The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-07-24
Special Contributors.
THE CASE OF JUDAS AND CLOSE
COMMUNION.
BY REV. A. A. THAYER.
Dosage, Iowa.)


The personal example of Jesus ought
to be decisive as to any questionable
religious ordinance. The memorial ia
BILE of our Lord has been debatable
ground since the days of the apostles.
There have been questions as to the
administration of the Lords supper
! questions as to its lawful recipients
as to the ordinance which must pre-
cede it; as to the age of communicates;
and as to the place and position Of the
body on its reception. The sacred Gle
ments have even been administered to
the dead, and been buried in the coffin
with body without life, there to inn
part a superstitious virtue to the de-
parted soul. And to this day, chief
factor in the denominational wall
around great Protestant sect, is their
doctrine of fitness for the communion
table. Rigid notions of baptism by
immersion, seem to override all Qnes-
tiops of morality and godliness. This
sect allows its own members to be the
judges as to the disabling force of any
open or secret sins, insisting only on
the crucial fact of baptism by INNER
sion. And they are ready to withhold
the memorial elements from any godly
saint in Israel, whose public and pri-
vate life is without spot, unless he
has come up out of the water after
the manner of our Lord. This position
passes for the doctrine of close COM
munion. 1t allows debauch of NOR
ais, but insists on strictness of ordi-
nance.
Now let us address ourselves to the
personal example of Jesus, in the ad-
ministration of the Lords supper. Is
it probable that the Master insisted on
either strictness of morals, or exact
ness of ordinance, as prerequisites in
the participants of the supper? AS to
morals, the New Testament has given
us clear conceptions of the sins of Judas
and Peter. Judas was the arch traitor,
and Peter was guilty of perjury and
profanity. The grossness of the sin of
Judas is implied by the accusation of
his master, that he ''hath devil"
And yet our Lord permitted these two
men to sit at his table. The fact of
his betrayal, and the closeness of his
relation to Judas, is stated in the same
breath. "He that dippeth his hand
with me in the dish, the same shall be-
tray me-" But Judas was not driven
from the supper. There is not the
slightest implied hint that he should
leave the table, or that Peter, in view
of his sin, should go away. Jesus was
conscious of their detection. Their
hearts were open to his inspection.
Their sins were apparent to his eye.
He was impressed with the humiliating
cowardice of the whole twelve. On the
early morrow, they all forsook him and
fled. Still, with such men, he ate the
memorial supper. This is not, there
fore, a personal example of withhold
ing the bread and wine from the morally
unworthy. These men had the aver
age quality of human nature. They
were the children of the Messiah's
heavenly Father. Perhaps they were
as good as he could select. And unto
such the safety of his gospel must be
entrusted. Therefore he asked them
to perpetuate the eating of bread with
wine, in remembrance of him. But
perfection of morals wa not an indis-
pensable prerequisite to participation in
the rite.
Well, does the personal example of
Jesus show any more favor to the doc
trine of close communion with regard
to the ordinance of baptism 1t may
be an unwelcome truth, but it is a
truth, nevertheless, that we have only
presumptive proof, that a single man
who sat at that first memorial table,
had been baptized at all, excepting only
Jesus himself. Paul was baptized.
Jesus was baptized. But what mortal
can affirm, through the words of our
record, that the twelve were baptized ?
The fearless and presumptiVe Mother
Church hath made up for the baroness
of the record with plentiful traditions
about their baptism. But this is only
an acknowledgment that the New
Testament authors were forgetful of