Pulpit and Altar Fellowship

              PULPIT AND ALTAR FELLOWSHIP
A. L. Grouse
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013
http://archive.org/details/pulpitaltarfelloOOalcr
jjorth Carolina State Library
Raleigh —
PULPIT AND ALTAR FELLOWSHIP.
It V •
REV. A. L. GROUSE,
PROFESSOR OF
GERMAN AND THEOLOGY IN LENOIR COLLEGE.
AND AUTHOR OF
"Memorial Tributes," "A Christian Catechism for Little
Children," and "Biblical Exceptions to the Modern
Evangelistic System."
HICKORY, N. C.
1893.
5»
North Carolina State! Ubraj^
Raleigh'
PULPIT AND ALTAR FELLOWSHIP.
BY
REV. A, L. CROUSE,
PROFESSOR OF
GERMAN AND THEOLOGY IN LENOIR COLLEGE.
AND AUTHOR OF
"Memorial Tributes,- "A Christian Catechism for Little
CHILDREN," AND '"BlBLICAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MODERN
Evangelistic System."
HICKORY, .V C.
1893.
PREFACE.
At the meeting of the North Carolina Conference of the
Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod in March, 1891, a commit-tee
was appointed to prepare, for publication, a treatise on Pulpit
and Altar Fellowship. This committee was continued from time
to time, till the meeting in May, 1892, when the undersigned was
appointed to do the work. He made a partial report at the meet-ing
in August, and a full report in December, when Conference
took the following action :
We, your committee to examine the paper prepared by Rev.
A. L. Crouse on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship, beg leave to submit
the following
:
1. That the production is clear and^forcible, and to the point,
and well approved by your committee.
2. That the author deserves much credit for his labor and
work expended in the production of that paper.
3. That Ave recommend the publication of this production in
pamplet form for general distribution among our people. We
would call attention, however, to the desirability of having an ap-pended
summary of a page or two, presenting the main, salient
points of the argument.
This paper of the committee was adopted, and we now send
forth our little pamphlet in the hope that it will do good, and we
ask for it an unbiased study.
Hickory, N. C, A. L. CROUSE.
Dec 20, 1 893.
A TREATISE
ON
PULPIT AND ALTAR FELLOWSHIP.
(cm)
DEFINITION.
Fellowship is "the state or relation of being a fellow or asso-ciate."
"A fellow is one who follows, an adherent, a companion,
a comrach, an associate, a sharer." "Pulpit" is used here for the
whole office of preaching and teaching. "Altar" is used for the
service of the Lord's Supper. Pulpit fellowship embraces all the
force of the term fellow among those who preach and teach in the
same place, upon the same plane of equality, and with the same
authority and endorsement. Churches whose pastors and teachers
co-operate with each other have pulpit and altar fellowship. Chur-ches
which receive the ministrations and instructions of each oth-er's
pastors and teachers have pulpit fellowship. Churches whose
pastors and teachers become substitutes and supplies for each
other have pulpit fellowship ; and this holds good as well for one
service as for a dozen ; but it does not apply to the loan of a
church for the use of those who do not have pulpit fellowship, and
therefore cannot receive the instructions usually imparted in it,
but must hire, or borrow it, for their own use. Those who preach
and teach together and for each other are pulpit companions,
comrades, associates and sharers. They may be so in a right
and honest manner or they may not be right in such fellowship.
This is to be considered in these pages.
Persons who receive the Lord's Supper at the same time and
place, and in the samp manner, have altar fellowship. They are
associates in the same act. They are sharers of the same thing.
This fellowship may be right, or it may be wrong. This is a
question for our consideration.
Wher% there is agreement this pulpit and altar fellowship is
right . otherwise it is not. As it is frequently practiced among
the different communions it isjiot right, because they are not
agreed, eise they would not exist separately. Their differences
are their cause and excuse for separate existence. Many of the
different denominations are themselves many times subdivided.
If they had not disagreed with the parent body, they would have
remained with it. After such separation all fellowship between
them differed from their former associations and companionships.
If the> had no occasion to separate they should not have done so.
If they had sufficient reason to go out and set up for themselves,
they should nut deny it and stultify themselves by asserting that
they are all one.
The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century was
successfully cax-ried out by the Lutherans. Many arose about that
time and since, who disagreed with the Lutherans, and so went
out from them, and set up for themselves establishments, in which
they preserved with their erroneous differences more or less ele-ments
of truth. They thus placed themselves at variance with the
Lutherans, so that fellowship with them must be without agree-ment.
To fellowship them in their teachings and communions
is either to declare that their are no differences, or to ignore them.
It then follows further in this definition that such fellowship re-quires
dissembling. Those who are not agreed cannot walk to-gether
as comrades without pretending that there is no difference.
They must appear outwardly to be what they are not at heart. The
conduct of the Church and the language of Jeremiah are applicable
in studying this question of walking with others and dissembling
in holy things. "The Lord hath said concerning you, O ye rem-nant
of Judah ; Gro ye not into Egypt : know certainly that I have
admonished you this day. For ye dissembled in your hearts, when
ye sent me unto the Lord your God. saying, Pray for us unto the
Lord our God; and according unto all that the Lord our God shall
say, so declare unto us, and we will do it. And now 1 have this
day declared it unto you; but you have not obeyed the voice of
the Lord your God, nor any thing for the which he hath sent me
unto you. Now therefore know certainly that ye shall die by the
sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, in the pla<re whither
ye desire to go and to sojourn." Jer. 42; 19-22. The people
pretended that if the prophet would declare unto them the sayings
of the Lord, they would perform all. But they dissembled, and
would not obey the voice of God. Lutherans who claim, rightfully,
that their system is in strict accordance with all that the Lord our
God hath said, cannot obey the voice of their God by fellowship-ing
those whose systems are not in perfect accord with the Scrip-tures,
and in attempting to do so they must appear as those who
dissemble. "I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go
in with dissemblers." Ps. 26; 4.
