THE

GOSPEL STANDARD,

OR,

FEEBLE CHRISTIAN'S SUPPORT.

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled."-Matt. v. 6.

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."-2 Tim. i. 9.

"The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."-Rom. xi. 7.

"If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.-And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.—In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."-Acts viii. 37, 38; Matt. xxviii. 19.

No. 53.

MAY, 1840.

STRICT COMMUNION.

VOL. VI.

Dear Messrs. Editors,-However averse I feel to controversy, yet as your correspondent, "H. J.," in your April number, calls upon me by name to prove from scripture what authority the Particular Baptists have for making Baptism a door into the church, and as you have inserted his letter that I may take up the question, 1 feel disposed not to pass it over in silence, especially as circumstances have drawn from me the acknowledgment that I was the author of the "Address," in which the principle of strict communion is avowed. I could wish, indeed, to see the point taken up by abler writers and more experienced Christians than myself; but as I fear these will not come forward for that purpose in your periodical, I haste, without further preface, to defend the practice objected to.

As H. J. calls upon me for scripture proof, and as this alone can really satisfy those who fear God, I will endeavour chiefly to confine myself thereto, though I might observe by the way that the opponents of strict communion refer very little to the word of truth to support their system, and a great deal to expediency, altered circumstances of the church from apostolic times, and vague ideas of Christian charity and unity.

I presume, then, H. J. is satisfied upon two points closely connected with the practice of strict communion. 1. That the baptism of believers by immersion in water is au ordinance of Christ. 2. That the administration of the Lord's supper is to be restricted to a church, meeting together as a body for that purpose. To prove from scripture these two points would occupy too much room, and is unnecessary, because the first is admitted by all Baptists, and the second by all Independents.

The point, then, in controversy, and which I have to prove is this; "Is baptism such a door to the church that there is no other?" It

H

this point be proved, it necessarily follows that none but baptized persons may eat of the Lord's supper, as it is granted that the latter ordinance can only be partaken of by a church.

To prove this point, we must come to scripture precept and scripture practice. The first precept, then, which I shall bring forward is the well known commission given by Christ to his disciples after his resurrection; (Matt. xxviii. 19;) "Go ye, therefore, and teach ("make disciples of," margin) all nations, baptizing them in 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." Here "teaching," or "making disciples" out of all nations, is the first step, baptizing the disciples so made is the second, and teaching them to observe all the precepts and ordinances of the gospel, the third. H. J. will not deny that the Lord's supper is one of these ordinances, and that the precept, "Do this in remembrance of me," (Luke xxii. 19,) is one of the commandments which disciples are to be taught to observe. How, then, dares any man that fears God break through this divine order, and join together in unhallowed union the first and third steps, overleaping, or setting aside the second? The Independent, who calls infant-sprinkling baptism, according to his own admission inverts and alters the steps of this divine order, his baptism (so called) preceding his discipleship, and not following it. And the open communion Baptist, who, in his own case, preserves the divine succession of first discipleship, and then baptism, when he joins or presides over a mixed communion church, destroys what he has thus builded up, and makes himself a transgressor by bringing together steps first and third, which the Lord has separated by step the second. Thus the strict Baptist alone follows the precept of the Lord of the house by holding and practising first, discipleship; secondly, baptism; thirdly, communion.

Thus far for scripture precept; and now for scripture practice. What was the practice of the apostles to whom this divine commission was delivered? They showed it first on the day of Pentecost, when they had not only the letter of their Lord's precept to guide them, but the blessed outpouring of the Holy Ghost to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. We find Peter then acting on the successive steps of his Lord's commission. First, be preaches the word. (Acts ii. 14.) The Holy Ghost blesses his preaching, and makes disciples by pricking his hearers in their heart; and they cry out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter does not, like the open communion Baptist, break down his master's hedge, and say, "Come to the Lord's supper;" but says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you," &c. He rigidly observes step the second, and baptizes, or has them baptized. Nor did they shun the cross, but "they that gladly received the word were baptized." And now comes step the third; “And the same day there were added to them (that is," added to the church," ver. 47) about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, (i. e., church communion) and in breaking of bread (i. e., the Lord's supper) and in prayers, (i. e., assembling themselves for the worship of God.)" Now, can any one deny that this first gospel church was formed upon strict Baptist principles ? Have we not traced out the three successive steps laid down by Christ himself; first, discipleship, then baptism, and then communion ?

