A
I V
The Atlantic Messenger.
Monthly. ]
Devoted to the Relief of Baptist Destitution in Eastern North Carolina.
[25 Cents per Year.
VOLUME FOUR.
NEW BERN, N. 0., JANUARY. 1904.
NUMBER NINE.
DIRECTORY FIRST BAPTIST
..HURCH.
(Middle Street.)
William Houston Rich, A. B-, Th. G.
pastor.
Samuel L. Brinson, Clerk. ■
William F. Rountree, Treasurer.
Board of Deacons.
.John C. Whitty. Chairman.
.John L. McDaniel, Secretary.
Charles C. C.ark. .Jr., Financial Sec
retary, .Joseph R. Parker, Joseph B.
Holland, William P. Rountree.
Sunday School.
John L. McDaniel, Superintendent,
Secretary.
Treasurer.
Byrd Smith, Librarian.
Mrs. Lula N. Jordan, Organist.
OPEN
COMMUNION
TURAL.
UNSCRIP-
Rev. Wm. Wistar Hamilton, Th. D,
“Jt is the Lord’s table.” and for that
very reason he alone has the right to
invite, or to restrict the invitation.
If it were ‘‘Our Table” then we could
extend the invitation as we might de
sire and ask all Christians to come.
To those who judge Baptists un
kindly or who take offense at our posi
tion on the Lord’s Supper, we can only
say that we must answer to God for
our stewardship, and that to refrain
from duty here would brand us with
unfaithfulness. This unfaithfulness
would make us unworthy of our own
self-respect as well as unworthy the
confidence of others. This article,
then, is written to defend the truth,
and not to offend the truth-seeker;
for, in holding to the ‘‘restrictions”
pRiCcd Ui,-^ ’Communion, ’.vo a’-e de
fending the “faith once tor all deliv
ered to the saints.” Since we are to
“keep the ordinances as delivered” (1
Cor. 11:2), we must do whatsoever
God has commanded us, if we would
prove ourselves his friends. (John 15:
14.) If there be a cross, it must be taken
up and borne (Matt. 16:24), and if we
permit earthly ties, even those of fath
er, mother, wife, children, brother, or
sister, to come between us and our
duty, the Savior says we cannot be
his disciples. (Lk. 14:26.)
It can be easily shown that all de
nominations are with us in holding to
the fact that God has placed restric
tions upon his “Table” and that it is
the duty of Christians to recognize
them.
Not to obey is to say that the Lord
has made a mistake in his command
ments. If we must declare to man
that repentance and faith are pre
requisites to baptism, must we not
also declare the pre-requisites to com
munion? When this declaration has
been made we have discharged our
duty, and the responsibility is upon
those who come.
Baptists do not stand alone here.
It is right to enforce restrictions such
as God lays down. But the sin spok
en of in this article is not in going too
far but in stopping short. To come
short is a sin as well as to go too far.
Have we declared these restrictions?
The commandments are ten. Have
we i.ept them?
1. As to believers. It seems un
necessary to mention this, and yet it
must be emphasized, for some church
es receive into their fellowship those
who have not believed. Surely no
one but a believer can “do this in re
membrance” of him, and it seems
strange that any one else should wish
so to do. Always, in Scripture, those
who partook were believers.
“He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved,” (Mk. 16:16). Only
believers, or professed believers, were
present at the institution of the Sup
per. (Matt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Luke
22:19). In Acts 20:7 we are told that
“the disciples came together to break
bread,” and in Jesus’ great command
he says first to make disciples, then
to baptize, and after this to teach
them to observe all things (Mt. 28:
18-20). If we throw open the doors
and tail to declare this, we are doing
violence to God’s word.
2. As to baptized believers. This,
as has already been stated, is held by
all Christians in theory, the question
being. What is baptism? Here Dr.
Cornelius Tyree has made arguments
impregnable. (“Close Communion,
Salem, Va., 1887.) The word for sprin
kle (rantizo) is used sixty-two times
in the New Testament; the word for
pour (ekkeo), 152 times; the word for
wash (louo), 139 times. The word for
immerse (baptize) is used in the same
sentence with these and where dis
tinctions are made in these ideas;
yet in not a single case has any but
baptize been used where baptism was
spoken of. (See the Greek of Acts
16:33 and elsewhere). In every case
where communion is referred to, or
where it may possibly have been ad
ministered, the believers had been bap
tized. (Acts 2:42; 4:17; 8:12; 35:38;
10:47; 16:141; 18:8; 20:7; 1 Cor. 1;
13, etc.) Baptism comes before com
munion, just as repentance and faith
should precede baptism.
