The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-07-05
Progress of Open Communion.

The Rev. William Brock, an eminent Baptist
minister of England, has written letter to the
Baptist Union of New York, in which he com.
municates information which is interesting ON the
question referred to- What do our Baptist breth-
rem, who hold to close communion say in reply to
this statement which appears to place upon them
the charge of having made innovations upon the
old Baptist principles The writer says:
"In one of the most elaborate Judgments which
our courts Of equity have ever pronounced, after
course of pleadiDgs which no court of equity has
ever heard surpassed; Lord Romilly pronounced
it to be irresistible that the principle of free or
mixed communion was not fundamental point OF
faith, but practice subject to the regulation OF
each church or congregation. In my opinion, said
his lordship, it is established that each congrega
ton was from the earliest time at liberty to regu-
late its practice either according to the strict COM
munion or the mixed communion as it might seem
best to such congregation. The doctrine OF COM
munion, as | have stated, is not an essential or
fundamental doctrine of the faith OF Particular
Baptists." The illustrious Judge referred ex-
pressly to the several Baptist confessions OF faith
which were published in the seventeenth century,
and he pronounced that they give no reason for
the belief that baptism by immersion was held to
be indispensable to the communion. He also re-
ferred to the discussions on the subject which we're
carried on between different ministers in 1913, and
again and again afterwards and thus he sums up
the result Of an examination OF those discussions
on strict communion: 1t must, therefore, be con-
sidered that by those persons, even when heated
with the warmth of controversy, 1T was not held TO
be doctrine OF fundamental character, or so
essential as to constitute of the necessary ele-
ments of true aud sincere Particular Baptist.
Far enough, obviously, is our open communion
from being an invention or heresy OF Robert
II.lli. \ Al h ,cfc haua
been gathered into churches, they have been more
or less open communicates; sometimes more,
sometimes less.
1.-THE published account of the Norwich case,
heard before Sir John (now Lord) Romllly, Is
valuable repertory of facts SO also is the account
of the Ramsgate case, heard before Vice-Chancel-
lor Kindersley.
"We open communicates assure, you, have
had to struggle for our position, not only IN Scrip
tural argument and discussion with our brethren,
but before the judges of the land. Holding pos.
session of certain meeting houses or chapes on the
ground of agreement with their trust deeds, we
have been told that we were violating those deeds,
and the effort has been made by an appeal to
Chancery to turn us out. In every case the APP
peal to the best Of my knowledge, has failed. The
process has confessedly been most painful but see
ing how thoroughly and mpartially the appeal has
been dealt with, we are happy in the results
Some of the greatest living English lawyers have
been engaged upon the question and their decis-
ion is that of the historical testimony to the preva-
lence of open communion among the English Bap-
| fists there can be no doubt.
May you be guided by divine wisdom in your
effort to bring the minds of our American Baptist
brethren to calm, intelligent, and devout consid.
Grafton of this great question heard enough
when was in the United States to convince me
that, before very long, the consideration Of it must
come up, and hear enough from your honored
brethren whom meet when they visit us to feel
assured that the consideration is becoming urgent