Then pulpit and altar fellowship of Lutherans with others is
the denial of the existence of their errors, or the acknowledgment
that error is not to be condemned.
IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.
Among us Lutherans fellowship in the spiritual things of our
Lord is an important matter. It has always been such in the
more honest parts of the Church from the times of Luther and
the other reformers. Of late this importance has been as-serted,
within the bounds of the United Synod, by those who deny
that the Confessions treat of this matter. Some aver that it is a
matter of indifference. This is the most fallacious position that
is taken. It satisfies itself with any side of the question, or rath-er
with none at all. It is willing for those who fellowship error-ists
to be recognized as consistent Lutherans, and it is also willing
for those who refuse such fellowship to be tolerated, and insists
that there is no difference between those who believe and act
differently. Contrary to this go-between, indifferent opinion, is
the truth that it is a question of such importance that it cannot
be set aside in this way. "No man can serve two masters, for
6
either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold
to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and
mammon." Matt. 6; 24. ''He that is not with me is against me:
and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 1
' Luke 11; 23.
If Lutherans have the pure doctrine and sacraments they are,
in that respect, separate from errorists, If any among us think
or doubt that we have these they are n6t consistent in bearing our
name. It is then a great matter whether those who hold and teach
the truth can fellowship those who are allied with systems of more
or less patent error. If this kind of fellowship is allowed in God's
word, it is important for those who hold it to know that they are
certainly right in doing so. If it is not allowed in God's word it
is important for those who refuse it to be assured that they act
rightly, and that they may be thus fortified against the accusations
of those who allege that they do no wrong, and accuse them of
selfishness, bigotry, etc.
Further it is an important matter in the light of the Confes-sions
of the Church. The Confessions set down some things as
indifferent. There have been however various disputings about
what are such indifferent things, and it is easy to observe that the
number of these is always greater among those who are least con-cerned
about purity of doctrine. If any doctrine is not acceptable
to their own opinions and preferences, they ease themselves of it
by tossing it aside among the things indifferent. And that is the
way in which this fellowship question came to be placed there.
One way to decide this question of importance or indifference is to
search and see whether the Book of Concord itself makes it a
matter of indifference. This it does not do, and a Lutheran can
not be faithful to it when he sets up this claim for it.
In the XV Art. Augs. Con. this matter is treated thus:
"Concerning ecclesiastical rites instituted by men it is taught,
that those should be observed which can be so observed without
sin, and which promote peace and good order in the Church; as,
certain holidays, festivals, and the like." Now it is clear to all
that fellowship with errorists is not referred to here. The preach-
ing and teaching of the word of God and the administration of the
Lord's Supper are not ecclesiastical rites instituted by men. Men
did not issue the command : "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you." This is not, in the sense of the Augs.
Con., one of the indifferent things, because it was not uttered by
men. Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted his Holy Supper, and
said "this do ye," and therefore.it is important to obey this com-mand
as his, and not as an institution of men.
"Further we shall keep ourselves entirely aloof from the con-secration
of tapers, palms, cakes, oats, spices, etc."—^S'nto.lkaId
Articles, XV. Here nothing is said about fellowship with error-ists,
and the kind of things mentioned is so different that it is
impossible to believe that it is implied. It is plain therefore that
the Church does not here place pulpit and altar fellowship among
the things indifferent.
The Formula of Concord, Art. X, Dec, concerning "things
indifferent," says : "Among some theologians of the Augsburg
Confession, a controversy has likewise arisen concerning those
ceremonies or church usages which are neither commanded nor
prohibited in the word of Cod, but are introduced into the Church
for the purpose of preserving good order and decorum, or other
Christian discipline." Again in this place the reference is to
"ceremonies or church usages," as things indifferent, and all know
that the teaching of the word of Gcd and the use of the Lord's
Supper are not ceremonies or church usages, but matters of far
more importance. Many outside of the Lutheran Church do in-deed
give them, especially the Lord's Supper, no higher place,
but over against them we confess differently, and so too must we
hold against those even among us who admit that such are right.
Pulpit and altar fellowship of Lutherans with errorists is also
an important question, because it is usually a test of soundness in
doctrine. Those who practice it generally defend it by either
repudiating altogether some of our doctrines, or placing them
among the things indifferent. They also frequently ignore the
right place of doctrine in the system of Christianity. If the im-portance
of pure doctrine is urged, some sneer with indifference,
even disdain, and say that "we must be about our Master's busi-ness,"
as though the doctrine or teaching of Gospel truth is none
of the Master's business. They are unwilling to admit or see
about it that doctrine is first, and that all other things are conse-quences.
If doctrine is right consequences may be right, but if
doctrine is wrong consequences must be wrong. Faith must be
first, or the works which follow cannot be truly Christian, no
matter how well they appear in the eyes of men. They may even
cast out devils in the Lord's name, and yet he not recognize them.
THE RIGHT RULE AND ITS CONFESSION.
