COMMUNION OP SAINTS the COMMUNION OF THE BIBLE. DOVER, N. H.: PUBLISHED BY THE FREEWILL BAPTIST PRINTING ESTABTISHMENT. "WILLIAM BURN, PRINTER, 1860. THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS COMMUNION OF THE BIBLE. DOVER, N. H.: PUBLISHED BY THE FREEWILL BAPTIST PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT. WILLIAM BURS, PRINTER. 1860. THE Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1840, by Wm. Burr, Agent of The Trustees of the F. W. B. Connexion,” in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of New Hampshire. COMMUNION OF SAINTS· There seems not to be an ordinance D0r item of faith of the Christian church upon which professors of relig-ion do not differ. Warm and protracted contests have involved the plainest doctrine of the J3ible in clouds and mysteries. Men have not been content to do their duty only, but have often performed for ordinances in the Christian church that which Christ never ordained, and that which his apostles never practiced. Even the Lord’s supper is made a subject of controversy. In order to vindicate the propriety of the “ communion of saints”— the free communion of all saints—I shall proceed in the following order : I. Define the sense of the term communion. II. Circumstances attending its institution, time, even footing with a command of Jehovah. I will give one other specimen of the same kind of argument. 4‘It was the duty of Nadab and Abihu to burn incense be-fore the Lord; but it was not their duty to burn it with strange fire.״ We will take a view of thi3 circumstance* Levit* 10:1: “ And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he COMMANDED NOT.” Do yon suppose, while the trembling child of God comes to the Lord’s table, that he knows that the Lord commanded him not ? Where is that command? It is only a com-mand of men. This is perhaps the reason that unbap-tized Christians are not burnt up like Nadab and Abihu, or struck dead, as vrere Ananias and Sappbira, for com-ing to the LordTs table, viz.: they break only the com-mands of men. For well informed men to bring up tills circumstance of God's wrath against these priests for breaking his known command, in order to keep the fee-ble follower of Christ away from his board, by holding up the glittering sword of Almighty vengeance over their heads should they partake, is, I think, not only in-consistent, but cruel I What is proved by this passage ? Why, that God did command them not to burn incense with strange fire, and that because they did it he cut them off—and it proves, also, that under circumstances as criminal God would cut us off, and that, while God displays (instead of vengeance) his love to all who love his Son and obey him in this ordinance, no Divine command is violated or trampled by their obedience* It would require an infinite number of such arguments, as I have quoted, in favor of close communion, to prove it. These arguments are not conclusive, for this reason. A violation of a positive command is taken to prove it wrong to violate no positive command of God whatever. In fact, they are hostile to the close communion cause, and entirely irrelevant to the purpose for which they are brought; for they prove that if we break a positive command of God, God will not be well pleased with us; and, instead of sending his Spirit into our hearts, he w׳ould send his curses upon our heads; and this proves ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS 24 the reverse of what they intend to prove by it, that is, no positive command is violated when any of Christ’s disciples come around his table, where he refreshes them witli his Holy Spirit, .and fills their souls with his love. This proves that they are not transgressing any com-mand of God, If I understand the foregoing arguments, they are sophistical. They come under that class of sophisms termed “petitio principiia begging of the question. The question begged is that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to a proper observance of the Lord’s Supper. That no person, therefore, who has not been immersed in water can properly observe that sup-perf is the conclusion. This conclusion would be cor-rect, if the question was not begged. “ Baptism,” say they, “is prerequisite to the Lord’s supper.” If we ask how that fact is proved, the answer is, “ Baptism is pre-requisite to the Lord’s Supper.” Thus a man proves God is eternal, because he is without beginning or end ; that is, God is eternal because he is eternal. So argue Pedobaptists. “ The covenant of grace and the cove-nant of circumcision are the same,” and upon this beg-ged question, all the mighty fabric is reared. The first thing is to prove that two covenants are one. Thi3 would be like proving that two straight lines can enclose a space—or that all right angles are not equal. All or-dinances are founded not on the nature and fitness of things, but upon a positive command of God. If God, therefore, has placed two ordinances in his church for his children to observe, and has not said, “ This you must do first, or else the performance of the other will be 5171,” I cannot be bound to believe thus. I will now give another specimen of petitio principii practiced by close communionists. “ Baptism may be styled a gospel or-dinance, and not a church ordinance; because it is not administered to church members, and because the pas-tor has authority to administer it independently of the concurrence of the church.” This depends entirely on circumstances. If the church of which I am the pastor, should vote that a person who had applied for baptism was not, in its opinion, a proper subject, should I be at liberty to baptize that person ? In this the question begged is, that because the administrator has authority to baptize without the concurrence of the church, baptism is not a church ordinance. Why has the pastor this 25 *,OR CLOSE COMMUNION. authority ? Because baptism is not a church ordinance ! *Why is it not a church ordinance ? Because the pas-tor has authority to baptize without the concurrence of the church !! But, says the same writer, “The Lord’s supper may be styled a church ordinance, because it is to be admin-istered only to church members ; and because the pas-tor cannot administer it without the concurrence of the church.” Here you see a distinction between the two ordinances of the church of Christ. Baptism is a gospel ordinance ; that is, part of the glad tidings (or gospel.) The Lord’s supper is a church ordinance, designed for church members only ! So there is but one ordinance in the church, and one in the gospel ! Why was this distinction made ? Because, if Mr. Foster had admitted that both the ordinances of the Christian church belong-ed to church members, it would overthrow the idea that no unbaptized person can be a member of the church of Christ in this world. But we will look at the proof again. Why 'cannot the Lord’s supper be administered without the concurrence of the church ? Because it is a church ordinance ! Why