formity. This does not exist often where the Lord's table is spread, even among the Close Communion Baptists themselves.

But do I agree with a man's errors, because I admit he has some correct sentiments? Is it not right for me to agree (or commune, the true sense of the term) with him when he tells the truth? or shall I when he is correct deny it? Does God when he communes by his Holy Spirit with that individual commune with his errors? Does he commune with your errors? or have you none? We will take a case, a common one. I and my close communion brethren are engaged in a protracted meeting. Sinners are alarmed, and with an earnest heart say pray for us. We kneel by the anxious to pray-we pray in union of spirit, and God hears our united cries, and in answer to our prayers and agreeably to his promise, "where two are agreed" it shall be done, he converts a score of anxious sinners. There was a communion in prayer and with God himself. It exhibits the strongest, the nearest union that Christians can have with God and with one another. Now I ask an enlightened community, if that minister did not express his fellowship with me more fully than he would by sitting with me and a hundred others at the Lord's table? Was it not an expression of the length and breadth of Christian fellowship? And after all this the next Sabbath following he tells me he cannot sit around my Father's table with me!!

7. By admitting unbaptized Christians to communion, they will be more likely to neglect to be baptized. Just so I might argue, that the young convert must not pray, for if he does he will most certainly neglect to be baptized! It is his duty to repent-to pray-to confess Christ, and to obey the ordinances of the gospel. By repenting will he be more likely to neglect to pray-by praying will he be the more likely to neglect to confess Christ-and by confessing Christ will he be the more likely to dis

obey his commands? The contrary is true. If he repents he will be apt to pray, if he prays he will be likely to confess Christ publicly and to obey him. Experimental knowledge proves this objection irrational and inconsistent.

8. "We should have to commune with our excluded members." What does this objection prove? I will tell you. It proves that sectarian notions corrupt the church of Christ. Instead of these Christian parties keeping the church from receiving bad members to their communion, it screens hypocrites. Let a man be excluded from the C. Baptist church for immorality, and will any other church receive him? Not one. But suppose we receive him, This argues that he has no expectation of meeting the C. Baptists who excluded him, at the Lord's table, for if he had he might have known that for his sins he might be rebuked before all, that the rest might fear, and his sins would find him out. But instead of this, he thinks that no complaint will be brought against him from the former church, and he is screened from censure. Now reverse the order, and let him know if he hides his sins from us and gets into the church, he might meet them in one week in a public assembly, and he would not be likely to join another church under those circumstances nor would he be received,

It is the duty of Christians to do good to all men, and especially to the household of faith-for we are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God. If a bad member flees from one church to find refuge in another church, his latter brethren ought to hear any complaint of his former brethren; and if he is immoral, they ought not to receive him into their church, and if he is received, he should be cut off. But by our feeling that we are not brethren, and by our acting as though we were not fellow citizens, the church is corrupted and hypocrites are sheltered. This is not the effect of free communion. But what

if you did set at the table with a bad man, as bad as Judas, does that make it wrong for you to eat and drink? Some say, if Judas was there the apostles did not know him to be a bad man. Strange that when Christ had said " one of you shall betray me," and they had been saying, "Lord, is it I?" and Judas said "Master, is it I," and Jesus said" thou hast said" -when he said it is he to whom I will give the sop when I have dipped it—and when he gave it to Judas-strange, I say, that they did not know Judas to be a bad man!

Now says one," You open the door of communion to the wicked," Not at all. I neither open or shut the door; that is Christ's business, and as his minister it is right for me to say to those who come to the Lord's table, "If you eat and drink unworthily, you eat and drink damnation to yourselves." It is the duty of every particular church to judge of the standing of its members. It is the duty of every Christian to put himself under the government of some particular church, otherwise the churches cannot judge of their standing. On this ground, we cannot invite Christians that belong to no church, for we know not that they are in fellowship with any branch of Christ's church, and are not commended to the Christian public, by the judgment of any branch of the Christian church. It is not expected that we shall invite any persons to come, but such as are known to be the professed members of the church of Christ. If a man is amenable to no church for his conduct as a Christian, we are under no obligation whatever to recognize him as a member of Christ's church by inviting him to the ordinances of his house. Judas Iscariot was a professed disciple of Christ. But are our close communion brethren never deceived? Do their views and practices keep back all who are unworthy? Not so. Many who are baptized by them are no better than any other hypocrites of a different name, But in order to

212 CLOSE COMMUNION ARGUMENTS ANSWERED.

keep away hypocrites shall we keep back the dear children of Christ-dear to him-for he has purchased them by his blood. Shall we keep them back when he has told them to come? The fact that a person has been baptized is not an infallible evidence of his being a real believer in Christ.

9. The last objection I shall consider is, “ You commune with unbaptized persons, but you will not receive them into your church, which is inconsistent." This objection is not quite correct. We do not receive persons into our churches because they are already baptized, or because they have already observed the Lord's supper, but because they feel it their duty and privilege to do this as children of Christ. Not because he has had this privilege, but because they love God and want this privilege. We vote members in and vote them out. If we baptize them in, we must baptize them out. An unbaptized per son is never received, but on condition he will be baptized and perform all other Christian duties. On this ground, an individual acts when he invites a neighbor to eat with him. The man sits down; but after the repast, says the neighbor, I am well pleased with your fare, and I want to make it my home with you. Says the first, you can take up your abode with us, if you will conform to our rules and regulations. He hears the regulations, and says, I think I could not enjoy myself under all these rules. Very well, says the first; these are our rules; upon which the other thinks he can better enjoy himself elsewhere and passes on. They agreed to eat together, but in family regulations they did not agree. Thus we agree to eat with our unbaptized brethren, while in our church regulations we do not agree, and of course have the opportunity of being under such regulations as we may prefer. So our C. Baptist brethren receive an unbaptized minister into their meeting houses, sing with him, pray with him, and worship God with him, for in this they agree; but at the Lord's

table they do not invite him to partake, for here they think he has no right to come. They disagree with him here, or at least they differ in prerequisites for the table. This is more inconsistent than we are in communing with him, for here too we agree, as well as we do in his preaching or praying, and as far as we agree we feel willing to go with God's children. Let us, then, if we manifest a difference with others, do it in the things wherein we differ and not wherein we agree.

VI. Objections against sectarian or close communion.

1. We think it contrary to the spirit of Christian love and of the gospel. "Why dost thou judge thy brother or why_settest thou at nought thy brother? Rom. 14:10. Is Christ divided? 1 Cor. 1:13. "Let each esteem other better than himself."

2. It is not in the Bible, therefore we are not bound to believe it.

3. It severs the children of God, even young converts who join different branches of Christ's church, and chills their feelings towards each other.

4. It does not go well in time of reformation. When Christians' hearts are filled with love to God and his children, they will sometimes come together and break over the rules of the close communion system-this is often the case.

5. It prohibits Christ's ministers from coming to the Lord's table with those very souls they have led to Christ, and who are endeared to them by the strong ties of Christian love.

6. It is not the communion of the Bible. 1st Cor. 10:16, 17. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." Here we see that the communion of the Bible is the communion of the body of Christ. No