Chapter II: The Ordinances Of The Church (5)

A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon on Our Denominational Outlook, May
19, 1904—“If I am asked whether Baptists still hold to restricted
communion, I answer that our principle has not changed, but that
many of us apply the principle in a different manner from that of
our fathers. We believe that Baptism logically precedes the Lord’s
Supper, as birth precedes the taking of nourishment, and
regeneration precedes sanctification. We believe that the order of
the ordinances is an important point of Christian doctrine, and
itself teaches Christian doctrine. Hence we proclaim it and adhere
to it, in our preaching and our practice. But we do not turn the
Lord’s Supper into a judgment‐seat, or turn the officers of the
church into detectives. We teach the truth, and expect that the
truth will win its way. We are courteous to all who come among us;
and expect that they in turn will have the courtesy to respect our
convictions and to act accordingly. But there is danger here that
we may break from our moorings and drift into indifferentism with
regard to the ordinances. The recent advocacy of open church‐
membership is but the logical consequence of a previous concession
of open communion. I am persuaded that this new doctrine is
confined to very few among us. The remedy for this false
liberalism is to be found in that same Christ who solves for us
all other problems. It is this Christ who sets the solitary in
families, and who makes of one every nation that dwells on the
face of the earth. Christian denominations are at least
temporarily his appointment. Loyalty to the body which seems to us
best to represent his truth is also loyalty to him. Love for
Christ does not involve the surrender of the ties of family, or
nation, or denomination, but only consecrates and ennobles them.

“Yet Christ is King in Zion. There is but one army of the living
God, even though there are many divisions. We can emphasize our
unity with other Christian bodies, rather than the differences
between us. We can regard them as churches of the Lord Jesus, even
though they are irregularly constituted. As a marriage ceremony
may be valid, even though performed without a license and by an
unqualified administrator; and as an ordination may be valid, even
though the ordinary laying‐on of hands be omitted; so the
ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as administered in pedobaptist
churches may be valid, though irregular in its accompaniments and
antecedents. Though we still protest against the modern
perversions of the New Testament doctrine as to the subjects and
mode of Baptism, we hold with regard to the Lord’s Supper that
irregularity is not invalidity, and that we may recognize as
churches even those bodies which celebrate the Lord’s Supper
without having been baptized. Our faith in the larger Christ is
bringing us out from our denominational isolation into an
inspiring recognition of our oneness with the universal church of
God throughout the world.” On the whole subject, see Madison
Avenue Lectures, 217‐260; and A. H. Strong, on Christian Truth and
its Keepers, in Philosophy and Religion, 238‐244.

E. Special objections to open communion.

The advocates of this view claim that baptism, as not being an indispensable term of salvation, cannot properly be made an indispensable term of communion.

Robert Hall, Works, 1:285, held that there can be no proper terms
of communion which are not also terms of salvation. He claims that
“we are expressly commanded to tolerate in the church all those
diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with salvation.”
For the open communion view, see also John M. Mason, Works, 1:369;
Princeton Review, Oct. 1850; Bib. Sac., 21:449; 24:482; 25:401;
Spirit of the Pilgrims, 6:103, 142. But, as Curtis remarks, in his
Progress of Baptist Principles, 292, this principle would utterly
frustrate the very objects for which visible churches were
founded—to be “_the pillar and ground of the truth_” (_1 Tim.
3:15_); for truth is set forth as forcibly in ordinances as in
doctrine.

In addition to what has already been said, we reply:

(_a_) This view is contrary to the belief and practice of all but an insignificant fragment of organized Christendom.

A portion of the English Baptists, and the Free Will Baptists in
America, are the only bodies which in their standards of faith
accept and maintain the principles of open communion. As to the
belief and practice of the Methodist Episcopal denomination, the
New York Christian Advocate states the terms of communion as
being: 1. Discipleship; 2. Baptism; 3. Consistent church life, as
required in the “Discipline”; and F. G. Hibbard, Christian
Baptism, 174, remarks that, “in one principle the Baptist and
pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from the
communion at the table of the Lord, and denying the rights of
church fellowship to all who have not been baptized. Valid
baptism, they consider, is essential to constitute visible church
membership. This also we [Methodists] hold.... The charge of close
communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us.”

The Interior states the Presbyterian position as follows: “The
difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an
important difference. We agree with them, however, in saying that
unbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord’s Supper. Close
communion, in our judgment, is a more defensible position than
open communion.” Dr. John Hall: “If I believed, with the Baptists,
that none are baptized but those who are immersed on profession of
faith, I should, with them, refuse to commune with any others.”

As to the views of Congregationalists, we quote from Dwight,
Systematic Theology, sermon 160—“It is an indispensable
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 should be a man of piety; that he should
have made a public profession of religion; and that he should have
been baptized.” The Independent: “We have never been disposed to
charge the Baptist church with any special narrowness or bigotry
in their rule of admission to the Lord’s table. We do not see how
it differs from that commonly admitted and established among
Presbyterian churches.”