And now let us see whether we can trace a similar formation of the second gospel church, namely, that of Samaria. (Acts viii.)

The church at Jerusalem being dispersed by persecution, Philip, a

66

deacon of that church, (Acts vi. 5,) goes down into the city of Samaria, and preaches Christ unto them. (Acts viii. 5.) The Holy Ghost blesses the word, and raises up faith in some of their hearts. They believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ." Here, then, we have step the first as before, viz., discipleship. And now follows step the second, "They were baptized, both men and women." (Acts viii. 12.) Philip, being a deacon, and not an apostle, had not authority to form churches; and, therefore, "when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Now, it appears that these apostles, when they came down, formed them into a church, for we read that "they prayed for them, and laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost," that is, in his miraculous gifts, not in his quickening operations, for these they had already experienced. And that this descent of the Holy Ghost was something visible, which his regenerating operations are not, (John iii. 8; Luke xvii. 20,21,) is plain from Simon Magus seeing that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given," and offering money that he might do the same, hoping, no doubt, to make a pretty penny by imparting power to heal diseases and speak with tongues.

Now, it is clear, from 1 Cor. xii. and xiv., that thèse miraculous gifts were confined to the church. "And God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healing, &c." (1 Cor. xii. 28.) See also, 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 5, 12, 18, 19, 23, 25, 28, 33. It is, therefore, evident that the Samaritan believers were formed into a church before the apostles laid · hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Thus, in the case of this second church, the divine order as commanded by Christ was observed; first, discipleship; secondly, baptism; thirdly, communion.

In the setting up of the first Gentile church in the house of Cornelius, the same order was observed. Peter preached the word; (Acts x. ;) the Holy Ghost fell upon those who were present, in this case in his miraculous operations previous to baptism, to show those of the circumcision who came with Peter that "on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here again, then, is the first step, discipleship. And now immediately follows the second, baptism. "Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts x. 46-48.) And now followed step the third, communion. For we read that when Peter returned to Jerusalem, "they of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest into men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." That is, didst sit down with them at the Lord's supper.

The practice of individuals was the same as the practice of churches. Paul was first made a disciple, in his case, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ" himself appearing to him on his journey to Damascus. Here was the first step, discipleship. He was then baptized. (Acts ix. 18.) Here was step the second, "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascns." As they brake bread, in some cases, every day, (Acts ii. 46,) in others, every Lord's day, (Acts xx. 7,) it is plain that Paul, after baptism, partook of the Lord's supper with the church. Here is step the third, viz., communion.

Again, the apostle Paul is led by the Spirit to Corinth, where he preaches the word to the Gentiles. (Acts xviii. 6.) "Crispus and many of the Corinthians bearing, believed:" here again was the first step, discipleship; "and were baptized:" here is the second, baptism. Paul forms them into a church, for he addresses his first epistle "To the church of God which is at Corinth;" (1 Cor. i. 2.;) and gives them particular directions about the Lord's supper, which they celebrated improperly. (1 Cor. xi. 20-24.) Here is step the third, communion. But some might answer, Paul says, "Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; and, therefore, Paul occasionally neglected, or overlooked baptism, and admitted persons into the church without it." I believe that Paul did no such thing. Any officer in the church could baptize, but any could not preach with demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Paul left, therefore, that to be done by others which they were able to do, and confined himself chiefly to preaching the word, which they could not do. But because the sower attends to the seedbasket only, and leaves the harrowing in to the boy who follows his steps, is that a reason why the sown.land should not be harrowed at all? The sower might say, "My master sent me to sow the corn, not to harrow the field, as any one can do the latter; but it requires a skilful hand to do the former." Does it then follow that the seed is not to be covered in, because the abler workman has something better to do? Another may say, Paul "thanks God he baptized none but Crispus and Gaius; he therefore did not think so highly of baptism." But why did he thank God, but for this reason, "lest any should say, he baptized in his own name?" He abhorred that spirit of division which made them say, "I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas," and was therefore glad that by baptizing so few, he could not be the head of a numerous party, who would say, "I am of Paul, for he baptized me." that they were all baptized persons, is very plain from his question; "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. i. 13.) So Peter does not himself baptize Cornelius and his friends, but "commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts x. 48.)

