“Now I praise you brethren that ye keep the
ordinances Editor,
“The Baptist” – Memphis, Tennessee “There
is sufficient
proof to convince any close student of church history of the first
three
centuries, that in the very earliest ages the Lord’s Supper was
regarded as
strictly a Church Ordinance, as we have defined the phrase.” –
Professor
Curtis, “Communion,” page 88. “When
a man eats
of that 'one bread,’ and drinks of that 'one cup,’ he, in this act,
professes
himself a member of that one body, in hearty, holy sympathy with its
doctrines
and life, and freely and fully subjecting himself to its watchcare and
government,
(I Cor. x: I7); hence, in I Cor. v: II, the Church is forbidden to eat
(in the
Lord’s Supper, as the context clearly shows) with immoral persons, thus
distinctly making the Ordinance a symbol of church fellowship.” Professor
Harvey,
Hamilton Theological Seminary – “The
Church” page 224. If the
Supper was
instituted by Christ to be observed as a Church Ordinance, and among
other
things to symbolize church relations, then the members of the
particular church
celebrating the Supper, can participate in it; since it sets forth the
fact
that all eating of the one loaf, are members of that one particular
church. If
the Lord’s Supper is a Church Ordinance, then is intercomrnunion
unscriptural.
CHAPTER
I
The
Supper demonstrated to be a church ordinance: 1.)
Each church absolutely independent under
Christ; 2.)
Each church is made
the guardian of the ordinances, and enjoined to prevent the
disqualified from
partaking of them; 3.) The symbolism of the Supper determine
it beyond question to be a church ordinance, since it symbolizes church
relations with the body celebrating the rite. Christ
appointed it as a church
ordinance - could not have allowed His churches the right to contravene
it. The
churches of the first ages observed it
as a church ordinance. It is
admitted that the Supper can only be
enjoyed by one: 1.) Who
has been scripturally
baptized; and thus, 2.) Has
become a
member of a scriptural church; and 3.) Is
in hearty fellowship with its
doctrines; and 4.) Is
walking in
gospel order. I wish
in this
tract to show: That the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and, as
such, can
only be observed by a church, as such, and by a person in the church of
which
he is a member. This
statement indicates an observance of the Supper generally disregarded
by our
churches, as are other important matters connected with the sacred
feast, as
the character of bread and the kind of wine used, and it will,
therefore,
demand an investigation in spirit so unfettered by the prejudices of
long usage
and uninfluenced by the opinions of their powerful advocates, that
comparatively few will be able to command; but, these few belong to the
class
of witnesses who have, through all ages, been the conservators of “the
truth as
it is in Jesus,” and to whom the world is indebted for a pure gospel
and
scriptural ordinances. The truth of the proposition, as a whole,
depends upon
the truth of its first clause, i.e., that
the Supper is a church ordinance. It becomes me to define a church,
from a
denominational and social ordinance. There is no denominational
ordinance of
divine appointment - because such a thing as a denomination, in the
sense of an
organized body, embracing all the churches of a province or nation, was
unknown
in the first ages. I have denominated the Lord’s Supper a
denominational
ordinance whenever it is opened to the members of any and all Baptist
churches
present. We do not allow a brother not a member, in however good
standing, the
right to vote in our Conventions, Associations, Presbyteries, Councils,
or
church conference, but we do confer upon him the rights of a member,
without
the knowledge of his character, when we observe the Lord’s Supper, the
most
sacred of all ordinances! A
social ordinance or act is one that may
be enjoyed anywhere by any number of Christians, as individuals,
baptized or
unbaptized - as singing, prayer, exhortation and religious conversation. But,
the essential qualities of a church
ordinance are, - 1.) That it
is a rite,
the duty of perpetuating which is committed to the visible churches, as
such. 2.) The
qualifications of its recipients
must be decided by the members of the churches as such. 3.) Any
rite which symbolizes church
relations can only be participated in by the members of the church
celebrating,
and is pre-eminently a church ordinance. A
church act or privilege is one that can
be transacted or enjoyed by the constituent members of one particular
church.
Voting upon all questions relating to the choice of officers, the
fellowship
and government of the church, is a church privilege, or act, which,
from the
very nature and constitution of a gospel church, belongs to the members
of that
particular church alone, and cannot be extended beyond its limits
without peril
to its very existence. Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper are
universally admitted to be church ordinances, and yet few seem to
apprehend why
they are, or why they cannot be administered by an officer of a local
church
without the action or presence of the church. Of the
Lord’s
Supper, especially, few seem to understand why it ceases to be a church
ordinance when administered to those without and beyond its
jurisdiction, or
when those without and beyond the jurisdiction of a local church are
associated
in its celebration. It is my conviction that misapprehension of the
true nature
and limitations of a church ordinance has given rise to all the
discussions,
misunderstandings, all the misrepresentations, and bitter prejudices
excited
against us by other denominations, as well as to all the present
disagreement
among Baptists. If all parties could understand clearly why the Lord’s
Supper
is a church ordinance, and why it must, from its very nature and in
every
instance, be observed by the constituent membership of each local
church alone,
it must be that all this unpleasant and harmful misunderstanding, and
antagonism would be settled and pacified: and certainly this would be a
consummation devoutly to be wished by every true child of God in every
denomination. In the
not vain
hope, I trust, of contributing something toward this so desirable a
result, I
submit this and the following chapters. My
first argument
to show why the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and cannot be
scripturally
observed only by the members of one particular church, is, - 1.)
That each
church under Christ is absolutely independent. The
first church
organized by Christ was a complete and perfect church, and yet it
existed for
years before other churches were formed. There were no new
ecclesiastical
relations originated, nor the slightest modification of the character
of this
church made, by the multiplication of churches. During the apostolic
age, nor
for ages after, was there the shadow of any confederation or
con-association or
constitutional inter-dependence recognized,
any more than between the families of children of a common parentage.
