Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-10-30
The Evangelical Alliance.
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN GAINED.
FA1RaA VEN, Oct. 25, 1915


from the part of the address quoted,
and the comments upon it by the writer
of the article, was led to infer that he
looked upon Baptists and Episeopalians
as chief hindrances to bettersunion
among evangelical chieftains. / am
aware that the opinion quite generally
prevails that Baptists have peculiar
views upon the communion question, and
that by reason of these supposed views
they are often spoken of as ''close COM
munion," ''bigoted" and ''sectarian. "
Now, l have no disposition to enter into
a discussion of the communion question,
but, being Baptist, | wish simply to
state that the denomination to which l
belong occupies precisely the same
ground occupied by the leading denomi-
nations of evangelical Christians in this
country. #.s r...
DR.. Hodge is a Presbyterian, and in
1858 was member of a committee to
revise the Book of Discipline of that
denomination. Let us see how liberal
he is. Article 1G of the '"Testimony'
reads as follows: ..9
We declare that the church should
not extend communion in sealing Ordi-
nances to those 9oh0 refuse adhere nee to
her profession, or sujectis71 to her goo
ernnle12t and discipline, or who refuse to
fOrsake communion which is incon-
sistent with the keeping of those ordi-
nances pure and entire, or so as to give
cOuntenance to any COrrupuOns OF the
doctrines and institutions of Christ.
But lest this should not be sufficiently
explicit, 1 quote from a recent number
of the American Pres5yteri1n:
Open communion is an absurdity when
it means communion with the unbap-
tized. | would not for a moment con-
slider proposition to admit an unbap-
tized person to the communion; and
can | ask a Baptist so to stultify himself
and ignore his own doctrine, as to in
vite me to commune with him a0hj1s he
JeB20es I an unbGptized! l want no
sham union and no sham unity, and if
held the Baptist notion about immersion,
| would no more receive a Presbyterian
to the communion than | now would
receive a Quaker.
Let us have unity. indeed, Tut not at
tie expense Of principle, and let us not
ask the Baptist to ignore or to be incOn-
sistent with his own doctrine. Let US
not, either, make an Outcry at his close
communion, aohjch is bat ,JtJjtdfu5lleSs to
principle, until we are prepared to be
open communicates ourselves from
which stupidity may we be forever pre-
served!
The views of Congregationalists upon
this question, do not materially differ
from those of their Presbyterian breth-
rem.
Dr. Dwight, an unquestisnable author
ity, in his denomination, plants himself
squarely upon the "close" communion
platform
1t is an indispensable qualification for
this ordinance that the candidate for
communion he q member Of TIE 0jSj5ls
Church Of CHRIST in full standing. By
this | intend that he should be a person
of piety that he should have made a
public profession of religion, and that
he should hare been baptized.
Henry Ward Beecher, in a recent
number of the Christian Union, says:
We never supposed that our Baptist
brethren were more bigoted than their
Cong CS aLlUnal brethren. Even IN mat
tiers about which we quite differ from
them, we have found them both intelli-
gent and candid. As matters now stand,
all evangelical churches are close COM
munion churches in this sense, that they
all take it for granted that the Lords
Supper is an ordinance of the church.
The Baptist, tie Congregation
al, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist
churches are all IN principle alike, ana
hold to close communion.
The n. Y. independent disposes of
the question in this way ''The Pedo-
baptists denominations, while they are
as exclusive as Baptists are generally
ashamed of it, and pray God to be de,
livered from it
That is to say, Baptists and Pedobapt,
lists in their practices are alike, but Pc
dobaptists do in mystical way what
Baptists do openly and above board.
will now quote from copy of the
manual of the Methodist church
Let no person that is not member OF
our church be admitted to the COmmu-
Mon without examination, and without
some token given by an elder or dea-
con.
No person shall be admitted to the
Lords supper among us who is guilty
of any practice for which we would ex-
clude a member.
But DR.. Hubbard, an eminent authOri-
ty of this church, is still more explicit.
He says
1t is certain that baptism is enjoined
as the first public duty after disciple
ship. The very position,
therefore, that baptism is made to occu-
by in relation to a course of Christian
duty, namely, at the commencement, suf-
ficiently establishes the conclusion that
the ordinance Of the Supper, and all other
observances which have an exclusive
reference to the Christian profession,
must come IN as subsequent duties.
And thus we hold that Christ
enjoined the order as well as the duties !;
and in this order of Christ baptism pre-
ceGJeS communion.
And then, to place the question be-
You'd doubt, the general conference,
at its last session but one, passed re-
solution, in substance like this:
Reso50ed, That it is not the practice
of the Methodist church to invite unbap-
tised persons to The Lords Supper.
Now let us see how bigoted Baptists
regard the question. The article of
Faith, adopted By the church of which
/ am pastor, reals as follows: eve
believe that the o ~eIinancesof the church
are Baptism and. The Lords Supper. and
that only those are entitled to. the latter
who have been scripturally baptized. .,
IN closing, ! will simply say, that l do
not believe that Christian union will be
promoted by speeches like that of DR..
Hodge. nor by insinuating that one. or
two denominations stand. in the:way of
its eonsnmatioA., s:tt'l ss...>>;S,,,. !.
. IF, instead of this, we, would endeavor
Ron auF1 ~ NV, 10 ro+op1 +I,a ,Noc;t;o,, rI.