Articles Of The Faith And Order Of A Primitive Or Strict And Particular Baptist Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ, Based On The Declaration Of Faith And Practice Of John Gill, D. D., 1720<\/p>\n
We believe that the Lord\u2019s Supper is a Church ordinance, and that it is scripturally administered to such persons only as have manifested their loyalty to Christ by being baptised, and by joining and continuing in honourable membership with a Baptised Church of the New Testament Faith and Order, one, that is to say, that is commonly described as a Strict and Particular Baptist Church: and who are assembled \u201cin one place\u201d as a Church, for the observance of this ordinance of their Lord and Saviour.<\/p>\n
——————————-<\/p>\n
Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor 10:17; 11:18-22<\/p>\n
Annotations:<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cStrict,\u201d is here simply an abbreviation of \u201crestricted\u201d (re-strict-ed), and is applied to the practice of such as welcome to the Lord\u2019s Table those only for whom they judge it is scripturally spread.<\/p>\n A Christian or a Church Ordinance?<\/p>\n Note 1.\u2014The Lord\u2019s Supper is commonly regarded as a general recognition of religion; and a declaration of the unity and sympathy which exist among true Christians. Thus, on \u201cCommunion Sundays\u201d in most chapels, Ministers invite those who love Jesus to remain and join in this act of worship, and assure them that all Christians are welcome. It is also common to conclude the Sessions of religious Societies with United Communion Services, at which Ministers of all Denominations assist.[1]<\/sup><\/p>\n Such brethren regard the Lord\u2019s Supper as a Christian Ordinance, and conceive it to be the duty and privilege of all professed Christians\u2014whether baptised or not\u2014and whatever their religious convictions (if they have any,) thus to assemble, when opportunity serves, to show their affection towards the Lord and each other.<\/p>\n The text they adduce to support this is\u2014\u201cDo this in remembrance\u201d (not of your having been baptised\u2014not of your holding certain dogmas, or belonging to a particular Denomination, but) \u201cof Me.\u201d 1 Cor. 11:24,25.<\/p>\n This the above Article opposes, insisting it to be a Church Ordinance, and rightly observed by none but the members of a Church of the New Testament Faith and Order, assembled for this purpose, and others who, for the time being, are worshipping with them.<\/p>\n Baptism by Immersion is often thought to be all we require as a pre-requisite to the Lord\u2019s Supper\u2014some inadequate Confessions of our Faith countenancing the idea. Our real conviction is, that not Baptism only, but Membership with a Baptised Church, and what this expresses and involves, should always precede and be conjoined with this act of devotion.<\/p>\n This Position we prove, firstly from plain and positive Scriptures:\u2014<\/p>\n The Threefold Commission, Matt. 28:19,20.<\/p>\n The Apostles, as the Founders of Christ\u2019s Church, on earth, were\u2014Firstly: to evangelise men and women of all nations. Secondly, when any became disciples\u2014the earliest name for Christians, Acts 11:26\u2014to baptise them. Thirdly, to \u201cteach\u201d these disciples or Christians \u201cto observe all things whatsoever they had learned of the Master and, among these, the Lord\u2019s Supper must have been included. With these precepts, their practice coincided.<\/p>\n This appears in Acts 2:37,42. Through God\u2019s blessing on Peter\u2019s Pentecostal Sermon, several \u201cwere pricked in the heart,\u201d or savingly impressed; and thus became, \u201ddisciples,\u201d or Christians. On their seeking guidance, Peter enjoined them to \u201crepent\u201d\u2014perhaps with special reference to their Nation\u2019s murder of Jesus\u2014\u201cand be baptised.\u201d \u201cThen they that received his word were baptised (page 159); and in that day about three thousand souls were added unto them,\u201d\u2014that is, to the Church, (verse 47.)[2]<\/sup> Then, in accordance with their Commission, the Apostles proceeded to instruct them. Nor in vain. \u201cThey continued steadfastly in the Apostles\u2019 teaching, and in the fellowship\u201d\u2014namely, Church fellowship\u2014\u201cand in the breaking of bread\u201d and (public and united) \u201cprayers.