The rule is found in the Holy Scriptures. The confession or
acknowledgment has grown out of the rule, and is the stalk of the
seed. If any do not believe that the confession is right, they
must find a conflict between it and the rule, else they will antago-nize
the rule itself. They who claim to be consistent Lutherans
must admit that the confession sets forth what is exhibited in the
rule. When therefore we appeal to the confession among our-selves,
we do not go beyond the rule, but simply appeal to the
bond of our union in the reception and use of the rule. Then if
any object to such appeal to the confession they interrupt our bond
of union, and cause divisions among us, because they incline to
others who have separated themselves from our union more than
they do to those of their own household. They also stand in the
way of the rule, if it be so that the confession is in perfect har-mony
with it.
As we consult both the rule and the confession concerning
pulpit and altar fellowship, it will be clearly seen, as it has always
been by the unbiassed, that there is no conflict between them, but
that our Lutheran Church confesses what is found in the word of
iod. The ru\f is thai those who have the pure doctrine, and
maintain and practice it, cannnot bo the spiritual companions,
comrades, adherents, associates, and sharers of errorists, and
9
therefore the confession Condemns them, thus decidedly forbid*-
ding pulpit and altar fellowship with them in all its places where
it condemns erroneous doctrines and practices.
In the rule right fellowship recpiires agreement, (I'nfeigned
fellowship in the pulpit and at the altar with non-Lutherans is an
impossibility. No other system, Greek, Romish, or Protestant
agrees with the Lutheran in its confession and teaching of the
Christian religion. All others are, more or less, so much at vari-ance
with it in its vital parts, as not only to be differently denom-inated,
but of such recognized antagonism of principles and
practices as to discover disagreement to the most casual observer.
They do not bear the same name, confess and practice the same
things. All see and can well understand this, and all know very
well that there is disagreement, and such disagreement is a bar to
fellowship. The Scriptures plainly teach the impossibility of
fellowship where there is want of agreement. "Can two walk
together except thev be agreed?" Amos 3; 3. Read the context
and the evident answer is no. The Lutheran and other systems
are not agreed, and therefore cannot walk together, unless it be
contrary to this plain Scripture.
Should it be suggested that "in so far" as two are agreed
they can walk together, we must not fail to note that the prophet
used no such language, and therefore left no room for any such
conclusion. If the Holy Spirit had meant to encourage this "in so
far as" measure, he would have moved the prophet to teach it in
so many words. We must begin where the prophet began and
leave offwhere he left off. The very fact that he does not say "except
in so fur as they be agreed" is enough to forbid us to suggest it as
a kind of supplement to the mind of the Spirit. Neither does
the text make provision for an agreement in some things and a
disagreement in others. It is an unqualified term—"except they
be agreed." This is an answer to one objection to our true Luth-eran
rule.
Where there are things indifferent there is no cause for disa-greement.
They are not subjects of dissension, and do not con-
it
stitute part of the disagreement between the Lutheran and other
systems; except where they have been removed from their own
sphere, in which case they have strengthened the variance and
more and more interfered with fellowship. This also answers an
objection raised by some against the true rule.
Here let it be remarked that fellowship is "the state or rela-tion
of being a fellow or associate," and that "a fellow is one who
follows." A Lutheran cannot follow those who are not Lutherans
for they are strangers, and "a stranger will they not follow."
—
John 10; 5. Non-Lutherans cannot follow Lutherans, because
they are not agreed with them. As neither can follow the other
it is certain that they are not fellows, and can have no honest
fellowship. A fellow is not only one who follows, but he is also
"an adherent." It is- not possible for Lutherans to adhere to
systems and practices of non-Lutherans with whom they are not
agreed. Even a politician, however shrewd, cannot well adhere
to more than one party. The people throughout the country re-fuse
co-operation of different political parties, and cry down ail
attempts of any to adhere to more than one party, but many are
not so consistent in their church relations, which are of far greater
importance. In the 18th chapter of 2nd Chronicles, we learn how
dangerous it was when Jehoshaphat -'joined affinity with Ahab,"
and thus became his adherent. This fairly answers an objection
to the right rule.
To be a fellow, or to have fellowship, also involves the respon-sibility
of "a companion, a comrade an associate, a sharer," all of
which is impossible with those who are not agreed, such as Luth-erans
and non-Lutherans. "He that is joined unto the Lord is one
spirit," (1 Cor. 6; 17) not two, or more, or as many as he may
unite with in the fellowship of an adherent, companion, associate,
etc. When one who is not agreed with another fellowships such
one he becomes a sharer or partaker of that which he repudiates
in that one, "for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his
evil deeds." 2 John 11. But the objection may be made that we
do not. see that their deeds are evil. Then, we answer, why do
11
you carry on "home mission work to build a church near theirs, or
why do they not unite with us, rather than come and set up oppo-sition
communions near us?
For those who disagree, as Lutherans and non-Lutherans cer-tainly
do, it is impossible to unite in such fellowship as becomes
"the whole body fitly joined together." Eph. 4; 16. Those who
are not agreed are not "fitly joined together," however much
they strive for fellowship, and it is not such dishonest union that
"maketh increasa of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."
Those who are not "fitly joined together" can never, by affected
unionistic "work of the ministry * * * * come in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G-od unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Eph.
4; 12, 13. Lutherans and others fellowshiping one another in the
pulpit and at the altar, as companions, adherents, comrades, asso-ciates,
and sharers, have not learned such things from St. Paul,
who says; "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be
no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together
in the same mind and in the same judgment." 1 Cor. 1; 10. These
expressions of Paul, "speak the same thing," "be no divisions,"
"perfectly joined together," "same mind," and "same judgment,"
are unmistakably plain and strong against fellowship of those who
disagree, and they are also forcible against the idea that "in so
far as they agree" they may fellowship, because it is here required
that there be "no divisions.". It cannot be said that there are
"no divisions when some in the Lord's Supper say "this is Christ's
body," and others say "this represents Christ's body," or "this
is an emblem of Christ's body." This is not speaking the same
thing.