Love for
the brotherhood and active charity for all in distress, and the doing
of good,
especially to the household of faith, was only enjoined. The idea of a
constitutional interdependence, which is now imperceptibly taking root
in the
minds of the cultured leaders of our people, in the fourth century
begot
confederations and con-associations of churches, and these soon brought
forth
the centralized ecclesiastical hierarchism under the auspices of
Constantine -
which is known as the “Great Apostasy.” [A. D. 100 - 593]. “All congregations were
independent of each other,” etc. (Gieseler, chapter 3 page 53.) “All
the churches
in those primitive times were independent bodies, and none of them
subject to
the jurisdiction of any other. It is as clear as noonday that all
Christian
churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of
equality.” [Mosheim,
A. D. 100]. [A. D. 200.] “During a great part of this
century all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of
each
other, or were connected by no con-associations or confederations; each
church
was a kind of little independent republic, governed by its own laws.” [A. D. 300 - 400.] “Although the ancient mode
of church government seemed, in general, to remain unaltered, yet there
was a
gradual deflection from its rules, and an approximation toward the form
of
monarchy. This change in the form of government was followed by a
corrupt state
of the clergy.” This
was the vile
offspring begotten by the idea of the inter-dependency of churches,
which is
finding strong advocates in our day. They sink the idea of churches
into that
of a Denomination. The
learned Doctor
Owen, of England, asserts: “That,
in no
approved writer, for two hundred years after Christ, is mention made of
any
organized visible professing church, except a local organization.”
- Crowell’s Church Manual, page 36. Each
church being
absolutely independent, it must, from the very nature of the case,
absolutely
control its own acts; and can be responsible to no authority save
Christ. It
cannot constitutionally allow the members of other communities to share
its
prerogatives, since such license would endanger its own independency
and
responsibility. Should
a church so
far forget its trust as to fall into the general practice of inviting,
as an
act of courtesy (which implies a discourtesy in refusing to do it), the
members
of all sister churches present to vote in the reception and exclusion
of
members, discipline, and even choice of pastors, as one prominent
Baptist
author advises, how soon the independency of the churches would be
subverted!
Usage would soon crystallize into precedent, and custom into law. The
independency of the churches is of
Christ’s special appointment, and it is our sacred duty to do nothing
tending
to imperil or contravene it. No one will presume to claim that Christ
invested
his churches with the power to contravene, at their pleasure, any one
of his
appointments. Their powers are all delegated, and delegated powers
cannot be
relegated. A local church cannot confer upon members of other
communities any
privilege or franchise that belongs exclusively to her own members. But it
is further demonstrable that the
Supper, as well as baptism, is a local church ordinance, because – 2.) To each
local
church is committed the sole administration and guardianship of the
ordinances. This
will not be questioned, save by the
few who hold that baptism, at least, was committed to the ministry as
such;
that they alone are responsible for its proper administration; and they
can,
therefore, administer it without the presence and voice of the church
whenever
and wherever they please. This must be settled, not by the will or
opinions of
men, but by the Scriptures. Let us
see what one apostle thought concerning this
issue between a part of our ministry and the churches: TO THE
CHURCH AT CORINTH “I have
received of the Lord Jesus that which I also delivered unto you.” -
(1 Corinthians 11:23) All the
instructions and directions, both as respects
the doctrine and the ordinances, Paul delivered, not to the ministry,
but to
the churches. “Now I praise you, brethren [not
you, ministers
of the churches), that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances
as I delivered them unto you.” -
(1 Corinthians 11:2) Now
note his command to this church, not to its
ministers: “Be ye
followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”— (1 Corinthians 11:1) “I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For
this
cause I have sent unto you Timothy, my beloved son, and faithful in the
Lord,
who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways, which be in Christ, as
I teach every-where in every church.” (I Corinthians 4:16-17.) TO THE
CHURCH AT PHILIPPI “Brethren,
be ye followers
of me, and mark them who walk so, as ye have us for an example.” – (Philippians
3:17) He
enjoins it upon the church to follow the directions
he had given it,
as well as to “mark” those who did
not. TO
THE CHURCH AT COLOSSE. “Though
I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and
obeying
your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have
received
Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in
him. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after
the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ.”
– (Colossians 2:5-8) TO
THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA
“Therefore, my brethren, stand fast and hold
the tradition [which embraces all the instructions and ordinances] which ye have been taught, whether by word
or our epistle.” – (2 Thessalonians
2:15)
“And
we have confidence in the Lord touching you [the Church],
that ye both do and will do the things we
command you.” – (2 Thessalonians 3:4) It
would be useless to reason with those who could deny, with these
Scriptures
before their eyes, that the ordinances were not delivered in sacred
trust to
the churches, as such, and not to their officers; and that they are
held
responsible for their right observance. <>It
is further established, with respect to the Supper, by the duties
especially
enjoined upon each local church, as such. It is commanded to allow only
members
possessing certain qualifications to come to the Supper.
“Now
we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves [as a Church] from
every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions
[instructions] which he received of us” (1) “And
if any man obey not our word by this
epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed.”
– (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14) (1)And
what ingenuous mind will deny that this command
equally excludes all such from the pulpit as well? This
withdrawing
and having no company with the disobedient and disorderly, certainly
involved
exclusion from the Lord’s table. “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.” – (1 Corinthians 5:11) The
apostolic
churches were peremptorily commanded to prohibit the table to all
these, and
such like characters - to allow no leaven to be mingled in the feast.
For this
purpose, each church is made the sole guardian of the Supper. It cannot
alienate the responsibility. It cannot, under any plea, contravene the
law. To
execute it with fidelity, it must keep the feast within its
jurisdiction; its
permission to partake cannot be extended beyond the limits of the
Supper, since
all who can be entitled to the Supper must be subject to its discipline. It is
conceded by
all that members of other communities have no scriptural or any other
right to
eat the Supper in any church save their own. No one claims that it is
the duty
of any local church to offer the supper to any but its own members. What,
then, do I
conclude? – 1.)