The Episcopal standards and authorities are equally plain. The
Book of Common Prayer, Order of Confirmation, declares: “There
shall none be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as
he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be
confirmed”—confirmation always coming after baptism. Wall, History
of Infant Baptism, part 2, chapter 9—“No church ever gave the
communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the
absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any
person should partake of the communion before he was baptized.”

(_b_) It assumes an unscriptural inequality between the two ordinances. The Lord’s Supper holds no higher rank in Scripture than does Baptism. The obligation to commune is no more binding than the obligation to profess faith by being baptized. Open communion, however, treats baptism as if it were optional, while it insists upon communion as indispensable.

Robert Hall should rather have said: “No church has a right to
establish terms of baptism which are not also terms of salvation,”
for baptism is most frequently in Scripture connected with the
things that accompany salvation. We believe faith to be one
prerequisite, but not the only one. We may hold a person to be a
Christian, without thinking him entitled to commune unless he has
been also baptized.

Ezra’s reform in abolishing mixed marriages with the surrounding
heathen was not narrow nor bigoted nor intolerant. Miss Willard
said well that from the Gerizim of holy beatitudes there comes a
voice: “Blessed are the inclusive, for they shall be included,”
and from Mount Ebal a voice, saying: “Sad are the exclusive, for
they shall be excluded.” True liberality is both Christian and
wise. We should be just as liberal as Christ himself, and no more
so. Even Miss Willard would not include rum‐sellers in the
Christian Temperance Union, nor think that town blessed that did
not say to saloon keepers: “Repent, or go.” The choir is not
narrow because it does not include those who can only make
discords, nor is the sheepfold intolerant that refuses to include
wolves, nor the medical society that excludes quacks, nor the
church that does not invite the disobedient and schismatic to its
communion.

(_c_) It tends to do away with baptism altogether. If the highest privilege of church membership may be enjoyed without baptism, baptism loses its place and importance as the initiatory ordinance of the church.

Robert Hall would admit to the Lord’s Supper those who deny
Baptism to be perpetually binding on the church. A foreigner may
love this country, but he cannot vote at our elections unless he
has been naturalized. Ceremonial rites imply ceremonial
qualifications. Dr. Meredith in Brooklyn said to his great Bible
Class that a man, though not a Christian, but who felt himself a
sinner and needing Christ, could worthily partake of the Lord’s
Supper. This is the logic of open communion. The Supper is not
limited to baptized persons, nor to church members, nor even to
converted people, but belongs also to the unconverted world. This
is not only to do away with Baptism, but to make the Lord’s Supper
a converting ordinance.

(_d_) It tends to do away with all discipline. When Christians offend, the church must withdraw its fellowship from them. But upon the principle of open communion, such withdrawal is impossible, since the Lord’s Supper, the highest expression of church fellowship, is open to every person who regards himself as a Christian.

H. F. Colby: “Ought we to acknowledge that evangelical
pedobaptists are qualified to partake of the Lord’s Supper? We are
ready to admit them on precisely the same terms on which we admit
ourselves. Our communion bars come to be a protest, but from no
plan of ours. They become a protest merely as every act of loyalty
to truth becomes a protest against error.” Constitutions of the
Holy Apostles, book 2, section 7 (about 250 A. D.)—“But if they
[those who have been convicted of wickedness] afterwards repent
and turn from their error, then we receive them as we receive the
heathen, when they wish to repent, into the church indeed to hear
the word, but do not receive them to communion until they have
received the seal of baptism and are made complete Christians.”

(_e_) It tends to do away with the visible church altogether. For no visible church is possible, unless some sign of membership be required, in addition to the signs of membership in the invisible church. Open communion logically leads to open church membership, and a church membership open to all, without reference to the qualifications required in Scripture, or without examination on the part of the church as to the existence of these qualifications in those who unite with it, is virtually an identification of the church with the world, and, without protest from Scripturally constituted bodies, would finally result in its actual extinction.

Dr. Walcott Calkins, in Andover Review: “It has never been denied
that the Puritan way of maintaining the purity and doctrinal
soundness of the churches is to secure a soundly converted
membership. There is one denomination of Puritans which has never
deviated a hair’s breadth from this way. The Baptists have always
insisted that regenerate persons only ought to receive the
sacraments of the church. And they have depended absolutely upon
this provision for the purity and doctrinal soundness of their
churches.”

At the Free Will Baptist Convention at Providence, Oct., 1874, the
question came up of admitting pedobaptists to membership. This was
disposed of by resolving that “Christian baptism is a personal act
of public consecration to Christ, and that believers’ baptism and
immersion alone, as baptism, are fundamental principles of the
denomination.” In other words, unimmersed believers would not be
admitted to membership. But is it not the Lord’s church? Have we a
right to exclude? Is this not bigotry? The Free Will Baptist
answers: “No, it is only loyalty to truth.”