In setting forth the right rule we remember that the objec-tion
to our practice of it is often made that love or charity inter-poses
to remove all these barriers to union and fellowship, and
that if Lutherans love others they should have them preach in
their churches, and that they all should commune together. This
objection is especially urged concerning families \fhose members
are divided in spiritual things and are not of the "same mind."'
It is urged that "charity shall cover the multitude of sins." 1 Pet.
4; 8. But we reply that love never condones, connives at, or fel-lowships
sins. Neither does it cover the multitude, or even one
error or defilement. Love demands candor, for we are taught
that "open rebuke is better than secret love." Prov. 27; 5. We
may, and indeed should, love all persons with whom we are not
agreed, but we cannot, we dare not, love and fellowship their
errors, many or few, and by the very fact that they hold these
errors they, not we, set up a barrier to our fellowshiping them.
They may indeed come and sit and hear as God's people hear the
words of life, but the trouble is that they will not do them; that
is, rather than accept all that God hath spoken, they cling to their
own erroneous ideas and human reason. Of these and their kind
of love the prophet speaks, when he says, Ezek. 33; 31 : "And
they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before
thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do
them : for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart
goeth after their covetousness." When they hear the words of
Christ "This is my body," they say this is impossible, and go out
and establish a communion where it can be said "this represents,
is an emblem,*" or anything else which their reason suggests.
Shall we then for charity sake ask them to come in and commune
with us, as though there were no difference, when and where we
hear and receive Christ's own words ! We cannot, for by so doing,
we encourage them to do wrong, and love never should proceed in
such way. No sincere love insists upon others doing what would
be hurtful to them just for the sake of making a show of our love.
For persons to receive the Lord's Supper in its purity, when they
do not believe its words is positively injurious to them. "He that
eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to
himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor. 11; 29. Those
who do not accept the words of Christ do not discern the presence
of the Lord's body, and hence, according to this Scripture, eat and
13
driuk damnation to themselves. The husband who loves his wife
cannot constrain her to eat and drink with him, if she does not
discern the Lord's body, but should rather say to her, for her own
good, I cannot encourage you to do what the Scripture teaches
would be surely hurtful to you. It will be better for you to refrain
from eating and drinking when and where the true body and blood
of Christ are truly given and received, and hence I cannot invite
you. To all that I have you are truly welcome, but this is not
mine to give. This is a fair and honest answer to this objection,
and will satisfy all who are willing to consider the subject from
the standpoint of God's word rather than from their family rela-tions.
The word of God does not disturb their true relations to
each other, but rather leads them in the right channel.
The divine rule, or Holy Scripture, further teaches that love
is no apology for fellowship with those with whom we are not
agreed, because love must be without pretense. ''Seeing ye have
purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto
unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with
a pure heart fervently:" 1 Pet. 1; 22. Paul in his instructions to
Titus to "speak the things which become sound doctrine" required
"That the aged men be sound in faith, in charity." Tit. 2; 1, 2.
This cannot be done by fellowshiping those who are unsound in
faith, and unsound in love, because by so doing we practically say
to them that there is no difference between sound and unsound
faith, sound and unsound, feigned and unfeigned love. Many
indeed make no difference, and with them pulpit and altar fellow-ship
with any kind of errorists is a natural consequence^
This plea for fellowship with those of unsound faith is no new
thing, hence we find it written, 2 John 6, 7, "And this is love,
that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment,
that as ye have he.ird from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
for many deceivers are entered into the world." Love requires,
according to this inspiration, compliance with the Lord's com-mand's,
and especially because of deceivers. Love requires that
we walk in Ms commandments, and not in the fellowship of those
H
who "teach for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. 15} 9.
It is written by the apostle Jude, 3d verse, that we should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints," and this is practically enforced in the 12th verse, where
fellowship is referred to as follows : "These are spots in your feasts
of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without
fear." There must have been admitted some times, even then,
to the love feasts those who were not afraid to eat unworthily.
They could not have been there without the permission of the
saints, who must earnestly contend for the faith, but this fellow-ship
is declared to be spots in the feasts. From all that can be
found in the Scriptures concerning love, or charity, nothing can
be drawn which tolerates or favors fellowship with those who are
in spiritual error, however much we may love them.
To study this rule of Scripture further, we find that fellowship
with errorists is a departure of the Church from its original purity.
IN ITS ANCIENT DISPENSATION.
After the calling of Abraham the Church began to unfold and
develop itself into more perfect organism, consisting of parts, of
which the functions of each are essential to the existence of the
whole, and of each of the parts. Of these essential parts we find
circumcision so prominent that the stranger in the house, or
church, as well as the homeborn, must either be circumcised or
cut off from fellowship. Gen. 17. This prerequisite to recognition
and affiliation was scrupulously guarded by the Abrahamic Church.
The Church in its deliverance from Egypt, and after its baptism
unto Moses, not only was enjoined to preserve its distinctness, but
received such other ordinances and requirements from the Lord
as necessarily marked more clearly its separation from all others.