That Christ
has not given me the right to commune in any church save the one which
has the
watch and care over me, and that my privileges are limited to my church. 2.)
That Christ
has not made it the duty of any church to open the doors to this
ordinance to
any not subject to its discipline; but, by making it a church ordinance
He has
manifestly forbidden the practice, since, by the act, the participant
declares
he is a member of the church with which he communes – “we are one
loaf,” i.e., one church. 3.) And
it may be
safely affirmed that those churches that statedly offer and invite to
their
tables all the members of sister churches who may chance to be present
in the congregation,
openly violate the command of Paul - to allow no disqualified persons
to
participate in this ordinance - since it is morally certain that such
are
often, if not ever, present, and are the most certain to accept. But the
Lord’s
Supper is unquestionably a church ordinance, because – 4.) It
symbolizes
church relations, i.e., that all who
jointly partake are members of the one and self - same church. I only
assert this
fact here, and submit an eminent authority, that of Professor Curtis,
who has
treated this subject with unsurpassed ability, and reserve the
discussion and
proof of it when I treat of the symbolism of the elements in the next
Tract.
That the Supper is a church ordinance in the sense that it can be
worthily
celebrated by only one church and participated in by the members of
only one
church, Professor Curtis argues most conclusively from the symbolism of
the
Supper, as well as from the fact that it is under the sole guardianship
of the
churches. He
says, in “Communion,” page 85: “We
desire to show
that this is the true view of the Lord’s Supper, [i.e.,
that it is a church ordinance, and a symbol of church
relationship]. ‘When ye come together
therefore into one place,’ says the apostle, ‘this is not to eat the Lord’s
Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other,
etc. . . Wherefore,
my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.’ (1 Corinthians 11:20-21, 33.)
The apostle here clearly alludes to it as the universally
current opinion that the Lord’s Supper was a church ordinance, so far
as this,
that it was completely celebrated in one place, by one church. … When
he bids
them ‘tarry one for another’ he
clearly intimates that the regulation of the Supper, as far as time and
place
are concerned, is lodged in each particular church; that it expresses
the
relations of the members of the church to each other, as such.” “That
the Lord’s
Supper is a symbol of church relationship, subsisting between those who
unite
together in tho participation of it, can be shown in various ways.” “Admission
to the
Lord’s table, therefore, implies admission to it by a particular
church, and
this in fact settles the question that the Lord’s Supper is a church
ordinance.” The Lord’s Supper, then, being a church
ordinance,
indicates church relations as subsisting between the parties who unite
together
in its celebration. “It
must be
conceded that the Lord’s Supper is ever the symbol of particular,
visible
church relations.” - Page 138. “It
expresses the
relations of the members of that church to each other, as such.” “A
fellowship in
church relations, professed with those Christians with whom we visibly
celebrate.” If the
Lord’s
Supper is a Church ordinance, as must be admitted, and a symbol, among
other
things, of our visible church relations in the same particular church
with
which we celebrate it, then it is a violation of the truth symbolized
to invite
members of other Baptist churches to participate in it. When
Baptists, in
reasoning with affusionists, urge the symbolism of Baptism, i.e.,
that it represents a burial - as
conclusive that the act must be an immersion - they think candid
Pedobaptists
should see and admit so evident an argument. Will not all candid
Baptists admit
this? 4.) It
was
instituted by Christ to be observed as a church ordinance. I claim
it as an
AXIOM - That a
church
ordinance must be instituted by Christ. AND That
the symbolism of the ordinances was instituted by
Christ. Should
we observe ordinances originated by man, our worship would be
unacceptable to
Christ, and as vain as it would be sinful. Christ has said – “In
vain do they worship me who teach for
doctrines the commandments of men.” Should
we change
the symbol of an ordinance by the slightest modification, we would
vitiate it;
and to vitiate the symbolism of an ordinance in the least, is to
vitiate the
ordinance. “Ye do make the commandment of God of none
effect through your traditions.” - Christ. That
Christ did
institute the Supper to be rigidly observed as a church ordinance,
Professor
Curtis declares: “So
when our
blessed Savior instituted the Supper, as He did, upon one of those
Paschal
occasions, it was, we say, as a church ordinance that He ordained it.” And he
justly
says, to claim the right to change it in the least, is to claim the
right to
legislate. If it is ever a symbol of particular church relations
professed with
those Christians with whom we visibly celebrate, as he declares, then
to
celebrate it with those not members of the same church, is to vitiate
the
symbol and change what Christ hath appointed. 5.) The
Lord’s Supper was observed by the apostolic
churches (A. D. 100) as a Church ordinance; i.e.,
as a symbol of church relations. Paul,
we have
seen, could not have delivered this ordinance unto the churches as he
had received
it from Christ, unless he had delivered it unto them as a church
ordinance; for
it is admitted that Christ ordained it as a church ordinance. (Curtis
and
others). The
apostolic
churches could not have observed this ordinance as Paul delivered it
unto them
unless they had observed it as a church ordinance, i.e.,
by one church only, and with the members of one church only.