\u201d<\/p>\n Acts 8:6,14-17. \u201cA great persecution\u201d of the Church at Jerusalem followed Stephen\u2019s death, and all but the Apostles were scattered, many fleeing to Samaria. These were joined by Philip,[3]<\/sup> who preached Christ to them. Many of \u201cthe people\u201d (of Samaria) impressed by his discourses and miracles, (verse 6) believed; and thus became \u201cdisciples.\u201d Their Baptism followed. Peter and John subsequently visited them; instructed them; formed them into a Church; prayed that they might receive the (miraculous gifts of the) Holy Ghost: and laid their hands on them. The privilege was granted. The Lord\u2019s Supper is not indeed mentioned, but it is clear that their Church life was made paramount to all else.<\/p>\n That they were, as we state, formed into an organised Assembly before these supernatural favours were bestowed appears from the fact that such powers were reserved for Members of Churches. Consult 1 Cor. 12:28, and 14:4,5,19,23,28,34,35, where the word \u201cchurch\u201d occurs no fewer than eight times.<\/p>\n Acts 10:48. Here again, Peter\u2019s obedience to the Master\u2019s Commission appears. Summoned by Cornelius, he firstly so preached as to make disciples of him and his household\u2014and as they already \u201cfeared, and prayed to God alway,\u201d the Holy Ghost, who was the Author of the Grace they previously possessed\u2014now fell on them with miraculous demonstration and power. Peter at once commanded some unnamed saint (doubtless one of the six, chap. 11:12) who was present, to baptise them\u2014and then he formed them into the first Gentile Church.<\/p>\n The Communion certainly followed, for Peter was charged with \u201ceating with them,\u201d (chap. 11:3); not, of course, at common meals, but at the Supper of his and their Lord.<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s conversion also exemplifies the carrying out of the great Commission, though his case was exceptional, as he became a Disciple or Christian, \u201cnot from men, neither through a man\u201d (Gal. 1:1.) Then he was baptised by Ananias (Acts 9:18.) He subsequently remained \u201ccertain days with the Disciples at Damascus,\u201d not as the guest of one, but in fellowship with all\u2014namely, he here first joined a Christian Church, worshipping with its members at the Supper of the Lord.\u2014From \u201cStrict Communion Vindicated,\u201d by J. C. Philpot.<\/p>\n Our Position is further substantiated by these considerations;\u2014(1) \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Supper is a social and not, like Baptism, an individual act. (2) It does not lie, like Baptism, between the giver and the receiver, or between the Pastor, and the Church. (3) It is not, like Baptism, an individual testimony to the Truth; but the collective testimony of the Church. (4) It was designed for the Church, and not, like Baptism, for individual believers. At Jerusalem we find the Church observing it (Acts 2:42.) At Troas, upon the evening of the first day of the week, the Disciples (or the Church) came together to break bread (Acts 20:7.)[4]<\/sup><\/p>\n At Corinth, the Christians \u201ccame together to eat\u201d (1 Cor. 1:2, and 11:33) as a Church. The sin of the schismatics who split up their Assembly into parties, when convened for the Lord\u2019s Supper, is described as \u2018despising the Church of God\u2019 or treating the solemn Assembly with contempt (1 Cor. 11:18,22) a further proof that it was a Church act.\u201d\u2014William Palmer, \u201cFree Communion,\u201d page 47.<\/p>\n The case of the Eunuch is also in point (Acts 8:27-39). To him, Philip preached Jesus, demonstrating that His character and life answered to what the Prophet wrote concerning the Christ or Messiah. He must also have given a compendium of the Master\u2019s commands\u2014as he explained and enforced Baptism. Its sister Ordinance must also have claimed notice. To the first, prompt obedience was yielded; what, then, was more appropriate than that they should at once attend to the second rite of the Gospel? Such a traveller must have been provided with bread and wine. The occasion, was important. They might never meet on earth again. But no. To prevent the possibility of surmising what did not occur, we are told that \u201cwhen (as soon as, see Luke 15:30) they were come up out of the water, the Spirit caught away Philip, etc. (verse 39.) The Ordinance which is incumbent on Members of Churches only, would here have been incongruous and unscriptural. The Eunuch, therefore, went his way\u2014a baptised believer\u2014doubtless to connect himself in due course with an organised Christian Community. (See also pages, 84, 154, 175, and 197.)