Chief among these was the passover, and as we proceed to notice
the divine requirements concerning it, we must bear in mind that
the restrictions which were connected with its observance had no
respect to the moral fitness of those who were not members of
the Mosaic church, or even to the privilege to eat the passover
which the people of G-od might, in charity, be inclined to afford
15
them. To us it would seem that some pious, God fearing Gentiles
had a right to and should have been accorded the privilege of eat-ing
the passover. Doubtless many possessed more moral fitness
than hosts of those in the camp. God himself determined these
matters, "And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, this is the
ordinance of the passover : there shall no stranger eat thereof
But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast
circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." Ex. 13; 42-45. Plain-er
language cannot be found, and it must be observed that there
is not a word about the fitness of the foreigner, whether he was
a servant of the Lord or not. God gave his people a rule by which
they should be guided in their dispensation of his things, and he
has given us rules for the same purpose. He did not allow them
to judge of those who did not walk with them according to these
regulations, and he does not allow us, who would be faithful to his
commands and doctrines, to judge others, but requires us to deal
with them according to his directions. Neither do we hear any-thing
of the charity, or of the policy which the ancient church
might exercise toAvard others, for it is further written : "And
when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will eat the passover
to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him
come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the
land : for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law
SHALL BE TO HIM THAT IS HOMEBOKN, AND UNTO THE STRANGER
that sojourneth among you." Ex. 12; 48, 49. This was God's
requirement, and the people were not left to do as they pleased
out of charity, or any sentiment or impulse of their own. He
gave them his own directions of their charity, and such charity as
is unwilling to be guided by him has none of the elements of true
love, but is conceived and born of carnality, and reared and cultiva-ted
by mere sentimentality or human reason. It is a matter of great
importance to observe the one law to the homeborn and to the so-journing
stranger. Lutherans very properly require their ministers
to teach and preach according to their confession of "the faith-which
was once delivered unto the saints." J tide 3. This they
16 .
cannot do of non-Lutherans whom they may admit into their pul-pits.
We may suppose that they will teach nothing contrary to our
faith, hut is this the one law under which we lay our own minis-ters'?
Surely not. Our law does not bind us merely to teach and
preach nothing contrary to our confessions, but its greater force
consists in b hiding us to teach and preach agreeably thereto. Let
this one law apply to all, and if any who do not agree with us,
wish to preach in our pulpits, or teach in our Sunday Schools, let
them come to us and yield themselves unto this one law, and also
come not to sojourn, but abide and go along with us, and then
shall they be as the home born in the land. No political party
even is willing for the good people whom they love in another
party to come into its councils and meetings, make speeches for
them and instruct them how to proceed. Neither are they will-ing
to divide with them trophies of victory, unless they come into
their ranks and faithfully ally themselves. Then it is none the
le-ss reasonable for the oldest and purest communion in the Prot-estant
world to deal so with others who have gone out, and are
everywhere building up churches and erecting altars against hers.
The same application must be made to the Holv Communion.
We require of our own people assent to our pure Scriptural doc-trine
and practice in relation to the Lord's Supper. We instruct
them in these things, that they may know why they approach it,
and what they receive. This one law must apply to all. Others
must, if they will eat with us, come to us, and come to stay, as we
confirm our own people to our doctrines and practices and confirm
• them to stay. They must not do like Hobab, the visitor in the
camp of Israel, when urged to forsake all else, and journey with
God's circumcised and chosen, returned to the land of Mid Lin.
—
Num. 10; 29-32. One law must be to all, and they must be cir-cumcised
of every unsound doctrine, else we cannot walk with
them, because the Lord hath forbidden it.
Whoever in Israel, either in charity or out of policy, connived
or .encouraged a rejection of the divine doctrine by others, became
equally guilty before God, who is not to be mockod by ignoring
t*j*
17
what he says. When Israel received such violators into her sanct-uary,
and thus became their fellows and associates, she was charged
by God with having broken his covenant, and as not having kept
their charge of his holy things. Of these violations the Lord
bitterly complains through his prophets, and we will let one cpio-tation
from Ezekiel suffice to show how serious a matter it is to
take the holy things of God into our own hands and to pollute
them in the exercise of our own ideas of charity and policy. "And
thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus
saith the Lord God; ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all
your abominations; In that ye brought into my sanctuary strangers,
uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my
sanctuarv, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread,
the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because
of all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of
mine holy tilings, but ye have set keepers of my charge in my
sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger,
uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into
my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Isra-el."—
Ezek. U, 6-9.
It may be said that these things were said and done in olden
times, and are not applicable to us who have the gospel, and are
under the law of liberty. But there is no law of liberty which
allows us to do wrong, by disregarding the unchangeable will and
infallible sayings of the Lord. He is of the same mind now that
he was then. "I am the Lord, I change not." Mai. 3; 6. Right
here it is proper for us to examine a very common excuse made
for inter-communion: "It is the Lord's table; not mine." This is
a well varnished trick of that old deceiver, who always accom-plishes
more by appearing to be right than wrong. It is a very
plausible excuse for giving it to all who will have it to say that it
is the Lord's table But that is the very reason why Ave should
not give it out as we might choose to give our own. That is what
the Lord complained of in Ezekiel's time—they did with his holy
things as they pleased, and not as he directed. "Ye have not
18
kept the charge of mine holy things, but ye have set keepers of
my cliarye in my sanctuary for yourselves." What would a man do
to his employee, or business manager, who would dare to give away
his things as he pleased, in charity or out of policy, and give as
his excuse tint they are my employer's; not mine! Such lib-erty
with earthly things in trust is never excused, but some, as in
the days of the prophet, dare take it with God's holy things.
Thus this objection to what is called close-communion is so fairly
answered that it needs no more.
