« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
at chapt. 1, sect. 22, Ans. 3, and reads, "No person shall be admitted to the Lord's supper among us, who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a member of our church. I now inquire, for what will you exclude your members ? The Methodist inquires of me, 'Sir, art thou a Baptist minister ? I reply, I am. He then reads from the Discipline, chapt. 1, sect. 18, Quest. 3, "What shall be done with those ministers, or preachers, who hold and disseminate publicly, or privately, doctrines, which are contrary to our articles of religion? Ans. Let the sanie process be observed as in cases of gross immorality.' The Discipline then proceeds to show how they must be dealt with, and if they do bot repent, and embrace Methodism, they must be expelled from the church.The Methodist now lifts up his eyes and asks me,
Have you ever been guilty of holding or disseminuling doctrines which are contrary to our articles of religion?' I reply, yes, sir, repeatedly; and am conscientiously bound to continue. The Methodist replies, then our Discipline says, chapt. 1, sect. 22, ans. 3. “You can not have a seat at the Lord's table among ws, for you are guilty of the same practices, for which we exclude our ministers. My wife renews her request, and the Methodist opens the Discipline at chapt. 2, sect. 7, ans. 3, 'If a meniber of our church shall , be clearly convicted of endeavoring to sow dissention, in any of our societies, by inveighing, against either our doctrine or discipline: such person so offending, shall be first reproved by the senior minister, or preacher of the circuit, and if he persist in such pernicious practice he shall be expelled from the church.' Madam, says the Methodist, did you ever speak against the Methodist doctrine, or discipline? My wife replies, I have repeatedly, and shall again. Well, says the Methodist, our Discipline says, chapt. 1, sect. 22, ans, 3. You can not be admitted to the Lord's supper
among us.' . Thus the letter of the Discipline, shuts us out, and, not only us, but all persons who do not believe, preach, and dress like the Methodist. Again, to illustrate the fact that the Methodist Discipline is close communion : say, let a perfect Methodist sister put on an enormous bonnet, ruffles, and rings, and carry a high head ;' let her also embrace and declare the following doctrines : ‘God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel, of his own will, freely and unchangeably, ordain whatsoever comes to pass; by the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels were predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to death, these angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished; neither are any others redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only; the rest of mankind, God was pleased to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath, for their sins, to the praise of his glorious justice. .
Presbyterian Confession of Paith, pp. 15, 19. · The Methodist must, agreeable to their Discipline, (chapt. 2, sect. 6 and 7,) exclude her, and at her expulsion, shall read to her from the Discipline, (chapt. 2, sect. 7.) “ After such forms of trial and expulsion, such persons shall have no privileges of society or of Sacraments in our church, without contrition, confession, and proper trial.” The sister being expelled for embracing Presbyterian doctrine, and wearing a fashionable dress, immediately unites with the Presbyterian church, and taking a certificate of her standing, she returns next Lord's day, and offers to commune with the Methodists. They ask her if she is sorry that she embraced such wicked doctrine, and put on sueb apparrel ? She says no. They ask if she will
come on trial for six months ? She says no. Will they now admit her to the Lord's table? If they do, they break their discipline ; if they do not, it can only be because she is a Presbyterian ; and if they can not admit her, how can they admit the whole Presbyterian church? If ever a Methodist should ask you to commune with them, it would be an appropriate reply to say, your Discipline forbids it. However open communion some churches are in practice, it is still evident that such practice at once violates their own Creed and the laws of Christ. The principal difference between the Baptists and pedobaptists in this matter is, that the Baptists adhere to the Bible and their creed, while the pedobaptists discard both for the sake of open communion. ,
In ihe Lord's commission he determined the order of administering the two Sacraments. Matt. xxvili 13–20: “Go ye therefore and ma ntvsats make disciples of all nations Barnıçovteş immersing them, &c., teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commauded you.” Matt. xxvi. 26: “Take, eat, this is niy body, &c." The first work is to make disciples, the second to immerse them, the third to teach them to do as Christ had commanded the Apostles; that is, 10 partake of the Lord's Supper among other duties. In addition to this law we have ,Christ's example.
The Savior was immersed, Matt. iii. 13-17: but lie did not eat the supper till Matt. xxvi. 26–30: about three years after. We have no anthority for changing the order or substantial elements of the Sacruments. If we should change the bread and wine for cheese and water, or adıninister the wine before the bread, would pedobaptists join with us in these innovations? If it were a Baptist or a pedubaptist table, we might make new rules for its administration. But it is the Lord'S. TABLE, and we must observe the LORD'S Laws respecting it. All churches require
some qualifications in the candidate for the Lord's Supper, and consider thein indispensible. Hence, to consistently commune among themselves, even pedobaptists must agree as to the number and kind of prerequisites. How can two walk together except they be agreed ; (Amos iii. 3.) And how can they agree, except they unitedly follow the inspired rule. “It is an indispensible qualification for this ordinance, that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church of Christ, in full standing. By this I intend that he shall be such a member of the church as I have formerly described, to wit: That he should be a person of piety, that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he shonld have been baptized. Dwight's Theol., Bermon 100
Mr. Sawyer says, p. 21, 'Sprinkling is baptism, and immersion is not. Hence, those who are immersed are mot qualified to partake at his communion table.The Baptists say, that immersion is baptism, and those who are only sprinkled are not qualified for communion at the Lord's table. Here is an obstruction to our union, and the only way to remove it is to let the scriptures decide what is Baptism. For the question concerning a church in order to communion, ought to be, what is her substantial character, has she the truth, the ordinances, the spirit of Christ.'
Dr. J. M. Mason's Plea, p. 342. The practice of the Apostles is a faithful comment on the Savior's law; as the Lord's supper is a church act, it was not administered by the Apostles till after the church was organized : Acts ji. 42. The 120 at Acts i. 15-22, were all baptized believers. When Peter preached, Acts ii. 14-36, many were convicted of pricked in their heart, and cried out, Acts ii. 37, what shall we do? Peter said, repent and be immersed.--
Then they that gladly received his word or believed in Christ, Acts ii. 41, were immersed and added to
them, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, Here, several things are expressed and practiced. l. We find a church of one hundred and twenty baptized believers. 2. We find three thousand converted. 3. These three thousand are baptized. 4. They are added to the church. 5. They agree in faith with the church. 6. They are acknowledged in church fellowship. 7. They partake of the Lord's supper. As these are apostolical prerequisites we dare not add or diminish; therefore, this is, and ever has been the creed of the true church: The fellowship of the apostles is linked to the apostles doctrines, and to their breaking of bread and prayers, Acts ii. 42; and if a church defects from the same, it sets other churches loose in like manner from communion with them.-Unity of faith binds them mutually to observe the rules of fraternal communion, and a defection in faith gives discharge from them.' J. Kittlewell's Works, vol. 2, p. 599.
'I agree with the advocates of close communion in two points: 1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance, which introduces us into the visible church; of course where there is no baptism there are no visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from his principles, as to wish to commune with me at the Lord's table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I could not receive him ; because there is such a relationship established between the two ordinances that I have no right to separate them. The only question then is, whether baptism by sprinkling is valid baptism?' Dr. Griffin's (President of William's College,) Letter on Baptisn.
Pedobaptists justify close communion by their own practice. Suppose here are thirty unbaptized converts, the father, mother, brothers, sisters, &c., of Mr. Saw