We claim that, upon the same principle, he should go further, and
refuse to admit to the communion those whom he refuses to admit to
church membership. The reasons assigned for acting upon the
opposite principle are sentimental rather than rational. See John
Stuart Mill’s definition of sentimentality, quoted in Martineau’s
Essays, 1:94—“Sentimentality consists in setting the sympathetic
aspect of things, or their loveableness, above their æsthetic
aspect, their beauty; or above the moral aspect of them, their
right or wrong.”

OBJECTIONS TO STRICT COMMUNION, AND ANSWERS TO THEM (condensed
from Arnold, Terms of Communion, 82):

“1st. _Primitive rules are not applicable now._ Reply: (1) The
laws of Christ are unchangeable. (2) The primitive order ought to
be restored.

“2d. _Baptism, as an external rite, is of less importance than
love._ Reply: (1) It is not inconsistent with love, but the mark
of love, to keep Christ’s commandments. (2) Love for our brethren
requires protest against their errors.

“3d. _Pedobaptists think themselves baptized._ Reply: (1) This is
a reason why they should act as if they believed it, not a reason
why we should act as if it were so. (2) We cannot submit our
consciences to their views of truth without harming ourselves and
them.

“4th. _Strict communion is a hindrance to union among Christians._
Reply: (1) Christ desires only union in the truth. (2) Baptists
are not responsible for the separation. (3) Mixed communion is not
a cure but a cause of disunion.

“5th. _The rule excludes from the communion baptized members of
pedobaptist churches._ Reply: (1) These persons are walking
disorderly, in promoting error. (2) The Lord’s Supper is a symbol
of church fellowship, not of fellowship for individuals, apart
from their church relations.

“6th. _A plea for dispensing with the rule exists in extreme cases
where persons must commune with us or not at all._ Reply: (1) It
is hard to fix limits to these exceptions: they would be likely to
encroach more and more, till the rule became merely nominal. (2)
It is a greater privilege and means of grace, in such
circumstances, to abstain from communing, than contrary to
principle to participate. (3) It is not right to participate with
others, where we cannot invite them reciprocally.

“7. _Alleged inconsistency of our practice._—(_a_) Since we expect
to commune in heaven. Reply: This confounds Christian fellowship
with church fellowship. We do commune with pedobaptists
spiritually, here as hereafter. We do not expect to partake of the
Lord’s Supper with them, or with others, in heaven. (_b_) Since we
reject the better and receive the worse. Reply: We are not at
liberty to refuse to apply Christ’s outward rule, because we
cannot equally apply his inward spiritual rule of character.
Pedobaptists withhold communion from those they regard as
unbaptized, though they may be more spiritual than some in the
church. (_c_) Since we recognize pedobaptists as brethren in union
meetings, exchange of pulpits, _etc._ Reply: None of these acts of
fraternal fellowship imply the church communion which admission to
the Lord’s table would imply. This last would recognize them as
baptized: the former do not.

“8th. _Alleged impolicy of our practice._ Reply: (1) This
consideration would be pertinent, only if we were at liberty to
change our practice when it was expedient, or was thought to be
so. (2) Any particular truth will inspire respect in others in
proportion as its advocates show that they respect it. In England
our numbers have diminished, compared with the population, in the
ratio of 33 per cent; here we have increased 50 per cent. in
proportion to the ratio of population.

“_Summary._ Open communion must be justified, if at all, on one of
four grounds: First, that baptism is not prerequisite to
communion. But this is opposed to the belief and practice of all
churches. Secondly, that immersion on profession of faith is not
essential to baptism. But this is renouncing Baptist principles
altogether. Thirdly, that the individual, and not the church, is
to be the judge of his qualifications for admission to the
communion. But this is contrary to sound reason, and fatal to the
ends for which the church is instituted. For, if the conscience of
the individual is to be the rule of the action of the church in
regard to his admission to the Lord’s Supper, why not also with
regard to his regeneration, his doctrinal belief, and his
obedience to Christ’s commands generally? Fourthly, that the
church has no responsibility in regard to the qualifications of
those who come to her communion. But this is abandoning the
principle of the independence of the churches, and their
accountableness to Christ, and it overthrows all church
discipline.”

See also Hovey, in Bib. Sac., 1862:133; Pepper, in Bap. Quar.,
1867:216; Curtis on Communion, 292; Howell, Terms of Communion;
Williams, The Lord’s Supper; Theodosia Ernest, pub. by Am. Bap.
Pub. Soc.; Wilkinson, The Baptist Principle. In concluding our
treatment of Ecclesiology, we desire to call attention to the fact
that Jacob, the English Churchman, in his Ecclesiastical Polity of
the N. T., and Cunningham, the Scotch Presbyterian, in his Croall
Lectures for 1886, have furnished Baptists with much valuable
material for the defence of the New Testament doctrine of the
Church and its Ordinances. In fact, a complete statement of the
Baptist positions might easily be constructed from the concessions
of their various opponents. See A. H. Strong, on Unconscious
Assumptions of Communion Polemics, in Philosophy and Religion,
245‐249.