Fellowship with errorists is a departure of the Church from
its original purity:
II. JN ITS CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.
There is no more liberty to mingle purity with error under
the new dispensation of the Church than under the old. Fellow-ship
of those who accept all of the things which are written with
those who receive only a part, however great, is no more pleasing,
or even allowable, in the sight of God at one time than at another,
and is not in keeping with the purity of the Christian Church in
its apostolic age. Such fellowship was scrupulously avoided and
guarded against by the apostles in all their efforts to plant and
water the Church. Even while they followed the Master in his
humiliation, they displayed in their conduct, however misguided
their zeal, settled convictions of the inipossibilitv of fellowship
between those who are not fellows, associates, comrades, etc., in
all the reality which these terms imply. Doubtless these convic-tions
were the result, first, of what they had learned as Jewish
worshipers; and, secondly, from such expressions of their Lord as
that ''No man can serve twro masters : for either he will hate the
one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise
the other." Matt. 6; 24. For to fellowship those with whom Ave
are not agreed is to render, or to attempt to render service to
another master or system. To do this our own must be forsaken.
Impressed in this way the zeal of the disciples outdid their pru-dence,
and upon one occasion received a rebuke, as in Mark 9;
38-40, where it is written : "And John answered him, saying,
North Carolina; State \
19
Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he follow-eth
not us; and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But
Jesus said. Forbid him not : for there is no man which shall do a
miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. For he
that is not against us is on our part." This language has been
quoted by some modern unionists as favoring, if not requiring,
our fellowship with those who follow not with us. Nothing can
be further from the truth. The Master said not a word about
fellowship, but he did teach his disciples religious toleration,
nothing more nor less. The Lutheran Church has learned from
these words of her Lord to be the most tolerant of any. She has
learned from her divine rule of faith that the spirit of intolerance
and the doctrine of non-fellowship ire as much opposed to each
other as are the word of God and the commandments of men.
So carefully did the Jewish element of the Christian Church
guard against improper and unscriptural fellowship, that they, at
first, refused to receive the G-entile portion, which was not another
communion, but a real part of the body of Christ. Still these
Jewish Christians had a right to know first whether the converted
Gentiles were agreed with those unto whom the Gospel had first
been preached at Jerusalem, for if they had not been agreed they
could never have walked together in the fellowship of love un-feigned.
Acts, 11.
Paul, passing throught the upper coasts of Kphesus, found
certain disciples, but he did not immediately take them by the
hand, wish them God speed, and, with much ado, rejoice in their
fellowship, until he had examined them, whether they were agreed.
Finding that they were not, he instructed, catechised, and bap-tized
them. Then he laid hands upon them, and they were enti-tled
to fellowship. Acts, 19.
It is not unworthy of mention that one of the strongest, if
not the very strongest, passages in the New Testament against
fellowship with those who are wanting in the acceptance of all the
doctrines of the Christian religion has been penned "by the
-disciple whom Jesus loved," and who has been recognized as the
20
one chief among his brethren in his own exercise of this divine
law of love. John's tenderness of heart, as it is spoken of in the
Scriptures, seems to be worthy of study and imitation, for it was
manifestly without dissimulation. And we are persuaded that
if we suffer the love of God which is shed abroad in our hearts to
control us as it did him, there will be found in each of us the
greatest of the three great subjects of St. Paul's 13th chapter of
first Corinthians, and if we love as St. John did, we are in no
serious danger of being spurned "as sounding brass or a tinkling
cymbal." St. John loved, and was charitable, but he conld not
yield this love as a servant of disrespect or indifference to the
revelation of God who first loved him. And much as this loving
disciple might love others, the Spirit of truth, when he had come
and had guided John into all truth, moved him to put upon record
the necessity of first knowing of all men, whether they have
brought the doctrine of Christ, before they can be received into
the house of those who do so love the Master that they keep his
commandments of truth and love, Plainer words than he has left
us we cannot find. We refer to 2 John 9-11 : "Whosoever trans-gresseth,
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not
God, He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both
the Father and Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him
God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his
evil deeds." In this place it is to be noted that the ground of
fellowship is to be determined by the doctrine, and not by our
estimation of the character of those coming unto us, or even by
our love for them. Neither can the objection be set up and
maintained that the evil deeds of which we are not to be
partakers, are the deeds of evil men, and not what we conceive
to be the errors of good men. The text does not speak of evil
men, as such, but says "Whosoever," that is any one, however
good in appearance. It says if there come any. It speaks ex_
pressly of the doctrine. Of this we are actually required in the
divine word to judge. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits whether they are of Clod.'" I John" 4; 4. The trial of
the spirits is the trial of the teaching or doctrine, for the doctrine
which a man brings is, if good, the intuition of the good Spirit,
but if bad, the prompting of evil spirits. This is manifest from 1
Cor. 2; 12: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things
that are freely given to us of God." Also, 1 John 4; 6: "We are
of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us, he that is not of God
heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the
spirit of error." Matt. 7; 15: "Beware of false prophets, which
come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves " This objection to our refusal of fellowship with those
who bring not the doctrine of Christ is now fairly answered again
in this place, and we must not forget that it will be easy for us
to become partakers of the rejection of the doctrines of our
Savior.
This fellowship is also wrong in the light of what James says:
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Jas. 1, 18.
It is double mindedness and instability in those Lutherans who
engage in fellowship of those who bring not the doctrine of Christ,
to try to build up their own churches by such means, and at the
same time an encouragement to others to proselyte our people.
