Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-01-29

:, oHSNl Any -dui1ll tueH 10 the
; LORDS table, Here is the point where
'he controversy must close For the dis
agreement regards the subject of baptism
rather than the communion. An Ban
'iS's are agreed upon the subject of ba p
''S'h, and OF course they can have no dis
o9Ieement upon the terms of communion,
i toey are willing to initiate the example
I OF the apostles, by restricting the com
,'unlon to such as according to their be-
i'ei nave been baptized. --..
we will now answer the principal OBJ
|Jectlons which are often made against re-
strlcted Communion.
l. 1t is objected that such practice
masses d1cssSon amOng the proEsssd fol-
t0"erS Of Christ But if Immersion only
Is baptism, as we believe it is, and if ac-
cofdIng TO the Scriptures we are required
10 practce b1plIsm previous t. commun-
io1' then those who adhere TO the pre-
ScFihea order OF the divine institutions
are not accountable Tor this division
! Nothing IS more manifest than that if all
christians had kept the ordinance of ban
tISm as it was delivered by the APOSTLES
there woul! have been no division among
tnem' reialIve 10 the pre- requisites for the
communion, lf all Christians in the
present time, believed and practised alike
upon the mode and subjects of ba ptism.
! there would De nothing in the ordinance
about which they could be divided. The
church commenced with the practice Of
immersion only for b1ptisn and they
were boun by the command Of Chrisf.
and the example of the apostles, to con-
tInue IN this practice. And in this man.
ner they ought now to be united. This
practice preserved the union Of Christ.
lans Tor more taan three hundred wears
from the time OF Christ. VIII n, howev-
er, sprlnkIing was substituted for baptism,
this sGostl utIon was legitimate cause Of
division. Now whatever was the origin
al cause of the division. is still the cause
Therefore, those only who pervert the
ordinance OF baptism, are accountable for
the division which this perversion has
made among Christians. Mixed com
munIon, will not produce unanimtv
among Christians Of opposite views upon
the subject Of baptism. If they are ne,
united in their belief, they viii come to
the Lords table and leave it with the
same variance in their views, which pre-
vailed before they came to the commun.
ion. Hence this objection against re-
stslctlng the communion TO such only as
are baptized, is Of no force. But if anv
contend that the objection is a valid one,
let them remember that it is iast as appli-
cable to church membership as to the
communion. None of us will contend
that unbaptized persons ought TO be ad-
mltted into the church to prevent division
nor ought we to contend that unbantizsd
! persons should be admitted TO the COM
munon to prevent division; because
neither of these Unauthorized practices
will ever effect union among Christians
of different sentiments.
2 1t is sometimes objected that altbo'
0oapttsm as prerequisite To communion,
get there are some aohO think theu hare
been baptized By being spriahted: anil
therefore zee sbo2Ld inu;te them to com.
n~niom This objection shows the true
reason why such as believe sprinkIino t.
be baptism, are willing to commune with
US. It is not because they do not believe
baptism to be a prerequisite to common
ion as well as We; bet because thew be.
ieve we are baptized persons. They are
therefore consistent with themselves in
inviting Us to commune with them; but if
their opinion of us is Il rule for them in
: communion, our opinion Of them is a rule
; think they are not baptized, and we must
act upon this opinion If we invite them to
the communion. Therefora, allho' they
may be consistent with themselves in
tommunlng with US, vet we do not ac
consistently with our principles in com.
| munlng with them; because we Commune
: with such as we think are not baptized
: while we believe that baptism is pre-
: requisite to the communion. The rule O
: communion is imperative upon all the
l. churches. Baptism is ii prerequisite tc
+ communion for all believers without any
exceptions. Hence until it can be showr
j. that the Scriptures have made some ex
e ceptions in favor Of such as have neglect
e ed baptism, through misconceptions O.
e It's mode, we can have no authority tt
/ invite unhlptized persons 10 the comnua
r ion. merely because they think they arr
It baptized
: 3. Others object that a7tbosgi IL /
+ inconsistent 10 commune 5rui umbopii7er
: persons acb0m ace ,ctU nat receire into on
: churches, get there are many Other thing
IN onr practice 'ch;ch are anc0nsistcut. an
!, therefore they dem At rigd! in as 70 prac
1t tee mired communion. TO this II MAJ
II be replied that one Inconsistency does no
\, justify another If .He are 'inconsisten
le with our principles as B,ptists, in lnvitin:
e upbaptIzed persons 10 our communion