is it a church ordinance (any more than baptism) tben ? Because it cannot be ad-ministered without the concurrence of the church ! Ar-guing thus in a circle may satisfy some credulous minds —some who receive mysteries into their faith, because they are mysteries, and love to believe impossibilities ; but will never satisfy the more inquiring part of man-kind. 2. We are now brought fairly to test the objection urged by those who practice close communion, that is, “ Baptism is the rite that initiates into the church.” Says Dr. Gill, “ to receive an unbaptized person into com-munion was never once attempted among all the corrup-tions of the church of Borne.” Very true. The Catho-lies deserve credit for this idea. It is theirs ! This very idea of baptism being an initiatory rite into the Christian church is from Rome, “ the mother church !” How sor-ry I have felt to see ray Close Baptist brethren in order to support this idea yield the whole ground to Pedobap-tists, and even to the Roman Catholics. Says Bish-op Watson, “It has been established that baptism was put by our Lord himself and his apostles in the room of circumcisiop as an initiatory rite into the cove-3 ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS 26 nant of grace.״ This wa3 first argued by the u mother church 1״ The fathers believed it. They taught that without baptism there was no salvation—that the little infant, in danger of eternal damnation for his original sin, was to be washed—brought into the covenant of grace, and saved, by baptism. This was the great ground of infant baptism ! The text they brought to prove this, was, “ Except a man be born of water and of the Spir-it, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.״ This they understood a3 a literal baptism in water ; and here, from & misapprehension of the text, arose a system of incon-sistencies and practices in the days of the “ fathers,” even the recital of which would crimson the cheek of modesty, and chill the blood of the chaste. Here even the Close Baptists have come over on the ground of Pe-dobaptist3 by saying, that as no uncircumcised person ate of the passover, so no unbaptized person must eat the Lord’s supper. Very nearly admitting what in bap-tism they deny. They deny that baptism came in the room of circumcision, but acknowledge it by arguing in support of close communion ! In proof of this, I will transcribe a paragraph of the writings of the celebrated Abraham Booth, published by their General Tract Soci-ety in Philadelphia : “ I take it for granted that circumcision was absolute-ly necessary for every male in order to communion at the paschal supper and in the solemn worship of the sanctuary. And if so, had the most renowned antedilu-vians that ever lived, or most illustrious Gentile that ever appeared in the world, been contemporary with Mo-ses and sojourners in the same wilderness, they could not have been admitted to communion in the Israelitish church without submitting to circumcision. Enoch, though as a saint he walked with God, though as a prophet he foretold the coming of Christ to judgment —Noah, though an heir of the righteousness of faith, a preacher of that righteousness and one of Ezekiel’s worthies, (Chap. 14: 14, &c.,)—Melchisedek, though a king and a priest of the most high God, sviperior to Abra-ham, and the greatest personal type of the Lord Mes-siah that ever was among men—and Job, though for pi-ety there was none like him on earth—these I say, not-withstanding all their piety and holiness, notwithstand-ing all their shining excellences, exalted characters, and 27 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. useful services, could not have been admitted to com-munion with the chosen tribes at the tabernacle of the God of Israel without a violation of the Divine com-mand. This, I persuade myself, our opponents must al-low ; this I think they dare not deny. Yet, if Enoch had been in the camp of Israel when Korah and his company mutinied, and had been disposed to give the rebels a lecture on the second coming of Christ, I can-not suppose that his offered service would have been rejected by Moses or Joshua, merely because he was not circumcised. Or, if Noah had been present at the erection of the tabernacle, and inclined to give the people a sermon on the future incarnation of the Son of God, and the righteousness of faith, to which ob-jects the structure, with its costly utensils and solemn services, had a typical regard, I cannot but think they would have given him a hearing. Nay, I appeal to our opponents themselves, whether they do not think so as well as I. Yet that favored people could not ‘ have ad-mitted them to communion in some other hranches of Divine worship, without transgressing the law of Jeho-vah. If this be allowed, the consequence is plain, and the argument, though analogical, is irrefragable. For the paschal feast and the sanctuary services were not more of a positive nature than the Lord’s supper, nor were the former more peculiar to that dispensation than the latter is to this ; but preaching and hearing the word are not peculiar to any dispensation of grace, as are bap-tism and the sacred supper.” Now we have it in plain English from the Baptist General Tract Society—that in the other dispensation of grace ! circumcision stood in the same relation to the paschal communion that baptism in this dispensation of grace stands to the communion at the Lord’s table ! And that it would have been a violation of the law of Jeho-vah, had good old Enoch, (who had been in heaven, soul and body, for many generations,) been admitted to eat the passover while uncircuracised. We will now look at the design of this paragraph and the weight of this “ irrefragable” argument. In the first place, “ it is taken for granted that circumcision was absolutely neces-sary for males in order to communion at the paschal supper.” Just as if it was not thu3 absolutely decreed by the only wise God. Exodus 12 : 48, “ No uncircum- ANSWElt TO THE ARGUMENTS 28 cised person shall eat thereof.” This is immutably fix-ed so that we need not surmise it was so. It is also said in this argument that the Lord’s supper is a positive ordinance, and implied to be of no less consequence than the paschal supper, only it was attached to anoth-er dispensation. This I admit. Now if the ordinances of the gospel were of as much consequence as those Jew-ish church ordinances were, and the order in which they should be administered was of the same importance, why was it not mentioned by the head of the church ? Must we reason analogically to find whether an uncir-cumcised person should eat the passover ? Not at all. But when we come to the bright shining light of the gospel dispensation, where life and immortality are brought to light, and God’s will perfectly revealed to his children—that light that prophets and kings desired to see—we must reason from analogy, or a supposed analo-gy between Judaism and Christianity, ״ that Christ de-signed we should