baptism. Do we practice John's baptism now? No. We now baptize not by virtue of John's baptism,, but by virtue of Christ's command. In Acts 19, we find that some who were baptized unto John's baptism (compare Acts 18:24, 25, with Acts 19:3,) were rebaptized by Paul or his companions. Acts 19:29. So it appears that some who were baptized unto John's baptism were again baptized. I am well acquainted with the arguments to the contrary by Robinson, Benedict and others; but that they were twice baptized is plain. John was sent to prepare the way for the setting up of Messiah's kingdom, and not to establish its ordinances; for that was Christ's business. Christ established the ordinances in his own church, and from him we receive authority to baptize, and not from John's baptism. In Christian baptism, there is something signified that never was understood nor signified in John's baptism, and that is the burial and resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6:4.

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father." And Col. 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." A belief of these facts were necessary in order to the right performance of this ordinance. This was not required in John's baptism; for these facts then had not transpired. It is hoped, however, that none will deny that Christ appointed baptism as an ordinance in his church, and that he did this after his resurrection. Then we discover that in order of time the supper was first instituted.

Again, the transaction that is represented by the supper is one that took place prior to the one represented by baptism. By the supper, we represent the sufferings and death of Christ; but by baptism we represent his burial and resurrection from the dead. Which of these events transpired first? Certainly the one represented by the supper; that is, the death of Christ. This, then, is "the order" of the H

ordinances! But were the apostles all baptized before the supper was instituted of which they partook? This remains yet to be proved. And even if it were proved, it would not sustain the proposition that Christian baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's supper," for this plain reason, that it would still remain to be proved that it was Christian baptism.

Thus far we find nothing in the sense of the term communion, or in the time and circumstances of its institution, or even in the nature of the ordinance itself, to prove the proposition, that "no unbaptized person shall come to the Lord's table." Now, as Jesus and his apostles have not taught this, shall we teach it? As long as he has not said, "No unbaptized person shall eat at my table," shall his servants say so? No, never! We Freewill Baptists are represented as alarmingly inconsistent, because we do not tell the Pedobaptists they have no right to the bread and wine, till they are baptized. Is it the revealed will of God that we should say this to them? If that is contained in his revealed will, we should not be called inconsistent, but presumptuously wicked, in thus violating God's holy command. On this ground, then, we ought to be no longer charged with inconsistency.

III. The design of Christ in the institution of this supper.

We cannot know the design of our blessed Lord in the institution of this solemn rite any further than he has seen fit to reveal it. No individual that regards the truth will pretend that Christ has said in plain words, that he designs this supper for baptized Christians only. He truly had a design in this ordinance. Will any one pretend that he had no design? I hope not. How do we know he had a design? We know his design from what he said and from what he did. He said to them, "Do this in remembrance of me," Paul says, "As oft as ye eat the

bread and drink this cup, ye show forth the Lord's death till he come." He did not say, “As oft as ye drink this cup, you show that you have been baptized." Christ, at the institution of the supper, never even mentioned baptism; and when the time arrived that he instituted baptism in his church, he never mentioned the communion table. But says, “He_that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Did he make either of these ordinances dependent on the other, so that it was sinful to perform either of them first? Not at all. Neither by what he did at this time are we taught that all that come to this table must think precisely alike. Judas and John did not think precisely alike. Some have denied that Judas was there; but I can prove he was there as well as I can that John was there. After he gave them the cup, he told them plainly that the hand of him that would betray him was on the table, Luke 22:21. So at the very institution of this, supper their views and feelings were not alike, nor was it the design of the supper to exhibit an uniformity of feelings and views in all respects, but to show forth his death till he comes. Shall it be said that unless we agree in all points we cannot consistently celebrate the Lord's supper together? No, for scarcely can two men be found who agree precisely in all points of faith, and yet Christians generally agree in the design of the Lord's supper, and what it represents. Where there is so general an agreement as in this ordinance, may we should we not express it? No one will say that Christ did teach positively that no unbaptized person should eat at his table. Then if he taught it at all, he taught it only inferentially; and if he taught it only inferentially shall his ministers teach it positively, or in a manner contrary to that in which he taught it? If Christ never taught this doctrine positively (nor his apostles either) it is not a command that unbaptized Christians break by coming to the table, only an inference is

172

DESIGN OF CHRIST IN ITS INSTITUTION.

broken! Christ gave his disciples positive rules to go by he taught positively; and as he has not taught this positively, he has not taught it at all; or, in other words, it is no rule of Christ's, only an inference of men. Says the blessed Jesus, "This do in remembrance of me." "This is my body." "This is my blood." His design was that his suffering humanity should be brought by these symbols before our eyes. He knew how soon his children might forget that mangled body, and flowing blood that rescued them from a burning deep; and this he designed that they should not forget. By this, then, we show forth his death, and even in face of a wicked world, and in defiance of the blighted powers of hell, we keep his death in perpetual remembrance. Implied or included in this design of our Savior, is a representation that we by faith feed on the Son of man and drink his blood, and a virtual covenant to be for the Lord. That this was and is the design of Christ in this supper, perhaps few Protestants will deny. If, then, Christ did not design that we should show that we have been previously baptized, or that we precisely agree in every other respect, by coming to this supper, why should any man teach thus, and hold these things to be indispensable to a religious observance of this supper? Let no man teach Christ's designs different from what he has taught them. By not keeping the design of Christ in view in the ordinance of baptism, what shipwreck of faith has been made, and by our close communion brethren similar inconsistencies are upheld. But while in these inconsistencies and perplexities themselves, it is not strange that they think every body else inconsistent and heretical. If Christ had one design in view in this supper, then let us have the same design, and then we shall eat and drink acceptably and not to condemnation, and we shall examine

ourselves and not others; do our own respective duties, and not prohibit any of God's children doing theirs; and whenever and wherever the table of the Lord is spread, we shall feel the command "Do this" is binding on us, as his followers. Thus far we have not found any thing in the design of our Savior to prove 66 baptism an indispensable prerequisite to a proper celebration of the Lord's supper." Let it be remembered that baptism is not the only prerequisite to close communion, as I shall show hereafter.

IV. Who are the proper subjects of communion at the Lord's table?

I answer Disciples of Christ. The grand question in regard to the point now under consideration is this, "Are baptized Christians the only proper subjects of this ordinance?-Are they the only persons who can eat at the table of Christ regularly or acceptably? Are they the only persons that can eat discerning the Lord's body?" If unbaptized persons can eat of the bread and drink of the cup, discerning the Lord's body, then they can eat acceptably, and are approbated in it as much as if they pray understandingly. Because they have not been baptized are their prayers sinful? Christ has commanded prayer as often as he has commanded the Lord's supper to be observed. Because they have not been baptized, is it therefore not their duty to pray? It is the duty of a Christian to pray both in his family and in secret. But if he does not pray in his family, is it therefore not his duty to pray in secret? Just so in the case now before us. It is the duty of every Christian to eat at the Lord's table and be baptized both. But because he has not been baptized, is it therefore not his duty to obey the command of Christ in the celebration of his supper? I ask does the neglect of one duty, make the performance of another duty sinful? Is not the celebration of the Lord's supper a Christian duty? It most cer