dom of God. You belong to this world. We do not deny that the Lord receives you; but we must reject you. There are certain external things which you have not complied with ; and you must be content to be treated like the world, till you give up your judgment and submit to ours.'

Such is the legitimate, the necessary language of close communion. And does it tend to good? Especially as we have seen that it is built upon taking for granted the necessity of baptism before communion, without one particle of proof, except upon principles wholly at war with other parts of the same system; does it not lead to presumption and arrogance? Does it not tend to destroy the fine feeling of love to all that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity?

The party spirit which this principle engenders is fully rebuked in the New Testament. "Wherefore receive ye one another as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” In the controversy about meats in the Church at Rome, where one party thought the opinions they entertained were of fundamental importance, the apostle sets up a single point as the ground on which any one should be received, namely, "that God hath received him." Whatever might be the views of individuals on the question which agitated that church, the fact that God had received any one was sufficient to entitle him to the Christian regards of the whole, and of course to the communion in the body and blood of Him who died for them all. But in no place does the apostle rebuke this party spirit more pointedly than in 1 Cor. i, 12-17, where the very term of communion which our brethren so much exalt, is made a matter of secondary concern. He congratulates himself that he had had little to do with it. He had baptized none except two individuals and one household. And this fact he rejoiced in, because his commission was not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, and because some might suppose that he had rallied a party by that means. How different this from the spirit of close communion! That spirit says, 'I thank God that I have baptized so many; I have baptized no households as such, for that is a baptism which I avoid; but I have baptized individ uals in their individual capacity, and thus increased the number of those with whom I can commune at the Lord's table.' Thus the advocate of close communion, on the ground of exclusive baptism, is obliged to make baptism a very important part of his business, while the apostle regarded it as secondary.

Close Communion sets up exclusive pretensions to a church state which its abettors contradict by various acts of their

lives. If close communion be right, it is right on the ground that they only who practise it are the churches of Christ. Baptism, they say, is the only appointed way of entering the church of Christ; and they refuse us the communion because we are not baptized. Of course, then, we are not members of the church. Indeed, they openly say that their refusal to commune with us is on the same principle that we refuse to commune with young converts before they unite with the church. This language means nothing else than that we have not yet become members of the church; that we are in a state in regard to the church of Christ similar to those who have not yet made a profession of religion. There is, however, an obvious difference between us and the young converts alluded to, that they do not expect communion, and they acknowledge that they have not yet done that act which completes their Christian character; while we have done all in the external profession of religion which we ever expect to do, and are conscientiously pursuing our way, believing that we are members of the church. It is manifest then, that according to the professions and practice of close communionists, they regard us as living in such plain disobedience to the divine commands that we have no churches, and no proper, authorized communion tables.

And yet the same men exchange pulpits with us. They preach our sacramental lectures. They pray to God that He will bless our churches and our pastors, and that He will pour out His Spirit upon us as churches. They are reduced therefore to this alternative: either they are insincere in their prayers to God, or they are inconsistent and weak in their arguments. We cannot accuse them of insincerity in their prayers, since many of them manifest a spirit of religion which it would be uncharitable and unreasonable to question. The other side of the alternative is unavoidable. They are inconsistent and weak in their arguments. Their system of close communion is so self-contradictory that when the true Christian comes before God he virtually renounces it, and speaks forth the words of truth and soberness. A strong illustration of this inconsistency may be seen in the following fact Many years ago, when Dr. Stillman was minister of one of the Baptist churches in Boston, he had in his pulpit on one communion day a Pedobaptist minister who preached on the occasion. After sermon, the latter sat down as if he were going to stay to the Communion. Dr. Stillman approached and apologized, "I am sorry, brother, that we cannot invite you to the Communion; but you know the rules of our church." "Invite

me!" said the Pedobaptist, "invite me! I do not want any invitation-the Lord has invited me. I come by the same right that you do." "But you know," rejoined the Doctor, "how our communion table forbids the approach of any who in our opinion are not baptized." "Your communion table? Very well; if it is your communion table I want nothing to do with it. While I was preaching by the Lord's commission, I thought it was the Lord's table which was in view before us. If it is the Lord's table, I have the same credentials that you have: namely, the invitation and welcome of the Lord himself, If it is your table, I consent to leave it." Thus, after having acknowledged the Pedobaptist as a minister of Christ, and in that capacity set him to feeding the flock, close communion required that he should be debarred the privilege of feeding himself at the table of the Lord. An acknowledged minister of Christ not a member of the church, and having no right to communion in the body and blood of Him whose minister he was, and whose atoning sacrifice he was commissioned to set forth in words and in actions!