We find in all the other denomina
tions that their requirements are bap
tism (as they practice it), church
membership, conversion, and orderly
walk. Dr. Cuyler an eminent Pres
byterian minister, says: “I do not sup
pose there is any difference between
the Presbyterians and Baptists in the
terms of communion.” The “New
York Observer,” perhaps the leading
Presbyterian paper of the world, says;
“It is not want of charity which com
pels the Baptist to restrict his invi
tation. He has no hesitation in ad
mitting the personal piety of his un
immersed brethren. Presbyterians do
not invite the unbaptized, however
pious they may be. It is not unchar
itable.”
This position is largely the position
of Lutheran, Congregational, Episco
palian, and Methodist churches. Mr.
Wesley says, in his Journal, Vol. 1.,
page 466, in regard to a case in ques
tion; “And yet this very man, when
I was in Savannah, did I refuse to ad
mit to the Lord’s table, because he
was not baptized by a man who had
been Episcopally ordained.” Again,
in the “Oxford Methodists” we read:
“Even in Georgia, Mr. Wesley ex
cluded Dissenters from the holy com
munion, on the ground that they had
not been properly baptized, and he
himself would baptize only by im
mersion, unless the child or person
was in a weak state of health.” Our
Methodist friends are even closer than
we are, for the ministry does not com
mune with the laity, and many of their
own members (the infants) are ex
cluded.
Belief and baptism mark the first
steps in the Christian life, and the Bi
ble never in a single instance gives
the Supper before baptism. We are
first born again, and then, going down
into the water in outward profession
of this inward possession, we come up
to walk in newness of life, and in this
new life is found the Supper. Their
very order is significant, and is surely
not an accident. (Rom. 6:5f; Col. 2:
12: Gal. 3:26.)
3. Baptized believers in church ca
pacity. Here again some leave us;
but let us not leave God’s Word.
“When ye come together in the
church,” (1 Cor. 11:18) does not mean
the church building, for they had none
and ekklesia is never so used. That
it was a church ordinance was al
ready implied in their baptism, for
that itseijL is a church ordinance.
Then, again, the Supper is never spok
en of in connection with individuals;
for example, we read nothing of it in
connection with Cornelius, the eunuch,
Lydia, or Paul. But when referred to
it is only by baptized believers in
church capacity. Acts 2:42ff; 5:11;
8:1; 11:22; 15:4; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18,
20, 33, and 1:2. “The church of God
which ;s at Corinth.” The individual
administration of the ordinance has
no Bible warrant, and is only a relic
of Romanism. The Lcrd’s Supper is
a church ordinance, and anything
which goes neyond qi' comes short of
this falls for want o^ Scripture.
The Pan-Presbyterian Council of
1880, at Philadelphia, refused to take
the Lord's Supper together, because
they believed it to be a church ordi
nance, and that only those should par
take who are subject to discipline.
Our brethren of this denomination re
quire also that the administrator
aqi JO jejsiuiui peu'.npao uu oq [[uqs
Presbyterian church.
4. Church with the "4postles doc
trine.” Here again'we find another
restriction laid dowm by the Word of
God. Those who partook “continued
steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine.''
(Acts 2:2).
"Latitudinarianism. must find its
justification, if it can, elsewhere than
in the teachings of the New Testa
ment. The broad churcn must bring,
the stones of its foundation from oth
er quarries than those of primitive
Christianity.” How clear and solemn
is the injunction: “Now we command
you, brethren, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your
selves from every brother that walk-
eth disorderly, and not after the tradi
tion which they have received of us.”
(2 Thes. 3:6 R. V.) Then to com
mune together is to have the same
doctrine. (1 John 1:3; Col. 2:5; 1
Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 John 10:
11; Rev. 2:14ff; 1 Cor. 10:17.) “Now
I beseech you, brethren, mark them
which are causing divisions and occa
sions of stumbling contrary to the
doctrine which ye have learned, and
turn away from them.” (Rom. 16:17
R. V.; cf. 1 Cor. 1:10; Amos 3:3.)
If men walk not after the tradition
which the Word gives us (2 Thess. 3;
6) then we have not the same doc
trine, and are commanded to with
draw ourselves. “For whatsoever is
not of faith is sin.’^ ,^(Rom. 14:23.)