follow the same order in his church that the Jews did in their national church ! The com-mand, «No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof,” was given in order to prevent any error in this respect in the Jewish church ; but when that perfect dispensa-tion commenced, which should continue to the end of time, we have to guess or draw inferences, or fall into errors, as to the proper subjects of its ordinances ! What stupendous conclusions. The fact that there is no com-mand to prohibit unbaptized believers from celebrating the Lord’s supper, is evidence that Christ never design-ed that one of the ordinances should depend on the oth-er. I deny that the Christian church is a continuation of the Jewish nation or church. Where is the analogy between. the ordinances of the Jewish and Christian churches ? Some have imagined a great analogy be-tween the ordinance of sprinkling a little water on an infant’s face and circumcision ! But the ordinance of sprinkling was an ordinance of man, and so this analog-ical reasoning is all to prove an " order,” established by men ! Did not God know as well that unbaptized per-sons might want to come to the table of the Lord as that uncircumcised persons might wish to eat of the paschal supper ? He undoubtedly did. But he put a timely pro-liibition as to coming to the paschal supper, uncircum-cised. Had he not as much regard for order in the 29 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. Christian a3 in the Jewish church ? He certainly had. Then as long as he lias not seen fit to prohibit unbap-tized persons coming to the Lord’s supper, it is evident he did not regard it in the light of our close communion brethren, as disorderly and wicked and trampling upon the authority of Jehovah. Christ has erected his church and given it every necessary rule, and none need to make additional rules. As long as he has commanded all his disciples to celebrate this supper, it is not my du-ty to command part of his disciples not to do it. Says Mr. Booth, “ That circumcision was, by Divine com-mand, an indispensable qualification in every male for a participation of the Jewish passover and communion in the sanctuary worship, is generally allowed.” He then goes on to say, that he is far from thinking that baptism came in the room of circumcision ; but that it is “ equally necessary to communion at the Lord’s table.” If this is not arguing in a circle, I know not what is. Why was circumcision an indispensable qualification for the pas· chal supper? Because God commanded that no iincir-cumcised person should eat of it. Is there any like command in the Christian church to regulate the com-munion table ? No. Then for unbaptized Christians to come to the communion table is wrong, because it is wrong, when no command is violated! To assume that this is wrong, is a gratuitous assertion, and then to prove it by making the same assertion, is arguing in a circle. But the idea prevailed among the fathers, that the priests and bishops had the duties of the Levites to per-form, and that *they were descendants from the holy or-ders of the Jewish church—that communion was instead of the passover—that the Christian church was a contin-uation of the Abrahamic church—that if any man did not obey the bishop, he deserved death ; and. among other things too numerous to mention, that baptism came in the room of circumcision ; and as no uncircumci9ed person was to eat the passover, so no unbaptized person was to eat at the Lord’s table ! These were some of the whims of these fathers. Says Theophylact, ,‘No unbaptized person communicates at the Lord’s table.” That the authority of the fathers is not like inspiration, will seem plain when we consider some of the acts of their great councils. Be it remembered, that the idea 3* ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS 30 that baptism as an indispensable prerequisite to the ob-servance of the Lord’s supper came from the “fathers.” Says Mr. Foster, “ The ancient churches universally practiced upon the belief that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord’s supper.” He quotes Justin Martyr and St. Austin, &c. So the ancient churches practiced upon the belief that infants dying unbaptized went to hell! Does this prove it ? Justin Martyr was a Grecian convert; and he had a great many notions not generally believed by Christians now. He thought that the just, after the resurrection, would live in Jerusalem a thousand years— that the souls of the wicked would become capable of dying—that Christ lived fifty years on earth, and after death went down to hell and preached the faith to the patriarchs ! We will now take a view of St. Austin as authority for the church to follow. In the year 416, the council of Mela met, and St. Austin was the principal director. Thi3 council of fifteen Africans, decreed that “ Whosoever denieth that infants newly born of their mothers are to be baptized, let him be accursed!” “ Who-soever, says Adam was created mortal, let him be accurs-ed !” This, then, is the authority upon which rests the con-elusion that baptism is prerequisite to communion at the Lord’s table. I might dwell upon this authority, and tell of the council of Carthage, headed by St. Cyprian, and their grave (but most immodest) deliberations respecting the bap-tizing of infants. Do we, to prove our practice to be cor-rect, have to go to the fathers ? Many of these fathers had been converted from paganism, and brought off some of their pagan notions with them. It was a matter that fed the pride of these African fathers, to think they stood in the tracks of Aaron and Eleazer. Where did these fa-thers get this belief? Mr. Booth thought it would have been highly offensive to God for the ancient priests to have “ admitted to the passover first, and then circumcis· ed.” No doubt it would, for he forbade it. Says the same writer again, “ Theological writers have often called bap-tism the sacrament of regeneration or initiation, and the Lord’s supper the sacrament of nutrition.99 By the use he made of this statement, he (as well as the “ Baptist General Tract Society,”) thought the definitions good. We will now attend more minutely to the idea that bap-tism initiates into the church. By the Close Commun-ion Baptists no unbaptized person is considered a mem- 31 frOft CLOSE COMMUNIOft. ber of the u visible ” church of Christ, because baptism is the “ initiatory ” sacrament. I have already shown that this was an aicient notion. I will now attempt to prove that circumcision never initiated into the Jewish church, and that baptism never did initiate into the church of Christ. 