Close Communion is contrary to the natural dictates of a Christian conscience. There is something in the conscience of a true Christian, which, like the natural conscience, is universal, unless warped out of its course by peculiar circumstances. "Conscience," says Dr. Chalmers, in one of the Bridgewater Treatises, "whether it be an original or a derived faculty, yet as founded on human nature, if not forming a constituent part of it, may be regarded as a faithful witness for God, the author of that nature, and as rendering to his character a consistent testimony." "We admit," says he again, "a considerable diversity of moral observation in the various countries of the earth, but without admitting any correspondent diversity of moral sentiment between them. When human sacrifices are enforced and applauded in one nation, this is not because of their cruelty, but notwithstanding their cruelty. Even there the universal principle of humanity would be acknowledged, that it were wrong to inflict a wanton and uncalled for agony on any of our fellows, but there is a local superstition which counteracts the universal principle and overbears it. When, in the republic of Sparta, theft, instead of being execrated as a crime, was dignified into an art and an accomplishment, and on that footing admitted into the system of their youthful education, it was not because of its infringement on the rights of property, but notwithstanding that infringement, and only because a local patriotism made head against the universal principle and prevailed over it. Apart from such disturbing

forces as these, it will be found that the sentiments of men. gravitate towards one and the same standard, all over the globe; and that when the obscurations of superstition and selfishness are dissipated, there will be found the same moral light in every mind, a recognition of the same moral law, as the immutable and eternal code of righteousness for all countries and ages."

All this is perfectly applicable to the Christian conscience extending its vision to other points besides the fundamental principles of morality. There is but one set of moral sentiments all the world over in the Christian heart, which the conscience, alive to all its obligations, everywhere sanctions and requires. It is love of the brethren; recognition of them as Christians; and that too in all the ways that are practicable. It is giving all who are sanctified by the same Spirit, the right hand of fellowship, as heirs of the same inheritance, and partakers of the same faith and the same privileges. Now close communion is not practised because of its exclusiveness, nor because of its forbidding its subjects to do these Christian acts just mentioned, any more than human sacrifices are offered because of their cruelty; but because of some other things; and notwithstanding its exclusiveness, its unamiableness, and its contrariety to the expression of Christian love and fellowship. There is something superinduced, something forced upon the Christian conscience, contrary to its unbiassed dictates, in order to quiet the mind in close communion. Missionaries in heathen lands, surrounded by the abominations of idolatry, and having no pressure upon them for the support of theories or sectarianism, feel the influence of this universal Christian conscience with few, if any, "disturbing forces." When the second band of missionaries whom the American Board sent to India arrived in that country, they were uncertain for a while where their place of destination would be. In the mean time they abode with a Baptist missionary from England who had been laboring for many years, and had not seen the face of an English or American Christian. He received them with open arms, invited them to preach, and extended to them all the hospitality within his power. By and by a communion season came. Our missionaries, not wishing to set their Baptist brother on the defensive by entering into an argument, merely tried the force of an appeal to his conscience. They went into the church in a body and seated themselves in a remote part of the house, by which it was known that they did not expect to commune. The native converts, never having heard of close communion, were astounded.

"What!" said they, "these Christian ministers whom we have been taught to love and recognize as Christians, retire from the Lord's table!" The Baptist missionary kept weeping all the while he was administering the elements to the people, but said nothing. As he came out of the house, he advanced to our missionaries, and taking them by the hand, gave vent to his feelings in a flood of tears. And in the midst of uncontrollable sobs he exclaimed, "Brethren, I do not believe the Lord ever meant to try his people so." "No," said the missionaries, "it is a trial of your own making." "Well," said he, "I will go home and think of it." The result was, that he renounced close communion, and afterwards sat down in consistency with his Christian conscience at the table of the Lord with his brethren. And so kind was he, that though he retained his other Baptist sentiments, he allowed the American missionaries to baptize one of their infants in his own chapel. These facts we obtained in conversation from the Rev. Mr. Bardwell, who was one of the above mentioned band of missionaries, but who now resides in Massachusetts, having been obliged to relinquish the missionary work by ill health.

It is a remarkable fact that when a man first bows himself at the foot of the cross, there is always an ingenuousness in the heart which revolts at close communion. The conscience is then peculiarly tender and unperverted. It speaks out in its natural voice, having had no time to be influenced by those "disturbing forces" which turn it aside. It is one of the greatest difficulties which our Baptist brethren have to encounter, to persuade a new convert to be satisfied with close communion. If they can, they cover it up until the convert is received into the church. And it is a fact which is too notorious to dispute, that many unite with Baptist churches without even suspecting that that act will debar them from communion at the Lord's Supper with all other disciples of Christ. The only way to meet this difficulty so universal in the Christian conscience, before it is biassed, is to forestall objections to close communion by filling the mind with baptism. They create the impression on minds uninformed as yet on the subject, that others who differ from them are governed only by traditional evidence, and not by the Scriptures; that Infant Baptism is a relic of Popery; that infants can receive no benefit from baptism. They carefully call Infant Baptism infant sprinkling, by which they would cast a sort of dishonorable stigma upon it. Now it is easy to see that this method of treating the subject, which cannot be denied to be extremely common, if not universal, is calculated to raise a great prejudice in the mind of a man who has not yet ex