<\/p>\n The accumulated testimony of the passages we have cited surely amounts to absolute demonstration of our position.<\/p>\n Note 2.\u2014We prove our case from the consensus of all Baptist Communities\u2014whether Open or Strict, General or Particular\u2014whose final act of admitting new Members into Fellowship, invariably occurs at the Lord\u2019s Table, when such receive the \u201cright hand of Fellowship\u201d (Gal. 2:9; 2 Kings 10:15.) This surely expresses the conviction that those present appear on this occasion, in their proper character as members of the family of God, associated as such by common agreement, to witness to their Christian unanimity, confidence, and love, in the most striking and solemn manner. In a word, it is only when assembled as a Church, that they receive brethren into Fellowship, that these may observe the Ordinance which is appropriate to a Church convened as such. They thus, we submit, tacitly admit the principle here advanced.<\/p>\n Note 3.\u2014It is clear from the New Testament that Churoh Life was the only form of Christian Life known in the Apostolic age, which set a pattern and a precedent to all Churches to the end of time. Isolated Christians there were none, and the Lord\u2019s Supper was perforce confined to such as were in Church fellowship.<\/p>\n Note 4.\u2014Our position is established by the Nature of the Lord’s Supper itself, which, we submit, can be observed in accordance with its high design by no congregation but a Church. When such an Assembly as is described on pages 9, and 131-134, is gathered together for the \u201cbreaking of bread\u201d then only does this Ordinance receives Scriptural and consistent attention.<\/p>\n Its Members are banded together as heaven-born persons, and are spiritually related; they have all been baptised; and have all received the teaching of the Holy Spirit. They all love the Truth; share the same vital experience; and are all confidently persuaded that sympathetic affection for all the rest, exists in every heart. Their mutual remembrance of Christ and their confidence in each other, thus ritually expressed, can then be sincere and hearty; seeing that they \u201cwho are many are one (loaf of) bread, one body\u201d; in token of which they \u201call\u201d consistently \u201cpartake of the one (loaf of) bread.\u201d (1 Cor. 10:17, R.V.)<\/p>\n Under no other circumstances is this practicable. At a united \u201cCommunion Service,\u201d it is impossible for those present to be sure of the above facts. Fellowship is doubtful; Communion is impossible. The whole affair is simply an interchange of religious congratulations and compliments, in Christ\u2019s name, by means of a perverted Ordinance.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not\u201d really \u201cto eat the Lord\u2019s Supper\u201d which must be the act of a Baptised Church as such. Ritual without reality is a farce\u2014an empty show, expressing what has no actual existence. With the objects symbolised, the dispositions implied, and the actions signified, no Assembly of men and women can have a full Spiritual acquaintance, save such as are truly joined together in Church Fellowship.<\/p>\n Note 5.\u2014We argue from Church discipline, which the Lord’s Supper is an important factor in maintaining. Trouble will be caused, offences given, schisms originated, errors promulgated, aud sins be committed by those in nominal Fellowship. These must first be dealt with privately\u2014but the formal and final judgment of the united Members is to be expressed at the Lord\u2019s Table.<\/p>\n Personal Offences will be given (Matt. 18:15-17). Should private remonstrance, and the pleading of two or three witnesses fail, and the man remain recalcitrant, a final appeal is to be made to the Church (here for the socond time mentioned), which, if he neglect to hear, he is to be denied the privileges of Christian fellowship, of course including the Lord\u2019s Supper, and treated as \u201can heathen man, and a publican.