1. Circumcision did not initiate into the Jewish church. Ishmael was circumcised on the 6ame day his father Abra-ham was, it being when Ishmael was thirteen years old, and all Abraham’s men and male servants on the same day. Gen. 17 : 26, 27. Ishmael, and these servants of Abraham’s house, never belonged to the Jewish church, for the covenant, of which circumcision was the seal, was not established until a year after this, when Isaac was born. Gen. 17 : 19. So it did not initiate them into the church. Esau was circumcised as well as Jacob; and his posterity, the Edomites, the inhabitants of Mount Seir, for a long time practiced this rite; but they never belonged to the Jewish church ! Almost the sole blessing secured to (apart of) the descendants of Abraham, by the covenant of circum-cision, was the land of Canaan and a numerous posterity. At the birth of Jacob, of all the thousands that had been circumcised, he was the only heir to the blessings of the covenant of circumcision. The six sons of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. 25 : 2, were not members of the Jewish church, though they were circumcised. Gen. 25 : 5, 6, “ And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But un-to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abra-ham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son (while he yet lived), eastward unto the east country.” These never inherited the land of Canaan, nor did they ever belong to the Jewish church. Circumcision never initiated them into the church! for it never was an initia-tory rite. After the erection of the Jewish people into a national church, which was done after they were called out of Egypt, (see definition of the term church origi-nally, previously given,) to mount Sinai, all their children were born members. In their forty years’ journey in the wilderness, they did not practice circumcision, yet they were members of the church! They were born mem-bers, and unless they were circumcised, they were to be cut off from the church or nation. Females belonged to the Jewish nation or church—circumcision did not initi- ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS 32 ate them in ! The male child was, at seven days old, a member of the church, and ^n heir of the blessings of the nation, before circumcision, as much as he wa3 when ten days old, after circumcision. Those whom the'Jews bought with money, or hired, were, by this contract, con-nected with the Jewish nation, and consequently it be-came their duty to be circumcised, and keep the laws of the nation. Therefore, we find that circumcision never in-itiated into the Jewish nation or church, but natural birth initiated. 2. Baptism doe3 not initiate into the church of Christ. It is not yet revealed in the Bible that it came in the place of circumcision ; and, even if it did, it does not prove it to be an initiatory rite. The Lord’s supper and baptism are both ordinances of the Christian church and Christian religion, not of the Jewish religion. Many have lived in the church years, died and gone to heaven, who were never baptized. Many have been baptized (not sprinkled) in infancy, who never belonged to the real church of Christ. Even Simon Magus was baptized, and after that, Peter told him he had neither lot nor part in the matter! Bat, says my close communion friend, “I know that baptism without faith will not initiate into the church of Christ.” But will not faith alone bring us, graft us, into Christ? It will. “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature,” so he can be “ translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son99 by faith / Consequently baptism does not initiate into that kingdom. If baptism without faith will not ini-tiate into the Christian church, of course it is not baptism alone that initiates, and as the Bible teaches that by faith we are grafted into Christ and made members of his body, it is a just conclusion that baptism does not initiate at alL Many, we fear, are now in hell who have been baptized, but never belonged to the family of Christ. We read, Acts 2 : 47, “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” How did the Lord do this ? By converting their souls. This is the way it was done. Mark, “ the Lord added.” The Lord did not baptize them! If they were added by baptism, they were not ad-ded by the Lord, but by the apostles. But being “ added by the Lord,” it became their duty to be baptized by the apostles. We see, in the very first Christian church, on 33 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. earth, they were not added, or initiated, by baptism, but by the Lord. Baptism, therefore, does not initiate into the church of Christ, nor make the subject of the rite a disci-pie of Christ. When God concerts a soul, that individual belongs to the church militant; and that individual volun-tarily unites with some branch of the church of Christ in the world in the worship of God, and in conformity to the rules of that branch of Christ’s church by his own choice, and is received into that branch by a vote of the church. As has been often observed, if baptism is the door into the church—if persons are received by baptism— then they must be baptized out of the church when they are excluded, or when they withdraw. If it is the door into the church, it is the door out of the church, too. If it requires baptism and faith both to initiate a person into the church of Christ, then those who have faith and are not baptized, are in a state hard to describe; and those who have been baptized without faith, are in the same condition, both of them half in the church ! partly initiated into the church and partly not. Says one, the unbap-tized believer belongs to the “ invisible ” church of Christ. I never read in the Bible of any of Christ’s children being invisible to him. They are not invisible to us, for by their fruits we know them. Some of Christ’s chil- dren exhibit more of the fruits of obedience than others, but they are not invisible. In Christ the whole family in heaven and in earth is named. So there is but one fami-1 y. Christ’s children on earth are not invisible to him. “ His eyes are over them.” We can see them. The idea that Christ has two churches, one visible and anoth-er invisible, here on earth, 13 unreasonable and unscrip-tural. In consequence of these two errors, viz., circumcis-ion initiated into the Jewish church, and baptism initiates into the Christian church, Pedobaptists have their chil-dren baptized, as they call it, and Close Communion Bap-tists debar all unbaptized Christians—all the Pedobaptist sects—and many who have been baptized—from the Lord’s table. I have now investigated two objections against free communion, viz., the order of the institution of the ordi-nances, and that baptism initiates us into the church. The conclusions drawn by the Close Baptists from the first of these objections, are, that Christ instituted baptism ANSWER TO TIIE ARGUMENTS 34 before he did the supper, and consequently it must be the first ordinance in the order of its performance. The second is, that baptism admits us into the church, and none but church members are to eat of the supper—unbaptized Christians are not members, and therefore they cannot consistently come to the Lord’s table. The premises be-ing incorrect, the conclusions of necessity are incorrect. I am as firmly satisfied that these objections cannot be sus-tained by the Bible, as I am that infant sprinkling cannot be sustained by it; and with all becoming modesty, I chal-lenge Christendom to find the ordinance of infant sprinkling in the gospel. 