CHAPTER IV.

Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the right and privilege of private judgement.

It is a plain principle of the word of God, that Christians have the right of examining and judging for themselves, in matters of religion. One has no right to dictate to the conscience of another.

It is not meant, that every one has a right, in the sight of God, to form his own opinion of his truths and precepts. In that respect he is bound to construe things rightly, and really to know his Master's will. But the right of private judgement, which is plead for, pertains to us in regard to our fellow Christians. We may labour to instruct and convince others, and they, in their turn, to instruct and convince us; but neither have the right of exercising dominion over the faith of the other. "Who art thou," says Paul, "that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth, or falleth." The solemn truth that each of us shall give an account of himself unto God, forbids the idea that others may judge for us, or prescribe to us in matters of religion.

Therefore, in the case before us, one class of believers have as good a right to determine what constitutes a valid baptism as another. If the one come forward and say that they have been baptized into Christ, and are otherwise entitled to Christian charity, they are to be admitted to communion by the other, upon this declaration, although they have not been baptized according to their views of the institution. The latter, having no right to exercise dominion over the faith of the former, are bound to receive them upon the principle that, in their own opinion, they have been baptized, and that the right of judging in the case for themselves, is one of which they cannot be divested. If they should be refused the privilege of coming to the table, this would be, at once, exercising a lordship over their consciences, which is not admissible.

Should it be said that this principle will oblige us to receive all who apply for communion, however gross their opinions or conduct may be; I would reply, that it will not, for this

reason: we are bound to receive none to our charity and fellowship, but such as appear to be Christians: and the opinions and conduct of some may be so perfectly at variance with the truths and precepts of the gospel, as to forbid the idea of their being Christians. In that case they are not entitled to communion.

Those differences among Christians which are to be borne with, respect merely such things as are not essential-i. e. such as may be differently viewed without destroying the Christian character, and excluding the hope of salvation.

is

And here, I say, the right of private judgement is secured, and very sacred. And the responsibility rests on each one personally. So that even if others should prove to have been in an errour, our receiving them to Christian fellowship, upon the principle stated, will not implicate us. They, alone, are answerable.

Should it be further said in support of the practice of close communion, that we are commanded to "withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly," I would reply, that "withdrawing," in this passage, manifestly means the same as excommunication--the same kind of treatment which is denoted by the following expressions: "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican ;" "note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed;" and "with such an one, no, not to eat." And, therefore, the disorderly walking intended cannot be the minor errors and faults of Christian professors; but those which are gross, and which, if persisted in, destroy the Christian character. If we were to withdraw from others for every thing defective in their principles, or practice, there would be an end to Christian communion in this world: "for there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not." Why should the Baptists withdraw from the Pedobaptists, because they have not, in their opinion, been regularly baptized, when, allowing that they are right in this opinion, they have other defects themselves, as great as this? Let it not be said that the passage alluded to relates particularly to church order, and not to sins and errours in general. For it cannot be reasonably supposed that a breach of church order is a worse evil than any other, and, consequently, to be treated with marked disapprobation. It is, manifestly, as disorderly, in the sense of this passage, to break the Sabbath; to be world. lyminded, uncharitable and selfish, and to exclude those whom Christ receives, as it is to fail of practising the right mode of baptism, or to administer this ordinance to improper subjects. Why, then, should the command to withdraw be restricted to

a breach of church order. There is, obviously, no reason for this restriction. The rule will apply equally to all kinds of unchristian conduct; but will not oblige the churches to excommunicate their brethren for slight errours and misdemeanors ; but for those, only, which are gross, and which strike at the very foundation of the Christian character; although they should admonish one another daily for their lesser failings.

CHAPTER V.

Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the consideration that although baptism was manifestly intended to precede, in the order of nature, the commemoration of Christ's death in the ordinance of the supper; it does not appear that we have a warrant to insist upon it as an indispensable prerequisite in all cases.

SHOULD the two last mentioned grounds of open communion fail in the opinion of any, this, for aught appears, might be taken as the last resort. None, however, will understand me as giving up either of those grounds, or as considering them, in any wise, suspicious; for they appear to be sound and good: but all may not regard them in that light. If, therefore, there be any remaining ground for open communion which those may take who cannot adopt either of the others, it is important that it should be fairly exhibited. For the sake, therefore, of relieving this class, it is stated, that it does not appear that we are warranted to insist on baptism, in all cases, as an indispensable prerequisite to communion. It is, indeed, plainly commanded. It is, moreover, a badge of discipleship, and a regular door of entrance into the visible church; and, consequently, it is, in the order of nature, prior to communion. Nevertheless, it does not appear that it is, in all cases, of such absolute and indispensable necessity, that none may be admitted to communion except such as are considered regularly baptized.

The ground now stated, is the one which some who conceive immersion to be the only valid baptism, do actually take and although open communion may be maintained upon other and better grounds, as I have already shown, this is inexpressibly better than close communion. The principle of open communion with all evangelical Christians is so evidently agreeable to the general structure, spirit and design of the gospel, that it must have some valid reason, or reasons, to support it, whether we are able to discover them or not. And, if we should fail to assign the true and proper reason, or reasons, it surely cannot be wrong to receive those whom Christ receives himself; for the apostolick rule, before mentioned, binds us to receive one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. This, at once, settles the principle of open communion, as above explained.

Hence, those brethren who regard immersion as the only valid baptism, may receive to their communion, uuder certain circumstances, such as they consider unbaptized Christians.

There is manifestly a wide difference between the cases of those who believe immersion to be the only valid baptism, and yet apply for communion without it, and of those who do not believe this mode essential, but have submitted to the ordinance in another form, and verily believe themselves duly baptized. To admit the former to communion without baptism, would be tolerating them in the neglect of a known and acknowledged duty, which would be inconsistent; but in the latter case, the neglect is not wilful, allowing these persons to be in an errour: for they do verily believe that they have complied with the order of Christ. Therefore, such may be received to the Lord's table by those who cannot regard them as regularly baptized. They ought not to insist that they should be immersed, or otherwise be debarred from Christian communion. If they are judged to be fit subjects in every other respect than their not having been immersed, and they are willing and desirous to obey the Lord in the ordinance of the supper, although they feel not their obligation to be plunged in water, they ought to be received. The right of admission is one which they enjoy as the children of God and heirs of the kingdom.

Let it not be said, here, that no uncircumcised person was permitted to eat of the passover; and therefore no unbaptized person should be permitted, under any circumstances, to eat of the Lord's supper, for the institutions are different; therefore the rule in the former case will not apply in the latter. And this argument ought never to be plead, especially by those who regard the Lord's supper as, in no measure, a substitute for the passover. The institutions are not only different, but both positive; and, hence, each rests on its own basis. We cannot rightly argue from the one to the other, any more than in the case of circumcision and baptism.

And when we come to consider the institution of baptism, by itself, where do we find it asserted that no unbaptized person, under any circumstances, shall eat of the Lord's Supper? I have not found any such prohibition.

I have, indeed, found that the kingdom of Christ consists of a select company of disciples, and that these were directed to be initiated by baptism; but I have not found that no one may be permitted to obey Christ's order to attend upon the supper in remembrance of him, who is considered as not having submitted regularly to baptism. Although he be viewed as not