Page images
PDF
EPUB

But while we are thus confident in the persuasion that the sacrament of the supper is the exclusive property of those who give evidence of having been born of God, we are equally confident that it is the property of all of this character; and that to withhold it, as many do, from multitudes whom they acknowledge to be true Christians, is a proceeding which, however pure and kind may be their intentions, they are wholly unable to justify.

1. The practice of close communion we regard, in the first place, as unscriptural.-There were differences of opinion in the apostolical churches, and some of them of as great importance as those now agitated between Baptists and Pedobaptists. Such, for instance, was the question respecting the obligation of practising circumcision, and observing the Jewish law. Yet neither party was tolerated in excluding or denouncing the other. So far from this they were expressly exhorted to receive one another, on the ground of both being supposed to belong to Christ. "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." Rom. xv: 7. "Him that is weak in faith"-or whom ye esteem weak, he not being able to see things in the same light with yourselves" receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Who art thou that judgest another man's servant, in respect to such matters? He is a servant of Christ; he is in the faith; he is conscientious in his opinion, as you are in yours; and why do you judge him? To his own Master he standeth or falleth. Let us not therefore judge one another any more.' See Rom xiii : 1—13.

It will be said, we are aware, that the Apostle is here speaking of things indifferent; things not to be compared with the modern questions respecting baptism. But what are we to understand by things indifferent,' as this phraseology is here used? Not things of no importance, or about which the Apostle had formed no opinion; but things which he regarded as unessential to Christian character, and to final salvation;-as the questions respecting baptism confessedly are. Paul certainly had formed an opinion in regard to the matters referred to in the above quotations, and he did consider them as of very considerable importance-important enough frequently to occupy his thoughts and his pen; but as he did not think them essential to Christian character, he was decided in affirming that they ought to be no bar in the way of Christian fellowship and communion.

It will be said, again, that those to whom the Apostle wrote were all baptized persons, members of the church; and consequently his directions to them are no evidence of the manner

in which he would decide questions relating to baptism.-It might be difficult to prove, that all those to whom directions are given in the Epistles of Paul had been baptized in any way, and especially, that they had all been immersed.* But suppose they had been: it is still true, confessedly so, that the modern questions respecting baptism are unessential to Christian character and a hope of heaven, and consequently that they rest on the same general ground with the questions agitated in the days of Paul. It could not be expected that the directions of the Apostles would meet all the particular cases which might occur in the church, from that period to the end of the world. They laid down general principles, and applied them to cases immediately in hand; but left it to the wisdom. of other ages further to use and apply them, as there might be occasion.

Nothing is more certain from the New Testament, than that the church of Christ is one body. "As we have many meinbers in one body, and all members have not the sanie office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Rom. xii: 4, 5. And this is true, not only of the real, spiritual church of Christ, but equally so of the visible church. For what is the visible church? It is the real church bodied forth, made visible, by a credible profession of godliness; so that if Christ's spiritual church is one, his visible church must be equally so; and if the former may with propriety be represented as his body, the latter is his visible body. "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." 1 Cor. xii: 13, 27. To divide the church of Christ, therefore, is to divide his body. To separate a portion of the acknowledged members of his church, and refuse to hold communion with them, is, as Mr. Baxter expresses it, to "separate the members of Christ's Body, and tear his flesh, and break his bones." This, it hardly need be said, is as unscriptural, as it is unnatural. "Is Christ divided?"

The Scriptures represent the human family as belonging to two general classes, believers and unbelievers, saints and sinners; and to those of the former class-all who give evidence of belonging to the number of God's children, they uniformly appropriate the privileges of his children. These are the members of his family, and entitled, as such, to the provisions of his house. Hence, to make a separation between persons of

We hope our brethren of the close communion will not seriously attempt to monop olize the Epistles,-if they do the sacrament of the supper; as, whatever may be thought of our claim to the latter, we must insist on retaining some interest in the for

mer.

[ocr errors]

this character, and exclude a part of them from the table of their Lord, is a proceeding, not only unknown to the Scriptures, but manifestly contrary to the general spirit and current of the sacred writings.

It is evidently the will of Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures, that his followers should be one. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word,-that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us,” John xvii: 20, 21. Hence, those Christians may be sure that they best perform the will of Christ, who strive most earnestly and successfully to prevent divisions, and promote unity and peace among his true followers. But how shall this important object be best promoted? By drawing lines of separation between the disciples of Christ, and excluding a part of them from their Master's table? Or by bearing with one another's mistakes and infirmities, in things unessential to Christian character, and receiving one another, even as Christ has received them?

In every view we can take of the subject, we are constrained to regard what is commonly called close communion as unscriptural. It was entirely unknown in the first age of the church. The Apostles seem not to have contemplated such a thing as possible. Of course, they did not expressly prohibit it; and yet they established principles which, by a fair and general application, go decidedly to condemn it.