But

Again, Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets before them the typical character of the church in the wilderness. He says that "all our fathers were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink." (1 Cor. x. 2-4.) Here he plainly says that the passage through the Red Sea typified baptism, and the manna and the water out of the rock typified the Lord's supper. The word "baptized" shows the former, and his words, (verses 16 and 17,) "The cup of blessing which we bless, &c.," show the latter. Now, on which side of the Red Sea was the manna eaten-before they passed through it, or after? They were baptized, then, in the Red Sea before they eat the spiritual manna and drank the spiritual drink.

Now, what right and authority has any man to overthrow this order, commanded by the Lord, practised by his apostles without a single exception, and typified by the church in the wilderness? Surely we need some precept to the contrary, or some example to the contrary, before we dare alter or subvert this divine order of succession. Can the lax Baptist show the one or the other? And if he can bring forward no scripture precept, and no scripture example for unbaptized persons partaking of the Lord's supper, what have we to do with vague arguments about expediency and charity? The best expediency is to follow apostolic practice, and the best charity is to keep Christ's commandments. It is a poor way to show love to his people to encourage them in disobe

dience, and a poor way to show love to Him to despise what he has commanded. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." The apostle bids the Thessalonian brethren "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess. ii. 15.) The strict Baptist stands fast and holds them; the lax Baptist swerves and departs from them. Which acts the more scripturally?

But H. J. says, "Christ is the door." So he is, blessed be God. But he is a door in several ways. In his blood and righteousness, he is a door of salvation; in his heavenly teachings, he is a door, of regeneration; and in his ordinances, he is a door of church communion. He cannot be set aside in any one of these. One might say, for instance, "Christ is a door of salvation in his blood and righteousness; therefore we may set him aside as a door of regeneration." Another may say, "Christ is a door of regeneration, and therefore we may set him aside as a door of church communion." The first is the fatal error of the doctrinal Antinomian; the second, the error of the general Baptist. If Christ has made baptism a door to the Lord's supper, as I most firmly believe he has, dare we despise his commandments in this matter? Are we to break down the door, and leave one little bar, which some may climb over, and others stoop under, and then say, "Christ is the door?"

A lax Baptist can only suppose two reasons which influence men's minds to wish communion without baptism-ignorance, or obstinacy. His Independent hearers either cannot see baptism, or see it and will not submit to it. Now, as to the first reason, if they cannot see baptism, let them wait till they can. "If any be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." The Socinian might come and say, "I can't see Christ's Godhead, and the personality of the Holy Ghost;" and the Arminian might say, "I can't see election and final perseverance." Our answer would justly be; "Your ignorance is a sufficient bar." Now, though I don't mean for a moment to compare a godly Independent to a Socinian or an Arminian, yet as far as church communion is concerned, I feel fully justified to say to him; "Your ignorance of a most solemn and plainly revealed ordinance is a sufficient bar to Church fellowship."

Take the other assignable cause, obstinacy and unwillingness to take up the cross. I know from experience that baptism is a very heavy cross, and I can honestly say that I felt it a much keener trial to be baptized than to leave the Establishment. I was tempted in soul and body, in the first, to think I was a hypocrite, and, in the second, to believe I should have an inflammation of the lungs, or a pleurisy, and so die. I know very well I would have shunned the cross if I dared. Is the Baptist, then, to allow others to trample on this cross which he has taken up, and has found to be so heavy, because they would rather be smuggled into the church, than go through an open profession of their faith in Christ?

But what a situation a lax Baptist is placed in! I will suppose that half of his church are Baptists, and half Independents. The latter want their children to be sprinkled. Is the accommodating pastor to do that, and thus renounce and deny his own baptism? He refuses therefore to do what he is asked. But he has already admitted sprinkling to be baptism by allowing Independents to sit down at the table, for I presume no one ever carried his politeness so far as to admit persons neither sprinkled nor baptized into the church. The late Robert Hall, the great advocate for open communion, made a stand here, and would not admit persons who had neither been sprinkled nor baptized. But we will suppose that a person, the child of Baptist parents, comes