\u201d<\/p>\n Schisms or divisions in the Church will be originated. These Paul deprecates (1 Cor. 12:25), and blames the Corinthians for their existence (1 Cor. 1:10.) Those who cause them are to be marked and avoided, and, promptly, excluded from the holy Rite which expressly testifies to the unity of the Body. (Rom. 16:17,18.)[5]<\/sup><\/p>\n Errors will be promulgated, which should be dealt with, (1 Cor. 11:19.) \u201cMen of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,\u201d (1 Tim. 6:5), will foist their views on others. \u201cThey will creep in unawares,\u201d Jude 4. The Antinomian will \u201cturn the grace of our (not \u201ctheir\u201d) God into (a plea for) lasciviousness.\u201d The heretic will \u201cdeny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,\u201d R.V., by repudiating His eternal Deity and everlasting Sonship, and subtly substituting forms of Sabellianlsm or Socinianism for them.<\/p>\n The duty of Christians towards such is plain. \u201cA man that is a heretic, after a first and second admonition, reject (or avoid),\u201d Titus 3:10. \u201cMark them which are causing\u201d \u201cthe occasions for stumbling contrary to the doctrine (or teaching) which ye learned, and turn away from them.\u201d Rom. 16:17, R.V.<\/p>\n How were Titus, in the discharge of his pastoral duties, and the Saints at Rome in response to Paul\u2019s appeal, thus to act, save by the exclusion of the offender from the Lord\u2019s table, which would be impossible were not this a Church ordinance, and subject to the jurisdiction of its Members as a whole.<\/p>\n A sound Christian who is so unwise as to attend a meeting for united Communion, or worship with an open Communion Church may see Arians, or grace-hating professors, or unbaptised persons, or those who are opposed to organised Christianity present. He can have no \u201cfellowship in the gospel\u201d (Phil. 1:5) with these\u2014but his lips are sealed. He cannot \u201cavoid\u201d them, or turn away from them. His \u201ceating with them\u201d is a tacit assent to their views. He unites with them as trustworthy brethren, though he hates their errors.<\/p>\n The incongruity is avoided by keeping the Table of the Lord where only it should be\u2014within the borders of a Scripturally constituted Church of Christ.<\/p>\n The Lord\u2019s Table must be observed as a Church Ordinance, to afford Christians the opportunity for expressing abhorrence of open sin. At Corinth one of their number was guilty of flagrant wickedness. Paul commands the Church, when gathered together in the Lord\u2019s name, to excommunicate him, or put him away from among themselves, and exclude him from their Communion, and forbids their keeping company with \u201cany man\u201d though \u201ccalled a brother\u201d if guilty of one of the six sins enumerated. With the world they as a Church had nothing to do. With one of their members they had. \u201cTherefore put away from you that wicked person.\u201d \u201cWith such an one, no, (ye are) not to eat\u201d\u2014and eating at the Lord\u2019s Supper is clearly implied, further proving it to be a Church Ordinance. (1 Cor. 5:4,10,11,13.)[6]<\/sup><\/p>\n Article xxii. enforces a fundamental principle of the Order which our Churches maintain. Disprove it, and the super\u00ad structure falls; establish it, and our position is impregnable.<\/p>\n The Lord\u2019s Supper\u2014not a means of Grace for Invalids and the Dying.<\/p>\n Note 6.\u2014The Popish Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Protestant Sacrament (or Ordinance) of the Lord\u2019s Sapper, are vitally different. Some Protestants, however, manifest a serious leaning toward the former. The \u201cOrders\u201d for the \u201cVisitation\u201d and \u201cCommunion for the Sick,\u201d are the most sacerdotal services in the Liturgy. Some Dissenters also send bread and wine from the Lord\u2019s Table to bed-ridden Members, especially those that are apparently dying; which is a grave perversion of this sacred Rite. It is not, as the Church of Rome asserts, a Viaticum\u2014affording \u201cprovision for the way\u201d to those whose souls are shortly to leave this world for that \u201cundiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns.\u201d<\/p>\n The practice has no warrant in Scripture, while it is fraught with the great peril of producing superstitious reliance upon a mere Ceremony.