When we bring them in to teach us and for us, and bid them God
speed, we make believe to our people that their system of doctrine
is as correct as our own, and our people are thus encouraged to
leave us and go with them. We simply prepare our own material
for others to whom we accord fellowship. This makes us positive
and negative in our operations. This is the principal reason why
the increase of the Lutheran Church has been so much less in
those parts which fellowship non-Lutherans. The Romanists
never encourage their people to go over to other communions by
this double dealing. Besides all this, the Protestant communions
around us do not look upon us as orthodox, and the very fact that
they consider us unsound is an evidence that they reject our doc-trine,
which we know to be that of Christ. If they thought our
system Scriptural, they would be bound to think it safe, and they
ought to let alone those who are connected with it. Instead of
this they are vigorous in their efforts to proselyte. Consider the
vast sums of money collected and appropriated to missions in
Lutheran countries to turn our people away from the pure doctrine
of Christ to other systems, which reject many of his teachings.
Here, among us, they would reach the hand of fellowship; there,
they put forth the hand that plucks from the garden within their
neighbor's wall. We are forced by their own rejection of our
sound doctrine and their persistent efforts to make this rejection
practical and forceful by proselytism, to speak in the language of
our blessed Redeemer: "Ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the
child of hell than yourselves." Matt. 23; 15.
It is this rejection of improper fellowship, here enjoined for
want of the doctrine of Christ, which is in perfect harmony with
what is written in Heb. 13; 10: "We have an altar, whereof they
have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." Those who
serve the tabermcle are they who hold the doctrine that the
Lord's Supper is a mere ceremony or memorial service of the
Church: that it is typical, shadowy, or emblematic, much like the
service of the ancient tabernacle. Such have no right to eat
where the true body and blood of Christ are given and received.
Many more references to Scripture on this point might be
made, but if these are not enough a thousand more would also fail
to satisfy those who are too biased to study the doctrine whether
it be of God. We will not, however, leave out Horn. 16; 17:
"Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions
and ofienses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
avoid them. The causes of the distress among the sundered parts
of Christendom lie at the door of those who left the Chrch as
Christ established it, and caused divisions contrary to the doctrine.
For a time all "continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts
'1: i'2. But false teachers introduced themselves; as Jesus said
they would, and caused divisions, which made it necessary to cut
off from fellowship those who erred. It is not our purpose to
consult the history of the ancient church after the apostles had
written their epistles, but we shall proceed to the time of the
reformation of th3 Church, and briefly notice that fellowship with
errorists is contrary to what the Church holds ancl teaches in her
confessions. Of course what is said~tfere can be helpful to those
only who are honest Lutherans, and accept the confessions cordi-ally.
The confessions are often mutilated, warped, and twisted
by those who are not sincere Lutherans, just as the Bible is often
treated by many who are not humble, faithful Christians.
In preparing the Augsburg Confession the reformers not only
defined and confessed the truth, but likewise pointed out and con-demned
what is in conflict with it. Referring to heresies and
heretics, errors and errorists, they say that they are "rejected and
condemned." In the first twenty-one articles there are no less
than thirteen of these plain condemnatory sentences. Without
these that great confession would not be complete. To throw
them out, or disregard them, would be to mutilate the confession.
Those who acknowledge it must acknowledge them. Those who
are honest and faithful to it must be honest and faithful to them.
No one can be honest and faithful to it, by fellowshiping what it
rejects and condemns. The tenth article sets forth the true doc-trine
of the Lord's Supper, and then says: "The opposite doctrine
is therefore rejected." We cannot be honest and say to those
who hold the opposite doctrine: "We are all one. You are invit-ed
to this feast of love," if we reject their doctrines which are
contrary to ours, which we hold to be what Christ has instituted
and commanded.
This fourteenth article says "that no one should teach or
preach publicly in the church, or administer the sacraments with-out
a regular call." The Church cannot condemn those whose
doctrines are unsound, and then allow them to minister in its'
pulpits and altars. It cannot call them regularly, and those whom
it cannot call it must not receive and hear.
^4
We shall refer to only a lew places in the Book of Concord
in which this matter of fellowship is decided against those of the
contrary doctrine.
In the twenty-fifth article of the Augsburg Confession it is
stated: "For the custom is retained among us, not to administer
the Sacrament unto those wrho have not been previously examined
and absolved," This is what we require of our own people, and we
should have but one law. Some hold confession and absolution on
Saturday; others on Sunday, and insist upon their people attending
to it. Then, after confession, they invite others to commune,
who have not been examined and absolved. In this way they have
one law for one class, and another, or rather none, for another
class. They have respect of persons. They show much more
leniency and latitude to strangers than they do to their own peo-ple.
They sit in judgment and say, our own people must be
examined and absolved, but for others it is unnecessary. This is
making a difference in requirements but not in privileges.
In the first paragraph of the article on the Sacrament of the
Altar in the Large Catechism, we find the following: "For we are
not disposed to permit those to approach the Sacrament, nor to
administer it to them, who do not know what they seek there, or
why they approach it." Those who hold the doctrine of emblems,
etc., do not seek there the body and blood of the Lord. Those
who believe that it is merely a memorial do not know why they
approach it. We cannot admit such to tiie Lord's Supper without
violating our confession. It may be said that many of our own
people do not understand the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. That
may be to some extent our own fault, but while they are not tbeo-logians,
and need not be, they do not hold false doctrines nor ally
themselves with those who do. We can and should instruct them
so that they may accept the plain, simple words of Jesus; and to
know that it is wrong to change them so that they may hear of
emblems, representations, etc.
