Now I again ask, will you commune with those who will commune with slave-holders? According to your mode of arguing, it is the same thing as communing with slave-holders, only one step farther round." The minister, after being pressed for an answer, at last replied, "No, not after they have been labored with." "Then," said the brother, "there are few in the denomination that you can commune with."

CHAPTER IV.

A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF STRICT COMMUNION.

The argument founded on the order of the words in the apostolic commission-On the order of the institutions of the Lord's supper and Christian baptism-John's baptism not a Christian instituteThe argument founded on church fellowship-Extract from Mr. Hall.

The review which follows, is intended for those who reject the doctrine of the first chapter of this work. For if it has been proved that the only design of the Lord's supper is to show Christ's death, every argument for restricted communion has already been intercepted and disproved.

The principal argument for strict communion is founded on the alledged order of the apostolic commission. I will present it in the full strength of its latest and most improved edition, as contained in Mr. Judd's Review of Professor Stuart.* After introducing our Lord's commission to his apostles to disciple all nations, baptizing believers, &c., also the institution of the Lord's "But we supper, he says:

* See Review p. 120-122. Also Fuller's Conver. p. 83,

are not only required to observe these institutions, but to observe them in a certain order. This order is prescribed in the commission, and confirmed and enforced by apostolic example, as well as by the nature and design of the two institutions. The order in which these duties were first enjoined, is of comparatively inferior importance; but the order in which they are here commanded to be observed, is the order in which they must be observed, or the law is violated. By this law we are required in the first place, to teach, or preach the gospel; secondly, to baptize them that believe; and thirdly, to instruct such baptized believers to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded; and the order in which these several duties are here stated, is as imperative as the duties themselves. It is just as obvious that we are restricted in the administration of baptism to a certain class of subjects, as that we are authorized to baptize at all; for on no rational principle of interpretation, can the commission be supposed to warrant the baptism of any but disciples. But if the commission authorizes us to require faith as an indispensable prerequisite to baptism, it is equally clear that it authorizes us to require baptism as an indispensable prerequisite to church fellowship. Is not the latter part of our Lord's commission as authoritative as the former? Or, is the order of it binding in one particular and discretional in another? May it not be as conclusively maintained that the second duty must precede the third, as that the first must precede the second? Surely, if teaching and faith be intentionally enjoined as the first duty, baptism is intentionally enjoined as the second duty, and visible church fellowship as the third duty; and we are no more at liberty to invert the order in one case, than in another. We have precisely the same authority, then, for maintaining that baptism should precede visible church fellowship, as we have for insisting that faith should precede baptism. The

two positions must stand or fall together. Therefore, to administer the Lord's supper to unbaptized persons, would be a manifest violation of the LAW which Christ gave for the regulation of his churches, and which he designed should be obligatory as long as the promise attached to it remains in force, that is, always, to the end of the world.”

As this is admitted by our brethren to be the main argument on which their system is grounded, and the one upon which they principally depend for its defence, I shall give it all that attention which a position of so much importance deserves. It is derived entirely, as the reader will have observed, from our Savior's commission to his apostles just before his ascension into heaven. The exact words are as follows: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach 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, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

The strict communion Baptist writers, instead of coming directly to the institution of the Lord's supper to prove their doctrine, dwell upon the law of baptism, much in the same way, as they say, the Pedobaptists dwell upon the law of circumcision, when they are called on to show their authority for infant sprinkling. Both are compelled to reason alone from analogy. In Mr. Judd's argument, there is a united presentation of the institution of two divine ordinances in an inverted order* as to the time

* The advocates of strict communion formerly laid great stress on the order of time in which baptism and the Lord's supper were instituted, taking it for granted, that John's baptism was Christian baptism, and inferring from its preceding the institution of the Lord's supper, that baptism is first obligatory, and that consequently its omission is a disqualification for the eucharist. Mr. Hall, in his review of this argument, says: "In the details of civil life no man thinks of regulating his actions by an appeal to the respective dates of the existing laws, but solely by a regard to their just interpreta

of their appointment, with the view of laying a foundation to prove, by a mere inference from the order of the words in one of them, that it is a "violation of the law" to attend to them in that order in which they were first instituted. Whether the author discovered this defect in his fundamental argument, I cannot say, but he evidently attempts to strengthen his foundation by the mere assertion that "the order in which these duties were first enjoined is comparatively of inferior importance."