<\/p>\n Earlier Dissenters sedulously eschewed it. The Assembly\u2019s \u201cConfession of Faith\u201d (1643) states that \u201cthe Lord hath appointed His Ministers…to take and break the Bread, and to take the Cup, and to give both to the Communicants,\u201d but \u201cto none who are not then present in the Congregation,\u201d xxix. 3. Gill also insists that the Lord\u2019s Supper, \u201cbeing a Church Ordinance, is not to be administered privately to single persons, but to the Church assembled as such for this purpose.\u201d\u2014Body of Divinity, (1769.)<\/p>\n It is in substance to be found in many of the \u201cArticles of Faith\u201d of our Churches, and it is implied in all, \u201cthat the Lord\u2019s Supper is an Ordinance of a Church, and should be administered to those Members only who are assembled in one place for its observance.\u201d<\/p>\n If this seems harsh, we submit that obedience to God\u2019s Word is paramount to romantic sentiment.<\/p>\n \u201cSick-room sufferers need not [therefore] be anxious. The Lord\u2019s Supper is not binding [upon any] unless they are able to join those who \u2018are gathered together into one place\u2019 (Acts 20:7,8, and 1 Cor. 11:20), \u2018in His name\u2019 This is a useful point to mark, for I constantly meet with sick people who have a half-superstitious feeling of uneasiness, if they cannot receive \u2018the Sacrament.\u2019\u201d\u2014Dr. C. Stanford. Letter to Dr. A. B. Grosart, \u201cMemories and Letters,\u201d page 180.<\/p>\n ——————————-<\/p>\n[1] For instance the Mildmay Gatherings, and the Pastors\u2019 College Conference.<\/p>\n[2] Note on verse, 42.\u2014\u201cIn the fellowship.\u201d \u201cNot the Apostles\u2019 fellowship as the order in our version suggests.\u201d Church fellowship is intended. Note on verse 47.\u2014Neither \u201csuch as should be saved\u201d nor \u201cthose that were being saved\u201d R.V. Is happy. \u201cThose that were in the way of salvation,\u201d Alford, is preferable. The R.V. Omits \u201cto the church\u201d but David Brown, D. D., gives strong reasons for retaining it.<\/p>\n[3] This Philip was not the Apostle (John 1:43 and 14:8), but a Deacon, and subsequently \u201cthe Evangelist.\u201d (Acts 6:5 and 21:8.) Thus, as such, he had authority to \u201cmake disciples\u201d and to \u201cbaptise;\u201d but to found Churches was the exclusive work of the Apostles.<\/p>\n[4] The literal translation of the most correct text would be:\u2014\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, we haying been gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them.\u201d\u2014On the Lord\u2019s day, \u201cwe,\u201d namely the Church at Troas, as the regular “Worshippers, and Luke, with Paul and the seven brethren mentioned in verse 4, as transient Communicants, \u201chaving been gathered together\u201d (the same word in the same form is found in verse 7 and Matt. 18:20), Paul discoursed with them, that is the members of the Church to whom his remarks were specially addressed. The word rendered \u201cdiscoursed\u201d is dialego-mai (page 61) perhaps meaning that he encouraged those, to whom he spoke, to state difficulties or ask questions\u2014clearing up these points as he proceeded.<\/p>\n[5] The word here is not schisma, as in 1 Cor. 1:10, which denotes an open and evident rent in the Church\u2014and the actual separation of some; but dicho-statia, \u201ca standing apart,\u201d and indicates the first stage of this form of evil. One or two malcontents hold themselves aloof, in surly and selfish isolation. This is the sin of dichostatia. Others sympathise with and follow them as sheep a bell-wether. Thus \u201cby good words and fair speeches\u201d they \u201cdeceive the hearts of the simple.\u201d A breach or schism (schisma) is made, and a \u201csplit\u201d occurs.<\/p>\n[6] It were well if the obsolete custom of publishing the names of those whom the Church has excluded, at the next gathering for the Communion, were revived. Such were received at the Lord\u2019s Table, and the termination of the Fellowship, then formerly recognised, should be as publicly proclaimed, in the same way. The Plymouth Brethren \u201cread out\u201d those that have been withdrawn from; and their frank manliness puts us to shame. (1 Cor. 16:13.) The act is most solemn and affect\u00ad ing. and\u2014when followed by Newton\u2019s hymn \u201cWhen any turn from Zion\u2019s way\u2019\u2019\u2014should be fraught with profit\u201d.<\/p>\n