Iu the Formula of Concord we find the following adopted from
Luther's writings: "I reckon all those in the same number, that
20
is, as sacramentarians and fanatics—for such they are—who will
not helieve that the bread of the Lord in the Supper is his true-*
natural body, which the ungodly or Judas, as well as St. Peter
and all other saints, received orally; whoever, I say, will not be-lieve
this, should let me alone, and not expect to hold fellow-ship
with me; and to this principle I must adhere." This is so
plain that any may see that the Lutheran Church rejects fellowship
with those who deny the real presence of the body and blood of
Christ and its oral reception in the Lord's Supper. Whether they
will see it is a different thing. And that this was then the sense
of the Augsburg Confession tippears clearly from what follows
immediately. "From this exposition, but more especially from
Dr. Luther's explanation, who is the principal divine of the Augs-burg
Confession, every intelligent person, who loves truth and
peace, can perceive with certainty what has always been the
propar vieaniny of the Augsburg CoufesMOu.'''' And beyond all
question this settles the matter. The Church cannot hold pulpit
and altar fellowship with those who do not agree with her in
doctrine. . This is a question plainly settled in her confessions.
Those who say that it is not settled in the confessions, simply do
not accept and endorse the confessions, but are still willing to
seek to honor iheiuseives with their name.
A SHORT STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT.
1. Pulpit fellowship is the exchange of preaching, or any minis-terial
service, between pastors. If one takes the place of another
to officiate in his place, and, in turn, receives or allows the same
from the other, they thus exchange with each other, and have
fellowship. When Lutherans swap off with others, they have
fellowship with them. When they invite, or allow, others to
preach for them they have fellowship with them. See pages 3, 4.
2. When Lutherans invite others to receive the Lord's Supper
with them, or go and receive it with others, they have altar
fellowship with them, which is wrong. See page 3.
3. This is not a matter of indifference, because God's word
forbids fellowship with errorists, and the Book of Concord does
not place this among what it defines as indifferent things, but
gives us plain statements of opposition to it. See pages 5-8.
4. The right rule for us is found in the Holy Scriptures, and
the confession has grown out of this rule. The confession agrees
with the rule, and thus both forbid fellowship with those who
err in doctrine. See pages 8, 9.
5. The Lutheran system does not agree with any other. Those
who disagree cannot have right fellowship, and therfore we cannot
fellowship those who are at variance with us. See page 9.
6. Since we are not in harmony in doctrine with others, we
cannot fellowship them even in so far as they agree with us?
because nothing in the Bible allows such a course, but requires
that there be wo divisions. See pages 9-11.
7. it is tlten urged that we should fellowship others for chari-ty's
sake. Charity does not cover or connive at error, but rebukes
it. They who do not discern the body of Christ in the Lord's
Supper eat and drink unworthily, where the body and blood of
Christ are really present, administered, and received, and thus
they suffer injury. If we love them we cannot encourage them
to do what is hurtful to them. See pages 11-14.
8. In the ancient Church, fellowship with those who would not
accept the teachings of the Lord, and comply with his require-ments,
was forbidden. God gave one law only respecting his
service, and he demanded that all should comply with it, and be
circumcised not only in their flesh, but also in their hearts of
ever) unsound doctrine and opinion. He would not permit his
people to accord liberties to others which he did not allow to
them. See pages 14-17, 24.
9. Some say that "it is the Lord's table; not mine," and that is
the very reason why we cannot do with it as we please, but must
foVlow our Lord's directions. See pages 17, 18.
10. Jesus taught his disciples to be tolerant, but that they
could not serve two masters. They could not preach sound doc-trine
themselves, and then fellowship those who do not. Neither
could they believe and obey the Master's words in his Holy Com-munion,
and then fellowship those who disregard them. See
pages 18, 19,
11. A positive prohibition of receiving those who do not hold
the doctrine of Christ, but merely a part of it, is given in 2
John 9-11. See pages 20, 21.
12. Fellowship of errorists is wrong, because it is double
mindedness and instability, and prepares our people to break
their vows and go to others who not only err, but also regard us
as material fit only for conversion to Christianity. See pages 21, 22.
13. There is an abundance of Scriptural testimony, but it is
profitable only to those who can yield their reason and selfishness
captive to the word of God. See pages 22, 23.
14. Lutherans have their confessional bond of union in the
28
teachings of the Book of Concord, and it separates and disting-uishes
them from all others. Others reject these confessions, and
hold to their own, which do not agree with ours, and therefore
ours plainly assert that it is impossible for us to fellowship those
who reject our symbols of faith. The Augsburg Confession, the
Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord especially speak
plainly about this matter, and their reception or rejection mani-fests
the sincerity or dishonesty of those who bear the name of
Lutheran, and therefore all who understand them knaw which to
do, accept or deny. See pages 23-25.
15. If at any time occasion should arise for us to defeud these
statements, we shall oe found ready to do so, if it be the will of
<iod. If any reader should wish to inquire further, wo shall take
pleasure in assisting such one.
^Carolina Sla» BSeB
MY OWN PUBLICATIONS.
Memorial Tributes, containing an Address on Luther's
Parents, Birth and Education, and a Sermon on Justification,
Price, 10 cents ; postage 2 cents.
"A Christian Catechism for Little Children." Fourth edi-tion.
Price per copy 5 cents; per dozen, 45 cents, including post-age.
"Biblical Exceptions to the .Modern Evangelistic System."
Second Edition. Price, per copy, 5 cents, postage paid; 20 per
cent less fjpr larger quantities.
"Pulpit and Altar Fellowship." Price, post paid, per copy,
5 cents.
"Order of Conducting Sunday Schools." Price 1 cent per
copy in any quantity. One copy of each of the above will be sent
to one address for 25 cents.
Hickory, N. C, Jan. 1893. A. L. GROUSE.
GC 284.1 C952p
Crouse, A L
Pulpit and altar fellowship /
3 3091 00054 7430
C952P
WOUN\^A
284.
1
C952p
Crouse
Pulpit and altar fellowship
gw>