3. The next objection we shall notice, is, that it is criminal for an unbaptized person to approach the table of the Lord. I will copy a phrase or two. “ If an unbap-tized person approaches the Lord’s table, he tramples up-on an ordinance most emphatically enjoined by Christ in the commission he gave his apostles.” I have before said, that sin was a transgression of the Divine law ; and that as no law was transgressed by unbaptized Christians cel-ebrating the Lord’s supper, I considered the sin chimerical. That there is any Divine command transgressed in so do-ing, I confidently deny. Do the Presbyterians trample on the ordinance by eating this supper ? Forbid it, charity. “ Let not this weak unknowing hand Presume thy bolts to throw, And deal damnation round the land On each I judge thy foe.״ If the individual tramples the ordinance of baptism by celebrating the supper, he does, undoubtedly, when he rises as a preacher of the gospel. Says the author just quoted, “ If it is sin for the unbaptized to approach the table of the Lord, it must be sin for the church to in-vite any unbaptized person to the table of the Lord, since by so doing they invite to sin.” Is it not a3 evidently trampling the ordinance of baptism for a minister, who has not been baptized, and consequently (if Close Com-munion Baptists are right) does not belong to the church of Christ, to stand up as a teacher of religion, as it is for the unbaptized Christian to come to the supper ? But still he is invited to preach. God has called him to preach 1 Preaching or teaching is a command of Christ. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, for seeking the priesthood, 35 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. were slain, Num. 16. Why is not this held up to make the Pedobaptist ministers cease preaching? The preaching of the gospel is commanded, Mark 16: 15. If it is a sin ־ against God to invite them to his table, it is to invite them to preach his gospel; and as they do not belong to Christ’s church, (having never been baptized,) they are not Christ’s ministers! How is it known to be sin to invite these un-baptized Christians to the communion table? “ It is sinful to invite them to come to the table, because they have no right there ; and they have no right there, because it is sinful!” It is not sinful to come because God has forbidden it; for this he has never done. What a complete system of incon-sistency ! Who shall judge whether it is sin or not? Says an author: “ Faith is prerequisite to baptism, baptism to church fellowship, and church fellowship to communiou at the Lord’s table.” Now we have three prerequisites to the Lord’s supper. Baptism and faith both will not now answer; but church fellowship is the criterion. I will add one more prerequisite, that I think is considered more absolutely necessary than the three preceding, and that is, the name. Individuals can be found that have been baptized, have faith, and church fellowship ; but, alas! the name is different, and therefore they must not approach the Lord’s table, especially where they are prohibited. I can find individuals that agree with the Close Communion Baptists as well as they agree among themselves, and yet they must not commemorate the death of Christ with them because they have another name! I know of many Close Communion Baptists that agree with me in faith as well as my Freewill Bap-tist brethren do, and in the doctrine of free communion too. Their churches will commune with them, and why not with me? Because that when I write my name I put F. W. before the Baptist, when they place the word “ Regular” before the Baptist. My name is just as Scrip-tural as theirs. The doctrine, I think, is more Scriptur-al than theirs. In Bible days, there was never any sect called Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian. There was one John the Baptist, and the reason why he wa3 called Baptist was, he baptized his disciple3. If he had sprinle-led water on them, he would have been called “ John the Rantist,” or John the Sprinkler. The doctrine he preached agrees as well with what wc preach as it does ANSWER tO THE ARGUMENTS 36 with that which the Close Communion Baptists preach—let a candid wT0rld judge—and therefore if the name is worth any thing, our name is worth as much as theirs, there be-ing as many vowels and consonants in it. But so it is ; the name goes a great ways in fixing the terms of communion with many. We have now arrived at no less than four prerequi-sites of close communion. First, faith; second, baptism; third, church fellowship ; fourth, the name. If any object to the fourth prerequisite, which is the only one I have added, I only answer that facts attest the truth of it, and facts are stubborn arguments. But what is meant by church fellowship ? Fellowship with the Methodist churches ? No. With the General Baptist ? No. With the Presby-terian? No. With the Close Communion Baptist? Yes. The reason why church fellowship with the Presbyterian church will not do, is, “ They are no church of Christ, because they have never been baptized, and baptism is pre-requisite to church fellowship.״ But the General Bap-tists, Freewill Baptists, and Seventh-day Baptists, have all been baptized, but they have not the same name! Does that not prove that the name has about as much to do with the terms of communion as any one thing else ? But to say, because a Christian comes to the Lord’s table before he has been baptized, that by so doing he tramples the authority of Jehovah under his feet, is no more correct than to say that by preaching the gospel of Christ he tramples the Divine command under his feet! Assertion is not always taken as proof. 4. I will now cite the text that has been supposed to prove it the duty of the Baptists to withdraw״ from other Christians in the celebration of the Lord’s supper. 2 Thess. 3:6, “ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your-selves from every brother that wralketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” The argu-ment they bring from this text is, “ That the order of the primitive church was repentance and baptism before the Lord’s supper, and prior to church membership—and that those that do not follow this order are walking ch'sorderly, and therefore they are commanded to withdraw from them. This is the magnum argumentum. I shall, in coming at 37 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. the true sense of this text, answer the three following ques-tions: 1. What did Paul mean by the tradition ? 2. What is meant by disorderly walking ? 