The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-12-30

AS for all that Mr.. Austin has to saw
about my quoting at second hand, would
simply state, that | only availed myself of
liberty used by all writers, and that
very well knew that the manual from which
the quotation was made, could be produced
whenever waited.
And here l would like to say to Bro.
Austin, that, in using facts obtained through
friendly and strictly private correspon
dence, without giving the author credit,
he showed not only q lack of christian cour
tesy, but nice regard for honesty rs well.
would also state that, what Mr.. Austin
seems to think a charming feature of Meth
odsm, WILL l think be regarded by many,
even in his own denomination, as bleni-
sh and weakness.
He says that the book of discipline is
changed at every General Conference as
the delegates think "expcdient." Now |
had supposed that everything concerning
the ordinances of the church was fixed by
| the Word of God, and that consequently
the practice of tho church with reference
| to them was as unchangablc as the Bible
| itself
There may be great deal of 'cXpcdi-
| cncy" in teaching close communion at one
time and open communion at another, or
preaching tic former in one community,
and the latter in another, but whether there
| is any scripture for it ! think that every
one will question.
Second, | quoted resolution, which
stated was passed by the last General Con
ference but one. 1t was this Reeolcod,
| That it is not the practice of the Methodist
church to invite unbaptized persons to the
! Lords Supper.
Answer: "Thc General Conference of the
Methodist church never passed that rcsolu-
ton, nor any resolution in substance like
it,"
Well, all have to say in reply, is this
quoted the resolution lust as ! heard it in
n meeting of Methodist ministers, and not
only was its passage not questioned, but
Bro. Austin admitted IL by apOlogizing for
it.
Third quoted this passage from DIR.
Hubbard, who is among the first writers in
the Methodist church: "Wc hold that
Christ cnioined the order as well as the
duties and in this order of Christ baptism
prcccdcs communion
This Mr. Austin admits is correct, but
denies that ''lIibbard" is any authority.
But he makes another admission which is
fatal to his objection. He admits that
Hubbard on Baptism is among their CON
ference studies Now is it likely that the
Methodist church would put into the hands
of its ministers, work on baptism, the
teachings of .Mhich it did not approve.
Having in this very convenient manner
disposed of my authorities, Mr. Austin
makes strange attempt at reasoning
Baptists will not commune with MethO-
dists therefore the two denominations
cannot occupy the same position upon the
communion question. This argument seems
to him so conclusive that he fondles it as a
sentimental woman would her lap dog.
He rings frequent changes upon it, turns
it over, restatcs it, embraces it, eXults over
it.
Now if Bro. Austin had spent one-half
the time at his logic, that he spent in 'cut-
ting up IIibbard on baptism he would
never have fallen into this logical bundcr.
But In order that the absurdity of his rea-
soning may appear. let lis give it Il practi-
cal application
Mcthodists clam the right to judge of the
character of those whom it receives into
its membership. Mormons claim the same
right. Hence their position is a common
one. Now mark the conclusion Nor
mons are entitled to full membership in the
Methodist church
Bro. Austin then quotes the invitation
contained in the ritual and claims that
under it not only members of other
churches, but persons who are members of
no church are made welcome at the Metho-
dist communion.
Now find that this invitation is Dor
rOwed from the ritual of the Episcopal
church, and that it has never been inter-
preted BY that body as having any refer
cnce to the unbaptiZcd.
And we should naturally conclude that
Mcthodists, in using the ritual of another
church. would give it the same nterpreta-
ton as the body from which it was Dor
rowed
And that this is the case there is album
dant proof
Bishops Coke and Asbury, in their notes
on the discipline, (Hist Dis. p. 323) say
"Wc must also observe that our elders
should be very cautious how they admit to
communion persons who are not in our So
ciety"
Bishop Hedding, in his sermon upon the
administration of the discipline PIP. 70, 70,
says 'Is it proper for preacher to give
out general invitation in the congregation
to members in good standing in other
churches, to come to the Lords SUPPER
mo, for the most unworthy persons arc
apt to think themselves in good standing.
And sometimes persons who are not mem
bers of any church will take the liberty
from such an invitation to come And.
again, there are some communities called
churches, which, from heretical doctrines,
have no claim to the privileges of christians
and ought not to be admitted to the COM
munion of christian people. 1.-The rule in
that case is as follows and ought to be
strictly adhered to : Let no person who is
not member of our church be admitted
to the communion without examination
and some token given by an elder or dea
CON"
Now on the one hand we have the invita-
ton interpreted by the Espicopal churcl
from which it was borrowed, and by three
bishops of the Methodist church and on the
other hand by Rev. III + Austin. The pub
lie may decide between the authorities.
| will now add TO the proof already given
, we suppose of the statement made in my
first article.
DIR IIawley, in tract entitled clos,
communion and published by the Metho
dist Tract Society, says; 'that those
churches observing the Lords supper SHOULD
determine what are the scriptural qualifca
tons for admission to it, is true. T,
determine what are the scriptural qualifica
tions is the duty of all Christs churches
the Lords Supper is the duty of all chris
tan churches"
Now we may be sure that the Methods
Tract Society would not circulate worl
which misreprcscntcd the doctrine of tn,
Methodist church upcn this important ques
ton And yet, in the face of all this testi
, mony MIR Austin says that Methodists be
lieve that the church has no control Over
the Lords Table
The reader may attribute it to ignorance
5 or to a desire to mislead the public, which
= ever he pleascs.
1 Again. on page 50 of the discipline 1868
! | find this rule "No person shall be ad
: United to the Lords Supper amo;g us wh'
is guilty of any practice for which we wout'
= exclude member" Now this rule can onl,
he enforced, save as the officiating ministe