With the praise of these' and similar efforts in 'upholding the cause of Truth, to the divine blessing, we are, as ever, gentlemen. In the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,. HE institution of the Lord's Supper was one. f of the most impressive scenes in the life of.
But this was equally true of dinner when it was introduced; in both cases, some of the events symbolized did not occur. At the institution of the supper, therefore, all who partook were baptized and united in the holy. The authority given by Christ to His disciples also clearly requires baptism for confession of faith before receiving the Lord's Supper.
When Cornelius and those assembled with him believed and received the Holy Spirit, "Peter immediately commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." As soon as it. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. However, a multitude of quotations are unnecessary. The relationship between the two ordinances, in their meaning and position, demands the priority of baptism.
Baptism is ·the rite of admission into the Church—the visible point of separation from the world and union with God's people~ It is the door of the house of God.
TTIIS LAW OBLIGATORY UPON THE CHUl;CH
Then Paul commanded, "When you come together to eat, wait for one another." and also charged that the excommunicated should not be received on the holy feast - plainly indicating that this was a solemn act of the assembled church. However popular the practice, so unscriptural, might become for its apparent catholicity, its manifest tendency would be to obliterate all distinctions between church and world, to undermine all discipline, and to undermine the very foundations of the Gospel. He knows the answer: Christ's law must be obeyed instead of man's error.
It would be an act of disloyalty to the individual, and an admission that scriptural observance of divine ordinances is not essential; a principle that endangers the purity of the Church of God. If in this case, out of respect for the opinions or prejudices of the candidate, the divine will may be disregarded, what would such a principle lead to? It recognizes the validity of the ordinances of all Christian communities bearing the divine Head, and the complete inspiration of his Word.
She rejoices to know that among them are many of God's saints who have fellowship with him and with each other at the Lord's table, and she is ready to cooperate with them according to her ability in promoting common Christianity. Christendom in all ages has been almost unanimous in the above statement of the divine law of communion. Of all the nonsense they ever had, no one claimed that anyone had to take communion before being baptized.
Dwight remarked: “The indispensable qualification for this ordinance is that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church of Christ, in good standing. Both agree in denying communion at the Lord's table, and in denying the right of assembly to all who have not been baptized. By doing so, we would brazenly sin against God, by violating the divine order of the institution.
The easy answer from the consistent Presbyterian would be, “This Quaker is baptized; and though he is an undisputed Christian, we could not invite him to the table without breaking the divine law of the sacrament.' Here is close communion; and this is exactly Baptist soil. Have him attend the celebration of the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian church. The church, not the candidate, is made the judge of the fact of baptism among them; and the right to approach the Lord's Table is limited to those who have been baptized by the Church.
COMMO~ OBJECTIONS NOT VALID
The visible display of communion at the Lord's Table is sometimes made by churches radically opposed in their doctrinal and practical position, and in If he who presides at the table believes that the Lord of that Tahle has made 'baptism a prerequisite to approaching him, how can he presume to violate this law and invite to attend persons whom he knows are not fit . Besides, the conscientious sincerity of the candidate, whatever its aspect in the eyes of God, clearly cannot eat the fact of baptism.
By refusing the invitation to the Lord's table, Baptists do not impute to the Christian character of their brethren. Certainly this was not an indictment of their Christian character, but a strict observance of the law of the decree; for then, like the apostles, they were not united with Chrbt in the special communion of the church. The Lord's Supper, insofar as it indicates the mutual relations of the communicants, is a symbol of church communion.
It symbolizes the ecclesiastical relationship of the participants, or the fellowship between the members of Christ's body and their great head, and the invitation to the Lord's table therefore does not mean a lack of confidence in the Christian character, but the absence of ecclesiastical relationship. Why then not communicate on earth?" We answer: 1. This supposition, if it be at all valid, recoils from those who offer it: for, by insisting on baptism before the sacrament, they exclude, as already shown, many real Christians from the Lord's Table There is absolutely no intercourse among them, but each heart is individually in communion with Christ the Lord.
They desire such communion with saints; and whenever the image of Christ is imprinted upon a soul, whatever his distinctive name, they want their soul to be united to him as a brother in the Lord. Is the observance of the Lord's Supper the fellowship of "the spirits of righteous men made perfect" in heavenly Jesalem? Christians in that world of light have no need of the memorials of a departed Lord.
As rapture hymns roll on and on, And God's smile is the "soul's" feast. 31 also to communicate with them in heaven; but what does this have to do with the Lord's Supper? No intelligent Christian should confuse such different things as the Christian communion and the act of celebrating the union of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist.
MIXED COMMUNION INEXPEDIENT
Experience has clearly shown that the mere right to unite in the celebration of the Lord's Supper does not and cannot create Christian love. The simple truth is, that the differences among Christians go back further than the Lord's table, j they arise from radically opposite views of the constitution and ordinances of the church, j and if communion were a common thing, it could have no tendency to harmonize the shaky creeds of different denominations . The good deacon says to a member of the Baptist church present (with whom he was very familiar) ~ 'Brother, what shall I do.
This well-known fact is only one illustration of the necessary work of intercommunion. Supposing the door to be opened wide enough for the admission of members of all evangelical churches, you are bound to state which churches are evangelical—a point not yet precisely defined. Some of you have accused us of the crime of schism by dividing God's children at the Lord's table.
We believe that the Great Head of the church has constituted each congregation an independent body and given it a democratic organization, so that its aots are subject to revision by no. We deny the scriptural authority of Episcopal hierarchies or Presbyterian synods and assemblies; and assert that the replacement of these purely human institutes instead of. Clearly, we could neither respect ourselves, nor ask you to respect us, while directly accepting what we considered a violation of Christ's law.
The constitution of the church is with you a mere matter of opinion; with us it is a matter of religious principles. Initiation into the Church through baptism in infancy is, in our view, a subversion of the divine design of the ordinance, as the conscious, intelligent act of redeemed man, who in this symbol personally declares his death to sin and a new life in Christ. Such is our conviction: and it is evident that, with these conscientious convictions, it would be incompatible with Christian principles and honor either to recognize the rite of infants as a valid baptism, or to offer the symbols of ecclesial membership to those whose erroneous The practice of this undermines the purity and order of the Church.
The two symbols of the New Dispensation represent the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. We ill rejoice at the rapid advancement of the great Ji'ineiples who distinguish us, as the omen pointing to the approach of that millennial day, when "the watehmen shall agree," and "there shall be one" . flock and one shepherd." Though it may now subject us to the charge of 'bigo intolerance.' humble defenders of the gay truths we advocate.
U Short in compass, clear in arrangement, and strikingly animated, dire!'t, forced and sharp in style, which not infrequently reminds one of the fer·. A book full of · good advice, urgent lessons, which elevates the idea of the Christian life, and · encourages the reader to holy life and action."
