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


would De sHperduous, with this evidence
to have preeept prohibiting US from re
ceIvlng any person into the church who
had not been baptized because the ex
ample OF the apostles is an implied prohi
bitlon, And we have, in all respects, jas
such evidence as this, to teach us who art
the proper subjects of communion. We
nave, as we have already shown, the ex-
ample OF the apostles, evincing that bap-
ism IS prerequisite to communion =
ana this IS all that we have to prove that
Baptism IS prerequisite to church mem.
be:Ship. The two cases are in all re.
spects perfectly parallel, and the evidence
Tor both is precisel Y similar, and is suffi-
Gent Tor our directory in the way of duty.
H. therefore, we act upon the evidence we
nave from the example of the apostles,
that baptism is a prerequisite to churc a
membership; then for the same reason,
we must act upon the evidence given in
the scriptures, that baptism is pre-requi-
site to communion. This will be the duty
OF every professor of religion, until he
can show shat there is some difference in
these two cases. And we call upon eve
ry one who is disposed to commune with
such as are not baptized, when he would
reject the same persons from the piivi-
iege OF church membership, to show
what authority he has for this Inconsistent
practice. Communion is one of the great
est privileges in the church. Every 9TH
er duty devoIving upon a church mem
Der, compared with this, is of minor in
portance Now let it be candidiy consid-
cred by every Christian. whether it be
consistent TO deny one who we believe is
true follower of Christ, the least privi-
lege IN the church because he is. not bap-
tIzed, when we do not admit that his neo.
Iect OF baptism ought to prevent him from
enjoying The greatest of church privi|eo-
es. And if any of US hold a sentiment
which involves us in such gross inconsist,
ency, is no: that Inconsistency one of the
strongest evidences that the sentiment is
erroneous2 Besides, what precept or ex-
ample have we to admit any one 10 the
communion, whom we would not admit
TO church membership Every one must
be satisfied that we have none at ALL
And what, then, are those Baptist church
es doing, who are in the habit of inviting
to their communion such Christians as
are not baptized, and such as they would
DOT admit into the church, unless thew
would consent to be immersed Such
churches are practising what they are I'M
authorized to do from the word OF God
Now let it be remembered, that whatever
Is not taught, either by precept or exam
pie, IN the gospel, is contrary to the scrip
lures, and to the fundamental principles of
every true Baptist. Therefore to admit a
person TO the communion, whom we will
not admit to church membership, is con-
trary to the scri ptures and rnust be alto
gether erroneous. If this practice be
thus inconsistent and contrary to the scrin.
lures, then baptism must be pre-reoni-
! site to communion.
We now ask the reader to decide
whether in bis opinion the evidence here
! presented is not sufficient to sustain the
truth o! our proposition. Ifthis evidence
does not prove that baptism is a pre-requi.
site to communion, let us see what conse
quences must unavoidably follow. If the
example OF the apostles is not sufficient tc
show that baptism is a prerequisite tc
communion, then their example IS not sui
hcient to show that faith should AWAY:
precede baptism. For we have showt
that the principal evidence to sustain bo,t
} these sentiments is derived from apos,olit
example. Il, then, we give up the prin
; ciple that baptism should always prtced,
, the communion, Tor the same reason v,
must also give up the principle that faiti
) is prerequisite TO baptism. And whel
: this principle is relinquishel we shall
have no more Baptist churches. III
: whole superstructure of our denomination
J, will thea be demolished, and we shaI
: have nothing left which is superior to Pa
D do-tsptism. We need not therefore won
: der that ,baptists are usually SO vo
e ciferous in their praises of open commun
: ion. The most intelligent among then
: know very well that in this name
they are con:ending most efsctraIly, tht
n indirectly, for their own views of bar
It ism And if we join with them, W
J, take the most efectual step to subvert III
e principles of every Baptist church in tn
e world whether it be Freewill or Ca
e whistle, Independent OF Associated. Nc
t isthis all for If apostolic example is nj
ii sufficient evidence that baptism is pre-
h requisite TO communion, then it is not su
At fclent evidence that baptism is pre-r'
II requisite TO church membership. There
y fore if any sill contend that they must a
e nit un6aptized persons to The communlol
X then for the same reason they must adm
of sach persons into the church. And
IN any may be admitted into the churc
a. though they neglect baptism, then for u
I'd same reason they may be permitted TO