3. What is meant by the command “ to withdraw f” 1. What did Paul mean by the tradition ? He and Silas had been to Thessalonica, and preached before this. It was a place of considerable importance, being the ancient me-tropolis of Macedonia, and the church had been flourish-in״. Paul had a short time previous to this written them a letter, which was the first epistle that he wrote. The word “ tradition” refers to what he, with Silas and Timo-theus, had written in the former letter. He evidently did not mean unwritten sayings, which were orally communi-cited from cne to another, though this is the common sense of the term, but the word of God as contained in the former letter, which is the only tradition the church of God should regard. “ Which ye received of us”— that is, Paul, Silas, and Timotbeus. What was that? Is baptism a tradition of men ? Is the supper a tradition of men? In 1 Thcss. 4:11, 12, he tells them to “ Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that ye may walk honestly,” &c. This, then, w׳as the original oral tradition afterwards communicated in a letter. Then we have the tradition before us, with which the rest of the text corre-sponds. 2. What is meant by disorderly walking? This is the grand question in contemplation. We will look again at his former epistle. 1 Thess. 4: 1—6, “Furthermore, then, we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctifica-tion, that ye should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctifica-tion and honor. Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles that know not God, that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter,” &c. This makes it clear, that in the text under consideration he speaks in view of just 6uch disorder as he here exhorts them in the name of the Lord Jesus to avoid. This agrees with the sense of the original word (ataktos) disorderly. . The word 4 ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS eUaktos also signifies unruly—dissolute. (Donegan.) Dis״ solute, loose, wanton, debauched. ( Walker.) Such disor- derly characters as these we are commanded not to fellow-ship. Are all unbaptized Christians such characters as these ? 3. What is meant by the command “ to withdraw V* ft means to disfellowship them as followers of Christ, for the same apostle says, “ follow me, even as I follow Christ and if they are dissolute or disorderly, fellowship them not .as following the example of Christ. On a similar occasion,, he says, 1 Cor. 5 : 11, “ 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 idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no, not to eat.” This is not to just disfellowship him at the Lord’s table, but .not to even eat a common meal with him ! In order to be exact in the withdrawing, we must “ keep not company,” neither civil nor religious, “no, not so much as to eat.” But to commune in singing, in praying, and in preaching, and then to withdraw at the Lord’s table, are three evidences of fellowship, and one of disfellowship*. Strange sort of withdrawal that! Three evidences against oner that you are in fellowship. We then come to the conclusion, that the tradition of the apostle was not Christian baptism, which is an ordinance of Christ’s own institution—that the disorderly walking was not coming to the Lord’s table—and that to withdraw from, a disorderly walker was not to fellowship him in every thing but the Lord’s supper. It is not yet proved that it is disorderly or debauchery for unbaptized Christians to eat at the Lord’s table! Again, Rom.. 16 : 17, “Now I beseech you, brethren·, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, and avoid them.” This, also,, has been supposed to prove it wrong for Baptists to com-mune with Pedobaptists. But, before I come to that con-elusion, I must read the next verse, “ For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly ;; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” Those the apostle commands us to avoid here, are disorderly walkers ; and he says, they are not the servants of Jesus Christ. Is this the character of the Pedobaptists ?׳ Are not they the servants of Jesus Christ? I will venture to say that there is not one text in all God’s word to pro- 3& 39 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. hibit onbaptized Christians from coming to the Lord’s table, or that proves il wicked and trampling on Christ’s author!-ty, for them thus to partake of the Lord’s supper. But where is the cause of laying so much stress on these texts just quoted ? It is this : the texts are misapplied, and their sense perverted in order to make it appear sinful for Baptists to eat the supper with other Christians, and thus make a good excuse for their practice. They will occupy the desk with me, but a seat at their table I must not have. Thus our ministers are fit to preach the gospel, but they are not fit to partake of its ordinances! So a brother will in private acknowledge me to be a Christian, and, in all acts of religious worship, he will acknowledge me to be a Chris-lian, but one. There he cannot acknowledge it. Says Mr. ?Foster, “We do cheerfully invite all real Christians, not only to the Lord’s table, but to his baptism.” Then all real Christians are invited to the Lord’s supper! They do not generally invite me to be baptized, nor any of ray F. W. Baptist brethren do they urge to that duty—nor do they in-vite us to come to the Lord’s table. Therefore, we are not considered real Christians ; for such are invited to do both 1 And all this time they call us inconsistent; but the reader will judge how consistent with common sense their “cheer-ful invitation” is. I will now mention a text that has been often quoted to «how that C. Baptists cannot consistently commune with others with whom they differ in some points of *faith. It is this, Amos 3:3, “ Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” This has been cited a thousand times, in order to prove close communion. In the first place, this was writ-ten eight hundred and twenty years before the Lord institu-led this supper! Again, it was spoken to Israel by the prophet, accompanied with eight other questions. God, in the verse preceding, threatened, to punish them for their sins. They had broken God’s law, and were not obedient to his will—they did not agree to walk with God, and he in-formed them that he could not dwell and walk with them, unless they agreed to his will. But, to fetch this to the aid of close communion, is much like the man who clung to the anchor when the ship was ready to sink 1 God is agreed to walk with his children, and says, “ I will be with them and walk with them.” God is with the Methodists, Presbyterians, &c., of a truth. He walks with them through the shadow of death, notwithstanding they have ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS 40 some imperfections; but our close communion brethren seem to be very particular w ho they walk with ! God is agreed to walk with all his children, even to the communion table, and how any can walk w ith him who are not agreed to this, I leave for those who practice this to answer. If a man will not walk with his brother whom he has seen, how can he walk with God whom he has not seen ? Every per-son who reads his Bible knows this text has nothing to do with the question to be settled. The word walk cannot mean communion at the Lord’s table, without an extrava-gant figure of rhetoric, not to be admitted in so plain a dec-laration as the one contained in the text. But a drowning man will grasp at a straw. 