It is pitiable for us t(!> declare that
our beliefs are one at' the “Table,
and then continue our separate church
existence in order to maintain the
differences in our faith.
5. “Apostles’ doctrine and in fellow
ship.” (Acts 2:41f.)
God’s commands are not to be neg
lected by us from mere sentiment.
We may be charged with lack of
courtesy and brotherly love; yet those
who chide would lose respect for us,
if we chose our own feelings or the
feelings of others rather than the
command of God. He who loves any
thing more than his Lord is not wor
thy of him. The New Testament is
our all-sufficient guide. We must
not permit ourselves to be guid
ed by feelings, or opinion, or senti
ment. These will not stand as ex
cuses for disobedience. “We have no
such custom, neither the churches of
God,” is our only reply. The fact that
brethren see differently and are con
scientious is no reason why I should
do violence to my conscience; for on
this same ground I should invite the
Buddhist, the Brahman, the Taoist,
the Mohammedan, the Romanist, and
perhaps the atheist. Every man must
answer tor himself, and we must do
what we believe to be right.
Discipline and the withdrawal of
fellowship at once deprive of commun
ion. What does this mean, if not that
those who partake are in fellowship,
church fellowship. Without unity
communion is impossible. In 1 Cor.
11:17-20 we are told that if we come
to the table with divisions existing
among us that “it is not possible to
eat the Lord’s Supper.” (Amer. Rev.)
So that a local church with factions
among the members may observe
what they call the Supper, but God
does not recognize nor approve, “The
cup of blessing which we bless, is it
not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the body of
Christ? For we being many are one
bread, and one body; for we are all
partakers of that one bread.” 1 Cor.
10:16, 17.
Here we have the one loaf the one
body, the church, and the many mem
bers united. If an unrestricted com
munion is practiced, the excluded
member has only to unite with some
other denomination and then come to
be welcomed.
6. As to divisions. The Bible is ex
plicit in condemning divisions around
the table. (1 Cor. ll:18ff.) We are
commanded, as seen above (Rom. 16;
17), to turn away from those who
cause such since, it there be occasion
for this reproof, we are not really ob
serving the Lord’s Supper. (1 Cor.
11:20.) External professions of union
amount to nothing, if the facts be to
the contrary. To come to the table
professing that there are no differ
ences, and still maintain our separate
organization, is to proclaim one thing
and live another. If there be no di
visions, then let us be one. But if our
views be different, there is no use
proclaiming otherwise. If the faction
in the church is displeasing to God,
surely even it has grown to be large
enough to become a separate denomi
nation, it is no more in accordance
with his desires.
“Giving diligence to, keep the unity
of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is one body (the church body),
and one Spirit, even as also ye were
called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is over
all, and througn all, and in all.”—Eph.
4:3-6.
“For as the body (human body) is
one, and hath many members, and all
the members of the body, being many,
are one body; so also is Christ. For
in one Spirit were we all baptized into
one body, whether Jews or Greeks,
whether bond or free; and were all
made to drink of one Spirit. For the
body is not one member, but many.
And if they were all one member,
where were the body? But now there
are many members, but one body.
Now ye are the body of Christ, and
severally members thereof. ’—1 Cor.
12:12, 13, 19, 20, 27.
7. As to elements. On this Protest
ants are practically agreed. (I Cor.
ll:23ff.; Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22;
Luke 22:i9.) Would it not be just
as proper to use milk instead of wine,
as to change any other part of the
ordinance? The discussion as to
"juice of the grape” or “fermented
wine” is an attempt to be exact in the
observance of the Supper, and we
should be just as eager to do the right
thing in ail the commands concern
ing it.