But the
churches did observe this, as well as the
other ordinances, as Paul delivered them, because he praised them for
so doing. To the
church at
Corinth he wrote, - “I
praise you, brethren, because you keep the
ordinances as I delivered them unto
you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2) To the
Church at
Colosse he could say, - “I rejoice, beholding your order and the
stability of your faith.” The
churches at
Thessalonica he only exhorts: Which clearly implies they had been, and still were, faithful in their observance. The
church at
Corinth for a season perverted the design of the Supper, and Paul
promptly
rebuked it [not its pastor or elders], and again set it in order, and
we must
believe that he corrected every departure from his instructions. But
suppose I
grant that he did not deliver it to the churches as symbolizing the
relations
of all the participants to one and the same church, still I claim that
the
positive instructions Paul gave to the churches forbade them from
inviting to
their tables the members of all existing churches, without personal
knowledge
of their faith or character, as is the practice of this age. He placed
the
Supper under the sole custody of each church, and commanded it to purge
away
from its table all leaven of malice or wickedness. He taught them that
false
doctrine of all description, and all ungodly conduct (1
Corinthians 5), and all works of the flesh (Galatians 5),
was leaven that must not be allowed to defile the
feast. “Now we charge you, brethren, in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who walks
disorderly, and
not according to the instruction which you have received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) If it
is said “that
this was spoken to the church with reference to her own members,” I
will grant
it, and demand if it does not equally teach that it should equally
withdraw
from those not members walking disorderly? That there might be no
doubt, read
the fourteenth verse: “But if any one
obey not our word, signify that man by an epistle [the most
approved
rendering], and have no company with
him, that he may be ashamed.” All will admit that this command
forbade them
to invite all false teachers, as well as unsound and disorderly
brethren, to
the Lord’s Supper. <>Now
false teachers
and heretical brethren, abounded in Paul’s day, all members of sister
churches
in good standing, and thousands of these belonged to the church at
Jerusalem;
and had it been the custom of the church at Corinth to invite “all
members of
sister churches” to its table, would it not have violated the
instructions of
Paul? But this feature will be more fully developed in a future Tract.
But finally - I care
little for
the argument from post-apostolic history. It is enough for my purpose -
and it
must be quite enough for every conscientious Bible Christian - to learn
that
Christ appointed the Supper to be observed as a church ordinance, and
that the
apostles so delivered it to the churches, and the churches all observed
it as
such while they had the personal instructions of the apostles. Suppose,
from
the day the last apostle died, every church ceased to observe it as a
church
ordinance; how should that fact affect our present practice? Would it
warrant a
church to observe it, even once, in some other way, that would vitiate
its
symbolism? The fact granted would in no way vitiate the claim that
there have
been Baptist churches from the day of the defection. The church at
Corinth had
for years utterly perverted the Supper, and yet Paul addressed it as a
church
of Christ. It was disorderly in this respect, but a perversion of the
Supper
did not forfeit its existence. “There
is
sufficient proof to convince any close student of church history of the
first
three centuries, that in the very earliest ages, the Supper was
regarded as
strictly a church ordinance, as we have defined the phrase.” - Communion, page 88.
“The
records of
church history plainly show that originally the Lord’s Supper was
everywhere
regarded as a church ordinance.” - Communion,
page 137. I will
add the
remarks of Doctor D. Spencer, in his treatise on “Invitations
to the Supper,” after showing that no invitations were
given by the first churches, nor yet in the days of Justin Martyr, in
the
second century: “How,
then, did
invitations originate? The answer is plain. They originated with the
perversion
of the ordinance. When the ordinance came to take the place of Christ,
the
churches began to invite to it, as they had formerly invited to Christ.
Hence
in Romish churches today you hear plenty of invitations to ordinances,
but none
to Christ.”
I have
not
granted, in this discussion, that the unapostate churches, whom we
account our
ancestors, deflected at an early day into denominational Communion. It
is my
impression that this laxity is a late practice. CONCLUSIONS
FROM
THIS ARGUMENT. I think
I have
conclusively shown, - 1.)
That Christ
appointed His Supper to be a church ordinance. 2.)
That any
rational definition of church ordinance or privilege limits the
enjoyment of it
to the membership of, or to those approved for membership by a local
church. 3.)
That when an
ordinance or act symbolizes or implies church relations, it is
pre-eminently a
church ordinance, and must be confined to the members of a particular
church
only. 4.)
That the Lord’s
Supper, among other things, specially symbolizes church relations, as
all
standard writers admit, and, therefore, it can be scripturally observed
by the
members of one church only. 5.)
That for the
members of various churches to participate in its joint observance,
even though
upon the invitation of a local church, as Associations and Conventions
are wont
in some places to do, would be to vitiate the symbolism, and
consequently to
render the ordinance, null. The
only issue now
before Baptists is fairly stated by Doctor A. P. Williams: “If he
[a member
of one church] ever has a right anywhere else, it must be either by a
transfer
of membership or by courtesy,” etc. - Lord’s
Supper, page 94. In his “Tract on Communion,” as though he would
correct, in part, at least, the admission made in his book on
Communion, he
says: “But
this courtesy
cannot be exercised in violation of church discipline or of divine
authority.” It is
demonstrable
that it is in palpable violation of both: 1.) It
is always
done at the expense of good discipline; for when a church invites to
her table
the members of all other Baptist churches present, she inevitably will
invite
those she would feel herself bound to exclude, if her own members; and
she
would often invite those whom she considers unbaptized, and would
refuse their
application for membership; and oftentimes she would invite back to her
Communion persons she herself excluded, who are now members of other
churches,
in good standing. Can this be called good discipline?
2.)
Such a
courtesy can never be extended and accepted, except in violation of
divine
authority, since Christ appointed the Supper to symbolize the organic
unity of
the body partaking – i.e., particular
church relations of all the participants withthat one church. It is
claimed that
the churches have the right to extend such invitations through
courtesy. I
answer that such a claim is not even supposable; for – 1.) It
cannot be
supposed that Christ would allow His churches to adopt any practice
that would
contravene any one of His own appointments - even if we can suppose He
sometimes allows it to exercise legislative powers - by adding to, or
modifying, the form of one of His ordinances. 2.) But
invitations to all Baptists present to partake of the Supper with the
local
church celebrating it, does manifestly contravene Christ’s appointment
of the
Supper as a church ordinance. 3.)
Therefore it
cannot be supposed that Christ has allowed His churches to extend
invitations
to all Baptists present to partake of the Supper with them.