5. The next objection is, That, by admitting Christians of other names to commune with us, we acknowdedge them to be baptized a9 well as ourselves, and “ virtually say that your error is as good as our truth.” This would hold good against us, if we refused wwbaptized Christians. We do not commune with them as baptized persons, but as Christians, unbaptized. We are yet without the proof, that baptism is prerequisite. If we acknowledged that it was, then the objection might be good, but now it is not applica-ble to us. It would apply to the Roman Catholics, for they say “ baptism is that ordinance that makes us Chris-tiansbut we hold that a person may be a Christian with-out baptism. Let no one, then, brand us with acknowledg-ing them baptized by inviting them to the table of Christ. We repel such assertions. 6. The next objection is, that we commune with their errors and profess to commune with their practice. We do not profess to show an entire agreement in every point of faith and practice with those whom we invite. This, I have already shown, was not the design of the institution. We do not think it necessary to a proper celebration of the supper that in every minute point there should be entire uniformity. This does not exist often where the Lord’s table is spread, even among the close communion Bap-tists themselves. But do I agree with a man’s errors, because I admit he has some correct sentiments ? Is it not right for me to agree (or commune, the true sense of the term) with him when he tells the truth ? or shall I, when he is correct, :de-ny it ? Does God, when he communes by his Holy Spirit with that individual, commune with his errors ? Does he 41 FOR CLOSE COMMTJNION. commune with your errors ? or have you none ? We will take a case, a common one: I and my close communion brethren are engaged in a protracted meeting. Sinners are alarmed, and with an earnest heart say, pray for us. We kneel by the anxious to pray—we pray in union of spirit, and God hears our united cries, and in answer to our pray-ers and agreeably to his promise, “ where two are agreed’״ it shall lie done, he converts a score of anxious sinners. There was a communion in prayer and with God himself. It exhibits the strongest, the nearest union that Christians can have with God and with one another. Now I ask an enlightened community, if that minister did not express his fellowship with me more fully than he would by sitting with me and a hundred others at the Lord’s table ? Was it not ail expression of the length and breadth of Christian fellow-ship ? And after all this, the next Sabbath following he tells me he cannot sit around my Father’s table with me ! 7. By admitting unbaptized Christians to communion, they will be more likely to neglect to be baptized. Just so I might argue, that the young convert must not pray, for if he does he will most certainly neglect to be baptized ! It is his duty to repent—to pray—to confess Christ, and to obey the ordinances of the gospel, By repenting will he be more likely to neglect to pray—by praying will he be the more likely to neglect to confess Christ—and by con-fessing Christ will he be the more likely to disobey his com-mands ? The contrary is true. If he repents, he will be apt to pray, if he prays be will be likely to confess Christ publicly and to obey him. Experimental knowledge proves this objection irrational and inconsistent. 8. “ We should have to commune with our excluded members.” What does this objection prove ? I will tell you. It proves that sectarian notions corrupt the church of Christ. Instead of these Christian parties keeping the church from receiving bad members to their communion, it screens hypocrites. Let a man be excluded from the C. Baptist church for immorality, and will any other church receive him ? Not one. But suppose we receive him. This argues that he has no expectation of meeting the C. Baptists who excluded him at the Lord’s table, for if he had he might have known that for his sins he might be rebuked before ally that the rest might fear, and his sins would find 4* ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS 42 him oat. But instead of this, he thinks that no complaint will be brought against him from the former church, and he is screened from censure. Now reverse the order, and let him know if he hides his sins from us and gets into the church, he might meet them in one week in a public assem-bly, and he would not be likely to join another church un-der those circumstances, r.or would he be received. It is the duty of Christians to do good to all men, and especially to the household of faith —for we are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God. If a bad member flees from one church to find refuge in another church, h!‘s latter brethren ought to hear any complaint of his former breth-ren ; and if he is immoral, they ought not to receive him into their church, and if he is received, he should be cut off. But by our feeling that we are not brethren, and by our acting as though we were not fellow citizens, the church is corrupted and hypocrites are sheltered. This is not the effect of free communion. But what if you did set at the table with a bad man, as bad as Judas, does that make it wrong for you to eat and drink ? Some say, if Judas was there the apostles did not know him to be a bad man. Strange that when Christ had said, “ one of you shall betray me,״ and they had been saying, “ Lord is it I r” and Judas said, *' Master, is it I ?” and Jesus said, “ thou hast said”— when he said it is he to whom I will give the sop when I have dipped it—and he gave it to Judas—strange, I say, that they did not know Judas to be a bad man ! Now, says one, “You open the door of communion to the wicked/״ Not at all. I neither open or shut the door; that is Christ’s business, and as his minister it is right for me to say to those who come to the Lord's table, “ If you eat and drink unworthily, you eat and drink damnation to yourselves.” It is the duty of every particular church to judge of the standing of its members. It is the duty of every Christian to put himself under the government of some particular church, otherwise the churches cannot judge of their standing. On this ground, we cannot invite Christians that belong to no church, for we know not that they are in fellowship with any branch of Christ’s church, and are not commended to the Christian public by the judgment of any branch of the Christian church. It is not expected that we shall 43 FOR CLOSE COMMUNION־. invite any persons to come, but such as are known to be the professed members of the church of Christ. If a man is amenable to no church for his conduct as a Chris-tian, we are under no obligation whatever to recognize him as a member of Christ’s church by inviting him to the ordinances of his house. Judas Iscariot was a pro-fessed disciple of Christ. But are our close communion brethren never deceived? Do their views and practi-ces keep back all who are unworthy ! Not so. Many who are baptized by them are no better than any other hypocrites of a different name. But in order to keep away hypocrites shall we keep back the dear children of Christ—dear to him—for he has purchased them by his blood? Shall we keep them back when he has told them to come ? The fact that a person has been bap-tized is not an infallible evidence of his being a real be-liever in Christ. 