The Portland daily press., 1897-11-18
SET BACK FOR CLOSE COMMUNION.
Leading Baptists Go Back ON the Doc
trine.

Chiago, November 17.-"Is Baptism
was the topic discussed last night at the
10Th annual meeting of the Baptist con-
gress now being held in this city. y
The position taken by DR.. G. p. Clifford
of Buffalo, and. DIR. R. Fl. Conwen of
Philadelphia, two of the most emient di-
decided change of sentiment among Bap-
fists on the subject of close communion.
Never, perhaps, in the history of the
Baptist denomination has so important q
doctrine been stricken down on such
short notice. Theodore M. Banta OF
Brooklyn, declared that he had been a
Baptist for 40 years, and for 16 years he
was close communicates.
ST have studied the question careful
ly," said Mr.. Banta, in conclusion. land
have read all the close communion
tracts Of the American Baptist Publica-
ton Society and as consequence of my
reading L have come to the conclusion
that l have been wrong. l stand here to-
night opposed to close communion. What
Is the purpose Of the Lords Supper2
"To bring to our remembrance, the
death burial and resurrection of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ. To do this it is
not necessary that the communicates
should first be immersed or baptized. 1t
is not Christian and when we insist to
the contrary, we mistake the shadow for
the substance"
Rev. Dr. o. P. Clifford of Buffalo, said :
we challenge the assumption, that the
New Testament does furnish us with the
model, the church, that the model of the
church was finished In Corinth or Rome
or Ephesus, that the practice of the
church in the first century was common
law and all departures from that practice
sedition and anarchy. The sense of the
Lords supper Is in the power to discern
the Lords body. Immersed men who
fall to discern the Lord g body do not OBJ
serve the Lords Supper. Unimmersed
men who do discern Chords body do
observe the Lords Supper"
DR.. Clifford said that it Ia often the seri-
GUS misfortune Of able and honest men
that they unwittingly argue on principles
which when formally stated they would
unhe sitatingly repudiate. The first of the
assumpti' r. that are unlike the
argument to which we allude, is this.
that the practice of the churches is sort
Of common law which when eoditied may
supplement- or qualify the law of the
New Testament; second assumption, that
there is no fixed complete and binding
system of church organization revealed in
the New Testament; third assumption,
the ordinances are purely formal and ex-
ternal instead CT being living expressions
of the inmost realities Of the Christian
faith. 10 meet these three assumptions
it is argued that the New Testament fur
nishes US with the model of the church.
that there are no exceptions to it's rules
A divine law is far seeing and needs no
change. Upon this ground, the Baptist
brotherhood, have stood and do stand.
DR.. Conweli of Philadelphia took the
same position.
DR.. Theodore A. x. Gessler of Lake
Hopatkong. N. j., declared that baptism
was not even church ordinance and the
Baptists have no right to dictate who
should sit at the Lords table
Rev. DIR. Lotion of Nashville, Tenn.
took the orthodox view and insisted up.
on baptism as requisite to the holy
communion.