The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-09-06
GmtraI 8rtsbgtnim,
Richmond, Va, Wednesday, Sept 6, 1871.
REPLY TO THE RELIGIOUS HERALD.

the subject Of Christian communion. Leaving |
the Adr0cate to take care Of ITSELF as it has well
and ably done, the Centred Presbyterian feels called
upon 70 respond briefly to the points in which
1t is specially concerned.
When the Herald says We "are quite jubilant'
at the change in Mr. Chambliss views, if it means
that any unseemly word has been uttered, it does
Us Injustice. There are tbOse-perhaps the Her
ol{ has known some Of them-who dc not think
1t unseemly to make great ado, when they have
made one prOselyte We beg not to be mum:
berod with them; aud certainly the few remarks
offered were not ehargeable with an extravagant
or uncourteous word We did, however, think it
was due 20 the occasion and TO our cherished aud
deep seated convictions to say that we heartily re
joiced in the announcement referred TO, because
We believed it to be a change In accordance with
the truth Of God and the charity Of the gospel
We think so still But it Is Just here the Herald
makes It's point against us, and urges that we are
inconsistent with tie priRcipbsa practices Of our
own Church. Referring to what we had said it
asks
" Wei, what Is the joyful announcement Why,
simply thet pastor OF a nelgbbOrng church has
abandoned the orthodox views held by the Presby-
terrain church. and 70 the support OF which the
Central Presbyterian Is committed, aud has placed
himself IN direct antagOnSm to these views lie
has not changed bis opinions on baptism either
as 90 The act or subjects OF It; nor does he even
propose TO commune with the Presbyterians; he
has merely become convinced that on the subject of
the priority OF baptism to the Lords Supper the
PresbytCrianS and the rest Of the Christian world
with comparatively few exceptions, are in error
that the Lord Supper is a feast spread without
the Church, 70 which all persons have free access
By this detection from the Presbyterian standard
the editor Of It's respected organ Is filed with de
hghC There must be something wrong 10 this
matter. Charity "rejoiceth in the truth, not in
error but the Central Presbyterian rejoices in
Tor, not in the truth.
1t speaks also of the Presbyterian Church as per-
ieetly united and established on the point THAT
baptism is a prerequisite to church membership
and participation Of the Lords Supper On this
subject all their formulas and their theological
teachings are in perfect harmony Nor is the
practice Of their Church in conflict with their prin
cp,es Uniformly and firmly, so far as we know,
they restrict communion at the Lords table to the
baptized
We admit that as baptism doth signify and
seal our engrafting into Christ and partaking Of
the benefits Of the covenant Of grace and our en-
gagement to be the Lord s." It is proper, as a
matter Of Church order, that the regulation should
be as it stands. But it by no means follows that
ordinances which are signs of grace, must be re
eognised as always and to the utmost iudispen-
sable to Church fellowship at the Lords table,
when We have most satisfactory evidence that the
grace itself has been bestowed. We would not if
pastor Of a church, receive any one into regular
membership who had not received valid baptism.
But suppose Thomas a Kempis, or Pascal, or
Archbishop Fenelon, or any Roman Catholic in
whose sincere Christian piety, after thorough ac-
Quaintance, we had implicit confidence, should ask
the privilege Of cOmmuning, would We permit it?
Certainly. So IN Ike cases among the Disciples
(Or Campbeiitesl Upon general principles, sound
and jusufable our Church denies the validity OF
their baptism. Yet upon special and satisfac
tory knowledge Of individuals we would adj
them to the communion of the Lords Supper
receiving them because persuaded that the F5A
received Of Christ
This is the ground, essentially, which we under
stand Mr. Chambliss has taken. He processes to
be stiil Baptist and therefore does not acknowl
edge our baptism as valid. But he knows that we
admit the importance and the obligation Of thar
sacrament, and that It should be administered with
water, in the name of the Father, aud of the Son.
and Of the Holy Ghost He thinks We have made
a mistake as to the mode of administering it. We
lament that our Baptis, bSthren should be in such
error as to say that the essence Of the ordinance is
in the mode Of its administration. There we have
the advantage Of them; for while thoroughly salts
fed that the weight Of Scripture testimony is not
in favor Of immersion, yet as the element, and
formula, and administrator are according to Scrip
ture, We do not hesitate TO say the mode is not
sentiaL Ii Baptists could meet US on this reason
able ground, the controversy would be ended. But,
take it as il Is brother Chambss can say, Though
do not admit the validity Of this baptism, yet
can perceive no such invarable aud necessary con-
neetion Of dependence between baptism and the
Lords Supper, thar I must refuse communion
with brethren who honestly meant to observe the
ordinance, and in whose intelligence, piety aud
Christian worth l have the utmost confidence
That is oar ground, the ground Of true Christian
charity, as we believe and therefore we perceive
nothing inconsistent with Presbyterian principles
IN our sincere rejoicing that this estimabe minister
in the Baptist Church has set so good an example
70 others in his manly ayOwal Of it. This is the
ground Of good old John Bunyan. 1t is the posi-
tion which Robert Hall has made impreguable by
one Of the finest pieces Of argument in the English
language. Under that and other influences the
great majority Of Baptists in England have come
to practice open Communion And as the whole
weight of Spurgeon-the foremost preacher of the
AGES on the same side, it may be reasonably ex-
pected that the day is not far off when that de-
nomination Of Christians viii be there in happy
agreement on this subject.
The same views are making progress in this
country. Ii Is not a movement whose wheels are
to roll backward it has already reached a strength
and influence which must Of necessity soon embody
and manifest itself in some visible organization
This viii give It conspicuity and. gradually gather
around it the large and increasing sympathy exist
ing more or less in every part of the Church. The
Religious Herald has repeatedly intimated that
the prevalence Of open communion with other
Christians at the Lords table, would ruin the
Baptist Church. We hope our brethren are en-
tirely mistaken and are in this uuwittingly taking
counsel Of prejudice (such as good men are liable
20 feel rather than Of sound judgment and sober
fact We can perceive no reason why it should
lead to such a result; it has not doue so in Eng
land. We think it would be an unspeakabe bless
ing to the Baptist communion; and for this reason,
among others, would rejoice IL It's progress.
In the views here presented on this subject it
viii be observed that they are grounded upon a
principle every where recognized by our Church in