9. The last objection I shall consider is, ״ You com-rnune with unbaptized persons, but you will not receive them into your church, which is inconsistent.” This ob-jection is not quite correct. We do not receive persons into our churches because they are already baptized, or bee !use they have already observed the Lord’s supper, but because they feel it their duty and privilege to do this as children of Christ. Not because they have had this privilege, but because they love God and want, this priv-ilege. We vote members in and vote them out. If we baptize them in, we must baptize them out. An un-baptized person is never received, but on condition he will be baptized and perform all other Christian duties. On this ground, an individual acts when he invites a neighbor to eat with him. The man sits down; but af-ter the repast, says the neighbor, I am well pleased with your fare, and I want to make it my home with you. Says the first, you can take up your abode with us, if you will conform to our rules and regulations. He hears the regulations, and says, I think I could not enjoy my-self under all these rules. Very well, says the first ; these are our rules ; upon which the other thinks he can better enjoy himself elsewhere, and passes on. ThciV agreed to eat together, but in family regulations they did not agree. Thus we agree to eat with our unbap-tized brethren, while in our church regulations we do not agree, and of course have the opportunity of being OBJECTIONS TO CLOSE COMMUNION. 44 under such regulations a9 we may prefer. So our C. Baptist brethren receive an unbaptized minister into their meeting houses, sing with him, pray with him, and worship God with him, for in this they argee ; but at the Lord’s table they do not invite him to partake, for here they think he has no right to come. They disagree with him here, or at least they differ in prerequisites for the tabic. This is more inconsistent than we are in communing with him, for here too we agree, as well as we do in his preaching or praying, and a9 far as we agree we feel willing to go with God’s children. Let us, then, if we manifest a difference with others, do it in the things wherein we differ, and not wherein we agree. Vi. Objections against sectarian or close communion. 1. We think it contrary to the spirit of Christian love and of the gospel, “ Why dost thou judge thy brother, ■or why settest thou at naught thy brother ?” Rom. 14 : 10, “ Is Christ divided ?” 1 Cor. 1 : 13. “ Let each esteem other better than himself.” 2. It is not in the Bible, therefore we are not bound to believe it. 3. It severs the children of God, even young converts who join different branches of Christ’s church, and chills their feelings towards each other. 4. It does not go well in time of reformation. When Christians’ hearts are filled with love to God and his chi!-dren, they will sometimes come together and break over tlie rules of the close communion system—this is often the case. 5. It prohibits Christ’s ministers from coming to the Lord’s table with those very souls they have led to Christ, and who arc endeared to them by the strong ties of Christian love. 6. It is not the communion of the Bible. 1 Cor. 10 : 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 communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Here we see that the communion of the Bible is the communion of the body of Christ.* No one sect is the body of Christ, therefore the communion of a sect is not the commun-ion of the Bible. We being many are one bodyt and are all partakers of that one bread. In the communion of 45 OBJECTIONS TO CLOSE COMMUNION. the Bible all the body or church are said to be partakers of that one bread. It is spread ft r all. A sectarian com-!nun ion is not spr< ad for all the church, but for only a branch or sect. It is therefore not the communion of the Bible. The blood and bcdy of CLiia arc re pres« rt-ed by all his dmrch, and they are all partakers of Ins Mood and body spiritually ; and for any branch of his church to claim to be the whole body of Christ’s church is a gratuitous and arrogant as3ert;r>n, neither true in reason nor in fact, nor is tbe table thus spread the table of the Lord, but the table of a sect! Freewill Baptist Books. ΛΥΊ: arc frequently receiving small orders for our Books from dis-taut parts of the country, to which the cheapest and safest mode of conveyance i> by mail, !*,or the convenience of all concerned, ־wo have prepared the following table, which shows the cash ])rices of our Books, single and by the dozen, with the cost of postage added. Orders accompanied with the cash, at these rates, will be immediate-lv tilled and despatched to any part of the United States east of the ltoeky Mountains, by mail, postage paid: Price, Postage, Total. Psalmody, 18mo. in Sheep, single copy, ,75 ,18 ,93 do do dozen, 6,75 1,96 8,71 do Embossed Morocco, single, ,81 ,17 1,01 do do do dozen, 7,56 1*92 9,48 do 32mo. single, ,62 ,07 ,69 do do dozen, 5,63 ,80 6,43 ,Christian Baptism, Bound, single, ,25 ,1 ,29 do do do dozen, 2,25 ,*42 2,67 do do Paper Covers, single, ,15 ,2 ,17 do do do dozen, 1,80 ,26 2,06 Register for 1861, single, ,10 ,2 ,12 do do dozen, ,84 ,19 1,03 do do) 60 copies, 3,00 ,80 3,80 Life of Colby, single, ,50 ,10 ,60 do do dozen, 4,50 1,15 5,65 Life of Marks, single, 1,00 ,20 1,20 do do dozen, 8,40 2,34 10,74 Church History* single, 1,25 ,26 1,51 do do ’ dozen, 10,50 3,10 13,60 Christian Melody* sin68, 06, 62, . ,10״ do do dozen, 6,25 ,69 5,94 Sacred Melody, single, ,25 ,04 ,29 do do dozen, 2,10 ,37 2,47 Zion’s Harp, single, ,25 ,05 ,30 do do dozen, 2,10 ,57 2,67 Church Member’s Book, single, ,30 ,65 ,35 do do do dozen, 2,52 ,60 3,12 Treatise, single, ,20 ,03 ,23 do dozen, 1,68 ,34 2,02 Facts and Reflections, single, ,20 ,03 ,23 do do dozen, 1,68 ,36 2,04 Thoughts upon Thought, single, ,25 ,04 ,29 do do do dozen, 2,10 ,45 2,55 Manual, single, ,25 ,40 ,29 do dozen, 2,10 ,48 2,58 Appeal to Conscience, single, ,14 ,02 ,16 do do dozen, 1,18 ,19 1,57 Comm unionist, single, ,08 ,02 ,10 do dozen, ,67 ,17 ,84 Choralist, single, ,58 ,13 ,71 do dozen, 6,22 1,50 6,72 Minutes of General Conference, single, ,75 ,17 ,92 (There is no discount on the Minutes by the dozen.)