From
the
considerations submitted in this Tract, the reader will see that I have
done
what I have been called upon to do - proved that all those brethren who
admit
that the Supper is a church ordinance, do yield the question at issue
between
us, and, to be consistent, they must admit that Intercommunion of
Baptists of
different churches is unscriptural and inconsistent. CHAPTER
II THE
PRACTICE OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES. They
observed the ordinances as they were
delivered to them. The
Supper was delivered to be observed as
a church ordinance. They
had no authority to change any rite in
the least respect. They
were commanded to judge all whom they
allowed to eat with them, and they cannot judge the members of sister
churches. Intercommunion
was unknown among the
apostolic churches in the earliest ages of Christianity. The
invariable
practice of the apostolic churches, and the specific instructions
delivered
them by the apostles, will have a conclusive bearing upon the right
settlement of the question before us. If
we find that
these are in accord with the nature and symbolism of the ordinance as
developed
in the previous chapter, it will certainly be the part of Christian
candor to
admit that the practice of Intercommunion was unknown among the
apostolic
churches, and is, therefore, unscriptural. Baplists indorse this as
logical
reasoning when opposing infant baptism and feet washing; the practices
were
unknown to the apostolic churches, and, therefore, must be
unscriptural. To
place the subject fully before the reader, I will submit this: AXIOM -
Any
practice or theory which vitiates or contravenes what Christ has
appointed must
be unscriptural, and fraught with evil. Now
there are two
principles fundamental to the New Testament and Baptist church polity,
viz.: 1.)
That each
church of Christ is an absolutely independent organization, complete in
itself,
and clothed with executive functions only. 2.)
That to the
churches, as such, Christ delivered the ordinances, and constituted
each one
responsible for the purity of its administrations. I mean
by
fundamental, that a scriptural church cannot be constituted without
them. An
organization may possess every other feature; but not possessing these
two, it
is not a Christian or evangelical church, and should not be so called.
I refer
the reader back to Bishop Doggett’s position (page 21). Any theory or
practice,
therefore, that antagonizes or contravenes either of these principles,
must be
unscriptural, and of evil tendency. 1. The theory of some that the rights, ordinances,
and privileges of one church belong incommon to the members of all
churches, is
both unscriptural and pernicious. For, (1.) It
is
destructive of the polity Christ appointed for His churches, abrogating
as it
does the principle of Church independency. Once
establish this
theory, and no church could discipline its own members, administer its
own
government: for the members of surrounding churches could command
majorities,
and control the business meetings of a local church; dismiss its pastor
and
elect another; determine his salary; arraign, try, and exclude members;
receive
and administer her ordinances. The reader who cannot see how utterly
this
theory annihilates the last vestige of church independency is simply
unreasonable.
The theory must, therefore, be unscriptural and pernicious. (2.) It
is equally
manifest that the above theory as utterly ignores and abrogates the
second
fundamental principle, viz.; the guardianship of the ordinances by the
local
churches. If the members of one church have equal privileges in all
churches,
it follows, of course, that no church has the right to refuse them the
exercise
of any church privileges - as of voting and coming to its table - and
consequently can have no control of the Supper any more than of baptism
or of
its discipline. The most obnoxious characters, retained as they are in
the
fellowship of so many sister churches, - drunkards, fornicators,
adulterers,
revelers, and even those unbaptized, and those excluded from her own
fellowship,
- can come to the table of any church without let or hinderance on its
part.
This is the monstrous theory set forth by some who propose to teach
Baptists
the right observance of the ordinances. It utterly annihilates both the
independency of the churches and their control of, and responsibility
for the
right observance of the ordinances, and is therefore unscriptural and
pernicious, and fraught with evil only. We are
therefore
compelled to conclude that no member has a scriptural right to any
church act,
privilege, or the Supper, in a church of which he is not a member. All
standard
Baptist authors are agreed in this. Dr. A.
P. Williams,
D. D., says: “He [a
regular
Baptist] has a right to the Communion in the church of which he has
been added;
but nowhere else. As he had no general right when running at large, so
he has
no general right now.” - Lord’s Supper
page 93. Dr.
Arnold, of
Madison University, N. Y., says: “Such a
principle is in our judgment
incompatible, alike with the independence and the responsibility of
churches -
with their independence, because it takes from them the right to judge
of the
qualifications of those whom they receive to their highest privileges;
and with
their responsibility, because it deprives them of the power to guard
the table
of the Lord against the approach of the unworthy.” - Prerequisites
to Communion., page 62. Dr.
Gardner says: “A
member of one
Baptist church has no more right to claim the privilege of voting in
another
Baptist church, than has a Campbellite, Methodist, or Presbyterian. The
same is
equally true of Communion at the Lord’s Table, which is a church act,
and the
appointed token, not of Christian or denominational, but of the church
fellowship subsisting between communicants at the same table. Hence it
follows
that a member of one Baptist church has no more right, as a right, to
claim
Communion in another Baptist church, than he has to claim the right of
voting,
for both are equally church acts and church privileges. The Lord’s
Supper being
a church ordinance, as all admit,(2) and every church being
required
to exercise discipline over all its communicants, it necessarily
follows that
no church can scripturally, [and it is certain that it cannot
unscripturally!]
extend its communion beyond the limits of its discipline. And this, in
fact,
settles the question of church Communion, and restricts the Lord’s
Supper to
the members of each particular church as such.” - Communion,
pages 18, 19. (2) That
Christ has not given the members of
one church a right to the table spread in another church, see Curtis,
Paxton,
Adkins, Harvey, Pendleton, and Hovey. Now if
this be true
- and who will presume to doubt it ? - can we for a moment suppose that
the
apostolic churches habitually contravened those fundamental principles,
and the
express instructions of the apostles without their remonstrance or
reproof? If
not, we cannot believe that the apostolic churches practiced
Intercommunion. THE
APOSTOLIC
CHURCHES DID NOT PRACTICE INTERCOMMUNION. My
first argument
is: 1.)