2. The practice of close communion is contrary to that of the church in the ages succeeding the Apostles. There were differences of opinion among the primitive believers in regard to points not deemed essential; but these were not suffered to break the unity of the church.-Such was the dispute about the time and inanner of celebrating Easter. This may be deemed a trifling matter to Christians of the present age; but in primitive times, it was a question of high interest and importance. And when Victor, one of the bishops of Rome, undertook to excommunicate his Eastern brethren, because they would not yield to his opinion on the subject, he was rebuked for so unchristian a procedure, and obliged to retrace his steps. Says Irenæus, writing to him, "The Presbyters who before ruled the church which you now govern, neither observed themselves, nor permitted their people to observe, the day which is kept by the Asiatic Christians; nevertheless, while they did not observe that day, they maintained peace with the other Presbyters who did; and never were any on account of this diversity cast out of the church; but the Presbyters who preced

ed you, and did not keep the day, sent the Eucharist to those who did. And when blessed Polycarp went on a journey to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had some little difference about other matters, they immediately dropped it for the sake of peace, and would by no means cherish contention on this head. Anicetus could not, indeed, persuade Polycarp to relinquish his observance as having always kept it with John, the disciple of the Lord, and the other Apostles with whom he had been conversant. Nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to adopt it, as he pleaded for the necessity of retaining the custom of the Presbyters who had gone before him. Yet, while things were in this state, they held communion with each other. And in the church, Anicetus, from pure respect, yielded to Polycarp the dispensation of the Eucharist, and they amicably separated from each other, and the peace of the whole church was preserved, both by those who kept the day, and those who did not."*

Another dispute with which the church in those times was agitated, related to the validity of certain baptisms, and was not altogether unlike modern questions touching the same subject. Many doubted concerning the baptisms administered by heretics, and whether it was proper to receive persons so baptized into the Catholic church, without a repetition of the ordinance. But neither was this matter, for a considerable time at least, permitted to interrupt the fellowship of the church. "Many things," says an excellent man, writing to a celebrated Cyprian at this period-" many things vary according to the diversity of place and people; but nevertheless, these variations have at no time infringed the peace and unity of the Catholic church."†

There were differences of opinion among the primitive Christians in regard to the subject of church government. Originally, the church was governed by Presbyters, the words Presbyter and Bishop designating the same office. But in the course of a few centuries, Episcopal government was introduced, and the primitive order of things was changed. In proof of this, the following quotation from Jerome is decisive. "A Presbyter is the same as a bishop; and before there were, by instigation of the devil, dissensions in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the joint counsel of the Presbyters. But afterwards, when every one accounted those

⚫ Euseb. Ecc. Hist. Lib. vi. Cap. 24.

+ Cypriani Opera, Part ii. p. 220. See also Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. i. p. 226.

whom he baptized as belonging to himself, and not to Christ, it was decreed, throughout the whole world, that one, chosen from among the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be committed to him, and the seeds of schism be taken away."-Again this learned father says, after having quoted and commented on several passages of Scripture in proof of the same point, " Among the ancients, Presbyters and Bishops were the very same. But by degrees, (paulatim) that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the Presbyters, therefore, know that, by the custom of the church, they are subjected to him who is set over them, so let the Bishops know, that they are greater than Presbyters, more by custom, than by any real appointment of Christ."*

Such is the language of one who lived within a few centuries of the Apostles, testifying to the changes which had taken place in the government of the church. Yet these changes, and the differences of opinion and discussions which must necessarily have grown out of them, did not produce, and were not thought sufficient to warrant separate communions. Those who were the most strenuous in opposition to the prevailing innovations were entirely averse, as Jerome tells us in another place, to "cutting asunder the harmony of brotherly union."

Our Baptist brethren believe that, in the times of the Appstles, infant baptism was unknown; but that in a few centuries, it was introduced, and prevailed, and became almost or altogether universal, so that in the age of Augustine, the learned and acute Pelagius was constrained to declare, that he "never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants." It is natural to suppose that so great an innovation (if an innovation it be,) must have led to differences of opinion and disputes; and yet we ask-not for the evidence of such disputes (this would be out of place here)--but for the evidence that these disputes, if they did exist, were suffered to break the unity of the church. Where were the churches which, on account of this alleged innovation, withdrew from their brethren, and refused to have communion with them at the table of the Lord? Suffice it to say, that we have no trace of any such churches in ancient times, and no reason to believe that any existed; and this fact, were there no other, ought, as it seems to us, to satisfy the abettors of close communion, that they have departed from the example of the primitive Christians.

* Hironeymi Opera, Tom. vi. p. 168.

+ See Wall's Hist. of In. Baptism, Vol. i. p. 62.

« PreviousContinue »