He says, that we are not only required to observe these institutions, but to observe them in a certain

tion; and were it once admitted as a maxim that the particular law last enacted must be invariably last obeyed, the affairs of mankind would fall into utter confusion. With unparalleled inconsistency, while the champions of strict communion, affect on the subject of baptism, the utmost veneration for the letter of Scripture, they are driven in support of their sentiments to appeal, not to what is enjoined not to a syllable of Scripture, but to a chronological deduction of positive rites; a hard necessity surely, and the more so when it will appear in the sequel that this their forlorn post is untenable." [See Hall's Work, pp, 116, 117.]

As some still adhere to the old argument, unimportant as it seems to be, I will offer a few reasons why I cannot believe that John's baptism was a Christian ordinance. I admit that where converts are properly instructed, the confession of Christ and baptism are ordinarily the first duties-not however, because John's baptism was introduced before the Lord's supper, but because Christ has commanded these duties to follow immediately after faith. Several Scriptures represent, and the advocates of strict communion concède, that John's mission was received from the Father before John had become personally acquainted with Jesus Christ. Of course it could not be a Christian ordinance unless that may be called Christian which did not originate with Jesus Christ. If that which proceeded directly from the Father and not openly through the Son, is properly called Christian, it follows that the thousand types and shadows given under the law are Christian rites! If the circumstance of Christ's authorizing his disciples to aid John in making disciples and baptizing them, proves (as Messrs. Kinghorn and Fuller contend,) the baptism of John to be a Christian ordinance, the fact that Christ also commanded one whom he healed, to "go and offer for his cleansing those things which Moses commanded," proves in like manner, that all the ceremonies contained in the fourteenth chapter of Leviticus are Christian ordinances! It is essential to Christian bap'ism that it be performed in the name of Christ. But we have no evidence that John baptized in this name. If he had, it is scarcely possible that a circumstance so important, should have been omitted by the sacred historians. Is it probable that John was

order.

"This order," he further remarks, “is prescribed in the commission." Let the reader re-examine the commission to ascertain what institutions are mentioned in it, and the order in which they are named. In vain may he look for even a word about the institution of the Lord's supper, or church fellowship. But it is perfectly true that there are two particular things, (institutions if you please,) mentioned there in a "certain order." And it is equally true that the same order in which they are mentioned in the commission, is confirmed and enforced by apostolic example, as well as by the nature and debaptizing in the name of Jesus, when he testified of him, "I knew him not?" It is written: "There went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan." It seems scarcely possible that these multitudes, comprising probably a majority of the nation, became true Christians; especially when we reflect that they could scarcely believe in one who was unknown even to John their preacher. Though "all men held John as a prophet," yet on our Savior's manifestation of himself to Israel, comparatively few believed on him. "His own" nation "received him not," but crucified him. And after his resurrection, but about five hundred brethren assembled to see him. After an addition of three thousand in one day, besides large daily additions, it seems that the number of the men that believed at Jerusalem was but five thousand. If John's disciples were Christians, what had become of them? Jesus said that none had arisen greater than John the Baptist, and yet that the "least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Does not this imply that John was not in that kingdom? John's baptism, being but the baptism of repentance, did not imply regeneration, consequently it was not Christian baptism. John said "I must decrease," implying that the character of his mission was transient. If so, it was not Christian. The rebaptizing of the twelve disciples at Ephesus, who had been baptized unto John's baptism, since no explanation is given, leaves just supposition that his baptism was not considered valid as a Christian institution. Paul says, "As many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into [the belief of] his death." But John's disciples were not baptized into the belief of this doctrine. If John's baptism were Christian baptism, the most of the nation apostatized from the faith of Christianity. If so, why is there no allusion to this most aggravating circumstance of their guilt? John's baptism was a preparatory rite for a kingdom at hand, but not yet set up, and consequently is never spoken of in the Scriptures (as Christian baptism is,) without some qualifying word to distinguish it; but is always called either John's baptism, the baptism of repentance, or is otherwise distinguished. Again, miraculous gifts often attended Christian baptism; but never accompanied the baptism of John.