Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1841-03-31

them. and after they were baptized, they
contlnuedsteadf st in the apostles doctrine,
&c. They did not think that something
else would do just as well. Now, if bap-
tism is the first duty urged after believing,
as We see from the whole New Tesla
ment, then it is not the second, or third, or
fourth; and hence too, it should precede
This Is not assuming too
much. 1t is not more than we assume in
reference to faith in Christ being necessa.
ny to communion. We are not told ex-
|pressly that we shall not commune pre-
vious to repentance and faith, but it is OBJ
vlous from the whole tenor of the Bible
that we should not. So it is equally OBJ
vious that baptism precedes communion.
| might appeal to nearly every Church
in the world in justification of what have
said, as those who contend that baptism
does not precede communion, compared
with the whole Church, are not even a
drop in the bucket, or the dust in the
balance.r ....@.. ..... .-.... ~.
1t is obvions that baptism did precede
communion in the days Of the apostles.
This is clear in reference to its first insti-
tuition on the night previous to our Lords
crucifxion. 1t is true in reference to
those on the day of Pentecost, ofPaul and
every one recorded in the Bible. Hence
those who build on mrre Inference, those
who follow Peter, and Paul, and Christ, OF
those who infer that something else will
do just as well But though the Baptists
adhere rigid!y to the principle that oap
tism should precede communion at the
Lords table, they are as particular in re-
ference to practical piety as other denom-
nations. 1t is by no means the Creates
question when one approaches the sacred
symbols, Have you bfen immersed, and
do you abstain from communion with such
as have not been immersed 2" | cannot
but look upon all such remarks as unchar-
liable censures, designed to iniure the
Christian character and influence of those
whose practice so perfectly harmonizes
with the apostles And as our opposing
brethren almost to an individual pursue
this course, l cannot be a Palo,baptist.
w. | dare not be guilty of the paIpa-
Bile Inconsistency Of inviting to the com
munion, and censuring the Baptists for
not inviting to the communion, those
whom [ would depose from the ministry,
and brethren whom [ would exclude from
the Church. All this is done daily by
the advocates of open conjunction.
For instance, an Episcopal clergyman
who conscien'iouslV renoonces episcopa.
cy, but still adberes 10 all the other doc
trines and forms of that Church. For
this alone he is depQsed from his sacred
office in the Church. No natter how
pions or able and useful as a minister ::
no matter how much he is attached to the
reading Of her service, deposition from the
ministry, if not exclusion from the demon
inatjon, is effected. Yet this offending
brother, by uniGing with some other branch
of Zion, can return and take his seat as a
communicant with the very Church who
excluded him. Though they cannot ad.
nit him into their pulpit. nor receive him
as member of their body, yet their bands
and their hearts are all open to give him
seat at the Lords table; as though the
sacred supper was less pure than an Epis
copaI pulpit. ITO be continued