an open communionist 241 Stanley, A. P 36 Stevens, A 128, 130 Steir, Rudolf 60 Stillingfleet, Bishop — 47 Stow 74 Summers, Thomas 188 Syriac Version 31, 32 SystematicTheology and Dogmatics, writers on 56 Tertullian 43, 163 Thayer, J. H 166, 202 Theophylact 43 Thompson, Hugh Miller 73 Trent, Council of 61 Turretin 9,27,56, 92 Tyerman...l21, 122, 123, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 179 252 INDEX. PAGE Valentina, Council of — 45 Waddington 52 Wake.. 69 Wall 49, 65, 76, 175, 239 Washington, George ... 14 Watson, Richard 151 Way land, H. L 241 Webster 8 Wesley, Charles 122, 125-127, 223 Wesley, John 9, 120-125, 131, 179, 222, 223 Westminster Confession 63 Wheatley 68-70 PAGE White, Bishop, Dr.Coke appeals to him for or- dination 132 Whitehead 130, 131 Wilkinson, W. C 195 Williams 69 Williams, Roger 13 Withrow, J.H 19, 21-23, 114 Witsius 57 Woods, Dr 18 Wright, G. W Ill Zanchius 59 U«i !H A u 000 ■J-Jbiahyh 239 "l I 13)