8. As to motive. But here there are
again very diverse views, and strong
reasons tor the stand taken by Bap
tists. Again we are set tor the de
fense of the truth and enter our
solemn protest against “transubstan-
tiation” as held by Romanists, lead
ing as it does to gross superstition
and downright idolatry; against “con-
substantiation,” or “real presence,” as
held by Lutherans, teaching that the
communicant receives “in a corporal
sense the actual body and blood of
Christ in, under, and with the ele
ments” (Harvey); against the “mysti
cal presence,” as held by Presbyter
ians, teaching as one stated it, that
“our souls are fed by the flesh and
blood of Christ, just as our bodily life
is nourished by bread and wine,” “we
are truly made partakers of the prop
er substance of the body and blood of
Jesus;” against the doctrine that the
Supper is of itself a “means of grace,”
as held by Episcopalians, Methodists,
and others. Were Luther and Calvin
and Zwingll right in withdrawing
from the “transubstantiation” idea
and protesting against it? Then, are
we wrong when, standing upon the
Word, we say it is not even to be a
social meal (1 Cor. 11:22), but is to
show forth the Lord’s death (Matt.
26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22;19), and
is to be done “in remembrance of”
him? (1 Cor. 11:25.)
9. As to moral life. “But now I have
written unto you not to keep com
pany, if any man ■ that is called a
brother be a fornicator, or covetous,
or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunk
ard, or an extortioner with such an
one no one to eat.” (1 Cor. 5:11; cf.
Matt. 18:15ff.; Gal. 1:7; Tit. 3:10.)
The danger is that we will be more
particular about heresy than about im
morality. But, though we may over
look this, the communicants do not,
and that is why so many of them leave
when the table is spread.
10. As to self-examination. “Let a
man examine himself, and so let him
eat.” (1 Cor. ii: 28.) The Bible
urges this in addition to all the other
resti'ictions. God has given us but
two ordinances, and these set forth
the two great facts of the Gospel—an
“illustrated creed.” Just as loving
children gather about some little
token, the reminder of a departed
mother, so we do this in remembrance
of him, examining our hearts to know
if in it we see his work of love for us.
Being conscientious does not make the
brother right. Says Dr. Alexander;
“We are resiJonsible for our ignorance
of the truth.” “He who is under fun
damental error is in a sad dilemma.
Do what he will, he sins. If he dis
obey conscience, he knowingly sins,
doing what he believes to be wrong;
and a man never can be justified for
doing what he believes to be wrong,
even though it should turn out to be
right. And if he obey conscience, per
forming an act which is in itself
wrong, he sins; because he complies
not with the law under which he is
placed.” However, this to us is not
inconsistent with respect and love for
others. That I love my own mother
is no reason why 1 should hate and
speak evil of yours. On the contrary,
if I failed to do what God has com
manded me, 1 should be in sin. We
warn men to repent and believe be
fore baptism; so should we declare
inviting people indiscriminately to the
the restrictions here, and not sin by
table.
After all, to practice unrestricted
communion not only fails to bring
good, but actually results in evil, as
may be easily shown from the practice
in England. It surrenders our pro
test against an unregenerated church
membership by recognizing as a Chris
tian him who in infancy is “receiv
ed into Christ’s holy church and made
a lively member of the same.” (Dis
cipline, page 258, 1891, M. E. Church
South.) This turning the world into
the church produces lax discipline.
Much of her power and purity is lost,
and loose discipline means loose doc
trine. Then, from loose discipline and
loose doctrine is but a step to loose
morals. *
If we were all one, if we saw eye to
eye, and ceased our scramble for num
bers, this selling of the truth for pop
ularity would end. Union with all
who name the name of Christ is a
thing to be desired, prayed for, and
worked for. But if it must come at
the expense of truth, it is not desira
ble, and would not be helpful or ac
ceptable. When charged with caus
ing divisions, we plead “not guilty,”
for those who have left the Word and
accepted the decisions of “councils”
have caused the divisions, and we
cannot forsake the truth in order to
bring about a union which would be
only temporary. We will rather cling
to the standard, and hope and pray
that the day may soon come when the
churches shall say, “The Bible, and
the Bible only.” The rivers of truth
and error, at first separate, have be
come sadly mixed, until it all looks
dim and turbid. But the impurities
are settling, and when the waters
shall have found their way to the sea
of eternity, error will have been puri
fied, sin left behind, and truth be as
it was when it came out from the
throne of God.
Louisville, Ky.
Those belonging to church who
think that when they have delayed
the payment of a just debt till it is
old that it ought to be compromized—
or not paid at all.
ivaW
Pastor Wv H. Rich, of the Atlantic,
attended the meeting of the State
Board of Missions at Raleigh, N. C.,
December 31st.