There is not a
precept for, nor an example of, Interconimunion in the New Testament. If
Baptists really
believe that this is a valid argument against infant baptism and
feet-washing
being church ordinances, or even Christian duties, they must admit its
equal
force against Intercommunion. It is inferred to have taken place at
Troas, but
no one ever has, or can prove, that there was any church at Troas in
the first
century at the period of Paul’s last visit; and, therefore, the
expression “when we come together to break bread,”
refers to a common repast, and not to the Lord’s Supper. My
second argument
is: That
the apostolic
churches did observe this ordinance, as well as baptism, as the
apostles delivered
them unto them. The
churches were
especially praised for this (1
Corinthians 11:2, Colossians 2:5). In
whatever respect
any church departed from the traditions of the apostles, for this they
were
reproved (1 Corinthians 11:17, 22; Revelation 2:3). But we have no intimation throughout the
New
Testament that any church had transgressed in this respect. (See
letters to the
seven churches.) But I have shown, what is generally admitted, that
Christ did
appoint the Supper to be observed as a church ordinance, and among
other
things, to symbolize “church relations” - i.e.,
that all who unite in partaking of it are fellow-members of the same
church. So
Professor
Curtis: “So
when our
blessed Savior instituted the Supper, as He did upon one of these
Paschal
occasions, it was, we say, as a church ordinance that He ordained it.”
– Communion, page 87. He
therefore
committed it to His churches to be so observed to the end of time.
Therefore,
the apostolic churches did observe the Lord’s Supper as a church
ordinance, and
Inter-communion was unknown among them. But, strange to say, there are
good
Baptists who believe that in virtue of the independence of Baptist
churches,
they can invite members of other churches to participate in their
church acts.(3) (3)Is it
in violation of the Scriptures for a
member in good standing in a church of Christ, to partake of the Lord’s
Supper,
with another church of the same faith and order? “Answer.
- The Lord’s
Supper is strictly a church ordinance; yet, by virtue of the
independence of a
church, she may, or may not, invite to her Communion, members of sister
churches of the same faith and order, who she knows to be in good
standing, and
we advise the brethren to moderation and forbearance.” - Answer
of The Suwanee Baptist Association, Florida., 1881. Now, it
is evident
that, if Christ did appoint the Supper to be observed as a church
ordinance, as
these brethren all admit, and as a symbol of church relations, then it
is
certain that He forbade the Intercommunion of members of different
churches.
This must be as evident to a Baptist as that Christ forbade the
sprinkling of
water on the head for Christian baptism, by appointing the act to
symbolize his
death, burial, and resurrection.(4) Let not Baptists use the
arguments they do to disprove sprinkling, unless willing to admit their
force
with reference to the Lord’s Supper. For a Baptist Church, then, to
grant a
right which Christ has withheld, it must be authorized by Christ to
modify his
appointments - in a word, to legislate. But scriptural churches are
executive
bodies only, and therefore have no authority to enact or abolish rites
or
ceremonies, or modify, in the least, any ordinance or appointment of
Christ.
For a church to presume to do this, would be to forfeit its claims to
be
considered a Church of Christ. (4)It
would not be strange for Protestants and
Catholics to believe that a church may change Christ’s appointments,
for the
right is incorporated in the very creeds of those sects. “Each
particular
church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all
things
may be done to edification.” - Acts xxii; Methodist
Discipline. And
they have
changed both the subjects and the acts which Christ commanded, for
their
convenience; but this doctrine has always been, and should be,
peculiarly
repugnant to all Baptists. This
fact should be
indelibly impressed upon the mind and heart of every Baptist - a church
of
Christ has no authority to enact laws or to change, in the slightest
respect,
what Christ has appointed. It cannot be true, therefore, that a church
may
grant a privilege which Christ has withheld, and much less to so modify
an
ordinance of His Church as to change its entire character. This would
be
equivalent to enacting a new law. If a church can enact one law, she
can a
thousand; if she can change one law or ordinance of Christ, she can
abolish all
His laws, and enact those suited to her tastes, feelings, and
convenience. By
granting a church the authority to modify the least appointment of
Christ in
the least, is to concede all the powers claimed by the Papacy. A
principle
cannot be divided. 2.) But
suppose it
is conceded that Christ did authorize His churches to legislate, in
some
things, in some peculiar circumstances, can we for a moment suppose
that He
authorized them to make changes, or do that which would contravene His
own
appointments, or vitiate the very symbolism of His ordinances, and thus
render
them null? But it has been shown that it inheres in the very nature of
a church
act or privilege, that its participation is limited to the members of
the one
church; that it cannot be extended beyond the jurisdiction of the
church
celebrating it; that Christ appointed the Supper to be such an
ordinance, as to
symbolize church relations, and therefore we cannot suppose that He has
authorized His churches to change His appointment at their pleasure;
and
therefore we cannot suppose that the apostolic churches ever changed
this
ordinance, or extended the right to eat, any more than the right to
vote,
beyond the limits of their discipline. 3.) My
second
argument is: (1) If
Christ
appointed the eating of the “one loaf” to symbolize church relations
subsisting
between all those who jointly partake of it, then we must conclude that
all the
apostolic churches, which observed the ordinances as delivered, did
symbolize
the fact that all who ate together were members of the one self-same
church,
and they did not therefore extend the Supper to the members of sister
churches. (2) But
it is
admitted by all our authors, who have thoroughly examined the subject,
that the
symbolism of the “one loaf” is the organic unity of all the
participants i.e., that they are members of the same
local church (See Symbolism of the “One Loaf,” Tract III). (3) We
are thus
forced to the conclusion that the apostolic churches observed it, among
other
things, as a symbol of church relations, and therefore did not practice
Intercommunion. My
third argument
is: From
the fact that
the guardianship of the Supper is strictly enjoined upon the local
churches,
she is to judge all with whom she is authorized to commune. The
apostolic
churches were required to allow no one, whose faith or practice was
“leavened,”
to come to their table. They were not only authorized, but commanded,
to judge
all with whom they ate. They were strictly required to know, so far as
they
were able to judge by their observation, or reliable information, that
they
were “unleavened” as respects their Christian faith and conduct. “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 a
one,
no, not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are
without? do
not ye judge them that are within ?” (1
Corinthians 5:11-12). Each
church, then,
has not only the right, but is commanded, to judge all she permits to
eat with
her - judge of their baptism, and be assured that they have indeed
received
Christian baptism; judge of their faith, and decide if they are
heretical;
judge of their Christian conduct, and decide and declare openly by the
act
whether they are qualified or disqualified to partake of the Lord’s
Supper. Is
there a church in all this broad land that will grant that a sister
church has
the right to sit in judgment upon the faith and conduct of her members?
