Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

latter case there is not. Because acknowledged Christians are debarred from coming to their Master's table.

When the Christian character and standing of other Christians are once admitted, we are bound to receive them to our communion. This is what the doctrine of open communion implies, and what I shall undertake to defend.

CHAPTER II.

Containing the argument for Open Communion founded on the Christian experience and character.

THE fact that our Christian brethren of other churches and denominations, are acknowledged to be the disciples of Christmembers of the same visible church with ourselves, and heirs of the same kingdom, at once determines their right to eat bread with us at the same table.

Possessing this character, and being viewed in this light, they are, from the very nature of the case, entitled to Christian charity and fellowship. To this case the following words of Christ directly apply, John, xiii. 34, 35: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another: as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Also, the following clause in the institution of the supper, Luke, xxii. 19: "This do in remembrance of me." It is obvious that these commands are obligatory upon all the friends of Christ; the last, as truly as the first. And the ordinance of the supper being an act of communion, the friends of Christ, as far as they have opportunity, are manifestly bound to attend upon it together, in remembrance of their common Lord and Redeemer. This precept, especially in connexion with the command for brotherly love, carries open communion upon the very face of it. How preposterous it must be for Christians to acknowledge one another as brethren, and yet refuse to eat together at the same table; especially, as this is the Lord's table, and not theirs. How can they love one another, as Christ has loved them, and yet refuse one another Christian communion? The admission, by the members of one church, that those of another are Christians, is, at once, an acknowledgment that they are bound to obey the above order of Jesus, as truly as themselves, and that in obeying it they are equally accepted of the Lord. This consideration, then, manifestly opens the door to celebrate it together, provided Providence furnishes the opportunity. Nothing can be plainer. The master whom they serve is a common master and Saviour. Their duty and privileges are common. Of course, the celebration in ques

tion should be common. Being fellow disciples, they should approach the board of their Lord together. Surely, the one class should not say to the other, you may not come to the Lord's table with us. It is, indeed, your privilege to come, and the Lord will receive you; but we cannot. You must have a separate table. We verily believe you are Christians; and we esteem and love you as such; and we expect to go to heaven, and eat the marriage supper of the Lamb with you; but, as the case is now, we cannot participate of the emblems of the broken body and shed blood of our common Saviour with here. If you will have our company at the table of Jesus, you must adopt our particular views, and join our church, or denomination; otherwise, you must stand by yourselves, and we by ourselves.

you

Now, how palpably inconsistent is this! Here are Christians, redeemed by the same blood; renewed by the same Spirit; children of the same heavenly Father; believers in the same Lord Jesus; all living upon the same forfeited bounty; one body in Christ, and members, one of another; animated by the same hope; and heirs of the same everlasting kingdom; and, yet, they cannot come to the same table together! O absurdity in the extreme! O prejudice and bigotry! what have ye done?

In addition to the above precepts for brotherly love, and the celebration of the supper, we have the following injunction of the inspired Paul, which most aptly and pointedly relates to this case: Rom. xv. 7, "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." Here, the rule which is to regulate the intercourse and fellowship of Christians with one another, is that of Christ's having received them; and all should be done to the glory of God. They are bound by the high and sacred authority of the risen and exalted Jesus, to receive one another, as he also hath received them. The consideration that our brethren are received of Christ, at once determines it to be our duty to receive them too-to admit them cheerfully to our fellowship, as both we and they enjoy his. It binds us to welcome them to all Christian privileges.

Here, the peculiar and blessed principle on which open communion rests is stated and explained. It is the love of Christ to all his people, and his own example in receiving them to communion and favour. The order to receive one another is peremptory; and the motives to obedience unspeakably tender, forcible and endearing. How it is possible for this principle to be overlooked, it is hard to conceive.

In this passage there is an important duty enjoined upon Christians; an endearing example introduced to enforce it; and the high and dignified end to be aimed at declared. This

principle, or rule of conduct, will remain as long as the example which we are required to imitate remains, and there are Christian brethren to receive.

Nor can it, with any consistency, be said, that this rule relates, merely, to something short of a mutual participation of the supper, and that we have obeyed it, when we have acknowledged our brethren as Christians, and conversed and prayed with them, although we expressly decline being guests with them at the table of the Lord. For it is manifest that Christ receives both us and them to be guests with him at his own table; and, hence, if we do not commune with one another, we do not receive one another as he hath received us. Has the Lord granted us the privilege of communion at the supper?Then we must allow it to them-we must permit them to come and eat with us; or we, manifestly, do not receive them as he hath received us, As they are the children of God as well as we; and as we are received by Christ to this blessed privilege; so they must be received by us.

This receiving of one another plainly relates, not only to the less distinguishing privileges of the gospel, but to the high and peculiar privilege of coming around the board of Christ, and commemorating his dying love. Therefore, we must practise open communion, or we do not copy his example. It is so perfectly obvious, that professing evangelical Christians cannot refuse communion with one another in this ordinance, and yet receive one another as Christ hath received them, that a mere child can see it. The closing of the door to communion by one class of Christians against another, is a palpable and grievous violation of this rule.

"Is not the bread which we break," says the apostle Paul, "the communion of the body of Christ? And is not the wine which we drink, the communion of the blood of Christ?" Then, how obviously ought we all to be partakers thereof, together, after the example of the primitive Christians.

In concluding this chapter, therefore, I repeat the declaration, that the foundation for open communion, in the sense plead for, is laid in the work of regeneration-in the forming of the hearts of men to the faith and love of Christ, whereby they become Christians. "By one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles; whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit." And being thus one in Christ, we ought to be of one communion.

« AnteriorContinua »