practice of close communion is unauthorized, and ought to be immediately abandoned.

We may be told, however, that although the practice of close communion is not authorized by any express precept, it may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. As we would give every one a fair hearing and weigh carefully every species of evidence that he may have to present, without depreciating or neglecting aught, we will proceed to an examination of this circumstantial evidence, or the general arguments employed in justification of close communion.

1. The first argument usually employed by the advocates of close communion relates to the order of time in which the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper were instituted. They assert_that baptism had the priority. Suppose this to be admitted, does it make one an indispensable condition to the other? By no means. Preaching was instituted prior to baptism, yet who ever thought that no one could be baptized, unless he had previously preached? Hence, allowing that baptism was instituted previously to the institution of the Lord's supper, this proves nothing about any inseparable connection between them, or that one must in all cases precede the other.

Again, to make this argument of any avail to our close communion brethren, it is incumbent on them to prove that every one of the disciples had received Christian baptism previously to the memorable night in which the Savior administered to them the emblems of his body and blood; and even that could not authorize the position they take. But where is the evidence that such was the fact? John the forerunner of Christ did indeed baptize, and so did some of the twelve apostles; but this does not prove the point in question. We ask not for conjectures, suppositions, or probabilities. Evidence to establish a position so important ought to be unequivocal. In

testifying to a matter of fact in a court of justice, the witness is not allowed to give the jury his suppositions. He must tell what he knows, not what he thinks probable.

We have already seen that, allowing Christian baptism was instituted and practiced prior to the institution of the communion service, this fact would not authorize the practice of close communion now, unless it can be proved also that Jesus and the apostles made it an invariable rule to admit none to the communion but immersed believers, and required the same of their followers to the end of time. But there is one aspect of this subject which is important. It is this. It will be admitted by all, that if Christian baptism was not instituted until after the institution of the Lord's supper, then close communion falls, and open communion is established. It becomes then an inquiry of considerable importance, whether the rite administered by John and the disciples of Christ, previously to the commission given them Matt. 28: 19, and before the Holy Ghost was given, is to be regarded as Christian baptism. To assist the inquirer in the investigation of this subject, we will present him with the following concise and able argument, in relation to John's baptism.

"It has been made a question respecting the baptism of John, whether it was the same as the ordinance instituted by Christ, (Matt. 28: 19,) and observed in the church in all periods since. We are decidedly of opinion, that it was not the same, but merely an introductory rite, designed to prepare the way for the gospel dispensation; and in this we agree, not only with the ancient church,* but with

*Origin [A. D. 230] says, Christ himself was baptized by John, not with the baptism which is in Christ, but that which is in the law. Com. in Rom. 6. Chrysostom says, It (the baptism of John) was as it were a bridge, which from the baptism of the Jews, made a way to that of the Savior. It was superior to the first, but inferior to the second. Homil. 24.

the most respectable writers, Baptist and Pedobaptist of the present day. The following are some of the reasons urged by Rev. Robert Hall (a Baptist) and others, to show that the baptism of John was a preparatory rite, and not to be regarded as a Christian ordinance.

"1. This baptism took place under the Jewish dispensation. The Jewish dispensation continued in force till the death of Christ. Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain. Then the great sacrifice for sin was offered, and the typical sacrifices ceased. It was then that Christ blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances, that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. Col. 2: 14. Our Savior lived under the old dispensation, and was a strict observer of the institutions of Moses; and all that was done in the church previous to his death belonged properly to that dispensation. This certainly is strong presumptive evidence that the baptism of John was not a Christian ordinance.

"2. Christian baptism originated in the express command of CHRIST: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and Holy Ghost.' No such origin can be claimed for the baptism of John, who baptized for some time before he knew Christ, John 1:31. He ascribes his commission to the Father, John 1:33.

"3. The baptism of John was evidently a preparatory ordinance. He came to prepare the way of the Lord.' He preached to the people that the Messiah was coming, and exhorted them to prepare to receive him; and in order that they might be prepared, called them to repentance and baptism.

"4. One part of the design of John's baptism, as stated by himself, shows it to have been entirely distinct from Christian baptism: "That he (Christ) should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water," John 1:31. It was an important part of the object of John's ministry and bap

tism, to point out the Messiah to the Jewish people, bear public testimony in his behalf, and induct him, by the washing of water, into the ministry. It hardly need be said, that there is nothing in Christian baptism that resembles this. A Christian ordinance not founded on the authority of Christ, not the effect but the means of his manifestation, and first executed by one who knew him not, is an incomprehensible mystery.'

"5. The baptism of John, unlike Christian baptism, was not administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This we know; because some, whom John baptized, had 'not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.' Acts 19:2. Indeed, John did not baptize in the name of Christ, or in any other name; but merely directed those who came to his baptism to believe on him who should come after him.' Acts 19:4.

"6. Some of those who received John's baptism were afterwards baptized by the apostles. This was the case with certain disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, (Acts 19:5,) and in all probability with many others.

"For these reasons we think it demonstrable, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism, but rather an introductory rite, intended to prepare the way for the coming of Messiah and his kingdom."*

It will be observed that nearly all the prominent reasons for believing that the rite performed by John was not Christian baptism, will apply with equal force to that performed by the disciples of Jesus, previous to his ascension. If, as the writer of the preceding extracts maintains, the Jewish dispensation continued in force till the death of Christ; if Christian baptism originated in the express command of Christ, Matt. 28:19; if the baptism which the disciples of our Lord performed (for Jesus baptized not, John 4:2,) was not administered in the name of the Fa* Encyclo. of Rel. Knowl. pp. 177, 178.

ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but was merely a preparatory and initiatory rite into the Gospel dispensation, then equally with John's baptism, it cannot be recognized as Christian baptism. Unless this whole argument is unsound and fallacious, the claim of close communionists that Christian baptism was instituted prior to the communion is shown to be unfounded, and their entire fabric falls. It follows of necessity, that if Jesus administered the sacrament to his disciples, when as yet they had not received Christian baptism, then Christian baptism is not an indispensable prerequisite to communion.

II. The second argument relied upon by the advocates of close communion, is, in the language of Mr. Booth, "the order of words, in that commission which was given to the ambassadors of Christ."* "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. 28:19, 20. How little warrant this "commission" affords for the practice of close communion, must be apparent, when it is considered, that it says nothing about the Lord's supper, and was not given until after this ordinance had been instituted, and administered. It does require the disciples to keep the whole law of Christ, but is silent about admitting none but baptized persons to his table. The passage might be properly adduced to show that all baptized believers are required to observe the sacramental service; but it proves no inseparable connection or dependence of one Gospel ordinance upon another. It might as well be cited to show, that none should pray, unless they have been baptized, as that none should be admitted to the communion unless they have been baptized; for prayer was one of the "things commanded,” as well as the communion service.

† Apology for the Baptists, p. 41.