Is
there a Baptist who will acknowledge the right of a church, of which he
is not
a member, to sit in judgment upon his faith and Christian walk, and
discipline
him according to her judgment? Not one, who has any regard for the
appointments
of Christ, or self-respect. But by partaking of the Supper with another
church,
he does symbolically declare that he subjects himself fully to its
government
and discipline. Dr.
Harvey, of
Hamilton Theological Seminary, in his late work, “The Church,” says: “When a
man eats of
that ‘one bread,’ and drinks of that
‘one cup,’ he, in this act, professes himself a member of that ‘one body,’ in hearty, holy sympathy
with its doctrines and life, and freely and fully subjecting himself to
its
watch-care and government. (1
Corinthians 10:17.) “Hence,
in 1 Corinthians 5:11,
the church is forbidden to eat (in
the Lord’s Supper, as the context clearly shows) with immoral persons,
thus
distinctly making the ordinance a symbol of church fellowship.” – page
221. There
is not a
Baptist in the whole land who could be influenced to go to the table of
a
sister church if he was required to acknowledge himself a member for
the time
being, and subjected to its discipline. The church could arraign him
before the
Conference closed try and expel him for conduct not fellowshiped by her. Reverand
G. M.
Savage, President of the Masonic College, Henderson, Tennessee, in a
treatise
lately put forth on “Communion,” thus comments upon 1
Corinthians 5:11 showing that Paul, in this letter, was
establishing the doctrine that the Supper was a church ordinance, and
symbolized church relations between those communicating: “Again,
there is a man in the Corinth church who was living
with his father’s wife, whether married to her or not, cannot be
determined.
Paul, in giving orders to the church to exclude him, added: ‘But
now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any 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.’
- (1 Corinthians 5:11)” “The
first
deduction I make from this passage is, that the celebration of the
Lord’s
Supper cannot extend beyond the limits of church discipline. Suppose it
does.
Then the offender, without a satisfactory reformation, may go and join
some
organization, claiming to be a follower of Christ; and, at the very
next
communion season, when the usual general invitation is given, present
himself,
and the church thus having to eat with him would violate the command of
Christ.
The only way to avoid such guilt, such trouble (for cases of this kind
sometimes occur), is carefully to restrict the communicants to those
within the
limits of church discipline. From this deduction it follows, that
communion is
a sign of church fellowship; and, consequently, intercommunion is
unscriptural.” Dr.
Gardner says: “If
another Baptist
church thinks proper to invite him to its communion, then he may
partake as an
invited guest and as a temporary member. Such intercommunion [i. e. without membership] among Baptists
is not only without Scripture warrant, but does much harm, and no real
good.
The practice, therefore, is unscriptural and of evil tendency; and,
doubtless,
will be abandoned by all our churches as soon as they reflect properly
upon the
subject, and can overcome the force of habit and prejudice.” – page 204. If the
above
positions, indorsed by such authorities, are conceded, then it follows
– That
the apostolic
churches did not practice intercommunion, for it cannot be conceded
that they,
unreproved by the apostles, habitually practiced what was unscriptural
and of
evil tendency. My
fourth argument
is: Let it
be granted
that the character and symbolism of the rite itself does not
necessarily forbid
the church extending it beyond her jurisdiction, nevertheless the
special
directions of the apostles to the churches, to refuse the Supper to the
factious and heretical of that age, made it impossible for
intercommunion to be
practiced by them. In the
later years
of Paul’s ministry a multitude of false religious teachers infested the
churches he had planted, and taught doctrines that subverted the souls
of men,
and corrupted the faith of many. The churches of Galatia seem to have
been
influenced largely by these false teachers, and turned away from the
true faith
(Galatians 3:1) Paul called the
doctrine of these Judaizing teachers “leaven,”
and all persons who embraced it would be called “leaven;”
and he commanded the churches to purge out and away all “leaven”
from the feast.
Now it
is a fact
that all these heretical ministers and false teachers were members, in
good
standing, of sister churches, which means not under discipline, many of
whom
belonged to the church at Jerusalem; and there were “many
thousands” of the members of that church who held this
doctrine of the ‘‘Concision.’’ “And certain men, who came down from Judea,
taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised, after the
manner of
Moses, ye cannot be saved.” - (Acts
15:1.) These
were members
of the church at Jerusalem, as we learn from the letter of that church
to that
at Antioch, to which it sent up messengers to learn from the apostles
of this
church, it being their mother church, if the doctrine taught by these
teachers
was true. During
the
discussion in the church at Jerusalem we read (verse 5): “But there rose up certain of the sects of
the Pharisees which believed, [i. e., were members
of that church] saying,
That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them
to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5). “And because of false brethren, unawares
brought in, who came privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in
Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue
with you. But of these, who seemed to be somewhat [of influence in
the
church], (whatsoever they were, it
maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person), for they who
seemed to be somewhat in conference added
nothing to me: But contrariwise,” etc. (Galatians 2:4-7). In the
letter sent
to the church at Antioch, the pastor, James the apostle, and the
church, write
thus: “Forasmuch
as we have heard, that certain
who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your
souls, …” – (Acts
15:24.) When
Paul visited
Jerusalem, eight years after, and had recounted his missionary labors
and
successes to James and the elders, we hear them warning Paul of his
imminent
personal danger from these zealots of the law in that church: “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of
Jews there are who believe; and they are all zealous of the law.” -
(Acts 21:20.) How did
Paul regard
these ministers, church members though they were? “As many as desire to make a fair show in
the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should
suffer
persecution for the cross of Christ.” – (Galatians 6:12) “And I, brethren, if I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of
the cross
ceased.” – (Galatians 5:11) “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers [these Judaizing teachers and brethren] be transformed as ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” – (2 Corinthians 11:13-15) “For
many walk, of whom I told you before,
and now tell you, even weaping, that they
are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction.” - (Philippians
3:18-19) What
does Paul say
of their doctrine? “I marvel that you are so soon removed from
Him who called you into another gospel: Which is not another; but there
be some
who trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we,
or an
angel from heaven, preach another gospel unto you than that we have
preacbed
unto you, let him be accursed … I
would they were cut off who trouble you” (4) – [i. e.
excluded
from the church of which they were members, which it was not in Paul’s
power to
accomplish, and, I suppose, not in the power of the pastor at
Jerusalem; but he
could advise it]. Galatians 1:6-8; Galatians 5:12) (4)Paul’s
wish that the false teachers of his
day “were cut off” – excluded -
should satisfy those brethren who call for proof that these false
teachers,
false apostles, and false brethren were church members. If church
members, then
Baptists, since all the apostolic churches were Baptist churches. “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing … Christ
is become of none effect unto you … Ye did run well;
who did hinder, that ye should not obey the truth?
This persuasion cometh not of him who calleth you. A little leaven
leaveneth
the whole lump.” How did
Paul
instruct the churches to treat these Judaizing brethren? “Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers,
beware of the concision.” - (Philippians
3:2) “Now, I entreat you, brethren, to watch
those who are making factions and laying snares contrary to the
teachings which
you have learned, and turn away from them; for such like ones as they
are not
in subjection to our Anointed Lord, but to their own appetites; and by
kind and
complimentary words they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” -
(Romans 16:17) To the
Thessalonians he wrote this; “Now, we charge you, brethren, in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who walks
disorderly,
and not according to the instructions which you received from us. ...
. But if any one obey not our word by this
letter, point him out, and do not associate with him, so that he may be
put to
shame.” These
brethren,
whom Paul called “false brethren,” “false
apostles,” “false teachers,” “dogs,”
“ministers of Satan,” and the
multitudes of brethren, in many of the churches, corrupted by their
teaching,
with the many thousands in the church at Jerusalem, were all members of
sister
churches in good standing - i. e., in
their own churches. The question I ask is, “Could the church at
Corinth, or any
other, give the usual intercommunion invitation to all members of
sister
churches, in good standing in their churches, to come and eat, without
openly
violating the above instructions of Paul?” I have no further argument
with any
one who will say that it could. But
such like
characters, leavened with the ungodliness Paul specifies (in 1 Corinthians 5, and Galatians 5),
abound in all our
churches, and our general invitations are therefore unscriptural, and
most
inconsistent; and, since they are in violation of the apostle’s
injunctions,
and vitiate the ordinance of the Supper, they are of evil tendency. I will
take it for
granted that all Christians will admit that such characters ought not
to
paricipate in the Supper. But the question arises, How are all such to
be
debarred the Supper, and the orderly of other churches admitted?
Certainly not
by “considering” (?) them all members for the time being, for these are
leaven,
and must be rejected as members; and no church has the right to receive
applicants without a rigid examination both as to their faith and
practice, for
those received must be “unleavened,” and no one can be received to
membership
without the unanimous consent of a church expressed in some way. This
is
universal Baptist practice, and founded on correct principles. To
ascertain
who, of a company of brethren present, are leaven as to faith or
practice, it
is evident that an examination before the church must be had, that all
the
members may be
able to judge of
their soundness, so as to receive the fellowship of all the church. But
we have
seen that no church has the authority to “judge” others, save its own
members.
It is quite as evident that no church would allow a sister church to
sit in
judgment upon her members, and decide by public vote which ones ought
to be
excluded from the Lord’s Supper and the Church, and which ones
retained, for
those unfit for the Supper are unfit for the Church. Everyone can see,
that to
invite the members of all sister churches, would have been to invite
all the
above characters to the Supper; but to have singled out these
characters, and
rejected them, would have been passing a sentence of judgment, by the
church,
upon members of those without its
jurisdiction, which is strictly forbidden. Now it seems that every
candid
Baptist, who wants no shadow of practice not warranted from the Word of
God,
must perceive that, by observing the Supper as a church ordinance, as
it was
delivered, all the above difficulties are solved, and all the
Scriptures
harmonized, and the admitted symbolism of the Supper preserved. I
therefore
claim, with the utmost confidence, that I have established it as a fact- That
both the teachings of the apostles, and the practice of
the apostolic churches, were opposed to the practice of intercommunion.
THE
PRACTICE OF THE EARLIEST AGES. Touching
the
practice of the churches in the earliest centuries, I will only add the
statement
of so careful a scholar as Professor Curtis: THE
LORD’S SUPPER “The
records of church history plainly show that originally
the Lord’s Supper was every-where regarded as a church ordinance
[observed by
the members of one church only]; for, after centuries of gradual
corruption had
altered the forms of church government in many other respects, and many
separate congregations were united under the care of one bishop, and
were
considered as only one church, there was ever one, and but one, altar
to each
bishoprick, at which alone the elements of the eucharist were
consecrated. To
set up another altar, or communion table, was considered a violation of
unity,
or a declaration of church independence. Each bishoprick had the
absolute power
of receiving to, or excommunicating from, the Lord’s table. The whole
of this
shows how contrary to all the centralizing tendencies, and amid many
corruptions on all sides, this truth remained, embalmed and preserved,
that – “THE LORD’S SUPPER WAS
A CHURCH ORDINANCE”
|