Concerning the question of communion with unimmersed persons, the following was published in the Harbinger for 1861, page 711, et seq.:

MUIR, Mich., Aug. 20, 1861.      

      DEAR BRO. HAWLEY:--Yours of the 15th is to hand, and deserves a much more complete reply than I at present can give it. It is a hurrying time, and I can only take a few minutes to answer your inquiries. As to the admission of unimmersed persons to, the Lord's table, our view is,

      1. That in primitive times there is no doubt that all who came to the Lord's table, as well as all who participated in prayer, singing, etc., were immersed believers: and we are trying to bring back that state of things.

      2. But the corruptions of Popery, out of which the church has not yet half recovered, have made the people of God an erring, scattered and divided people.

      3. We are pleading for further reformation; our plea proceeds on the integrity of previous pleas--it is a plea for the reunion of the scattered people of God. It does not recognize sects, on human bases, as divine; but it recognizes a people of God among these sects, and seeks to call them out.

      4. We are compelled, therefore, to recognize as Christians many who have been in error on baptism, but who in the spirit of obedience are Christians indeed. (See Rom. ii. 28, 29.) I confess, for my own part, did I understand the position of the brethren to deny this, I would recoil from my position among them with utter disgust. It will [239] never do to unchristianize those on whose shoulders we are standing, and because of whose previous labors we are enabled to see some truths more clearly than they. Yet, while fully according to them the piety and Christian standing which they deserve, it is clear that they are in great error on the question of baptism--and we must be careful not to compromise the truth. Our practice, therefore, is neither to invite nor reject particular classes of persons, but to spread the table in the name of the Lord, for the Lord's people, and allow all to come who will, each on his own responsibility. It is very common for Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., to sit down with us. We do not fail to teach them on all these questions, and very often we immerse them.

      As to our practice generally, my impression is, that fully two-thirds of our churches in the United States occupy this position; those churches which originally were Baptist, are rather more unyielding.

      For myself, while fully devoted to our plea, I have no wish to limit and fetter my sympathies and affections to our own people.

	Truly your Bro.,
ISAAC ERRETT.

HARRODSBURG, Ky., Sept. 29, 1861.      

      DEAR BRO. HAWLEY:--Yours of the 19th inst. is received. I regret to hear that any discussion should have arisen among the brethren in Detroit in regard to the question of open or close communion. Upon the position which we take there is really no ground for discussion whatever. The discussions in the time of Robt. Hall and since, have been upon the question of the recognition of unimmersed persons as Christians, and "open communion" is urged upon the ground that the members of the different churches are Christians, and therefore entitled to intercommunion, and to be invited accordingly. This question is here supposed to be discussed and determined by immersed believers in favor of all others. Our position is quite different; we neither discuss nor determine this question. We simply leave it to each individual to determine for himself. It is really, as the brethren you refer to say, an "untaught question." It could not rise anterior to the apostacy. It is one, therefore, which we cannot Scripturally either discuss or decide.

      These brethren, however, act very inconsistently, when, after declaring it an "untaught question," they then proceed to discuss it, or what is still worse, to determine it without discussion, against all but immersed believers. If they would reflect a moment, they might see that on their own premises, if it is an untaught question, they can have no right to decide it against those concerned. And further, that in so deciding, they presume to decide two questions, 1st, that no unimmersed persons are Christians; 2d, that all immersed persons are Christians--neither of which propositions can be proved. The Scripture says, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat." Our course is precisely in the spirit of this injunction, and we very properly forbear to decide the question either way, and consequently neither invite nor prohibit. The Scotch Baptists are especially rigid in regard to this matter, and I do not wonder that their inflexibility has affected the churches in England and in Canada. They are, however, generally pious and faithful brethren, and great forbearance is to be exercised in such cases. A mild and gentle course generally succeeds in weakening the spirit of dogmatism and spiritual pride, [240] if it can be associated with an earnest and intelligent exhibition of the truth. I have no idea that on such a question any church should be contentious, much less allow itself to be divided.

      I think with you that some articles in reference to the spirit in which all such matters are to be disposed of, would be useful; and when I read labored essays intended to build up exclusivism and Pharisaism amongst us, I often wish I had time to expose their sophistries, but I am too much occupied with my labors in the University here, and in the church, to write much at present.

	With Christian regards, yours truly,
R. RICHARDSON.

      We take pleasure in laying the foregoing correspondence before our readers. Whilst we cannot say the subject is one likely to develop any very serious controversy among our brethren, yet for the sake of unanimity, we are gratified to have the clear and explicit declarations of such commanding and experienced minds as those of our correspondents above. We have ever most cordially approved the general, I may say almost universal, custom of our churches, in disclaiming all authority to exclude from the Lord's supper any who, by their walk and conversation, and in their own hearts, approve themselves as the Lord's people. We have never known any evil to result from the practice, but on the contrary, much goad. Such is the influence of passion and prejudice upon the actions and opinions of men, that it is next to impossible to influence any one for goad whilst we treat him with distance and distrust. To plead for union, and at the same time exclude the really pious from the communion of the body and blood of the Saviour, is, in the very nature of thing's, to destroy the practical power of our plea.

      It is important to keep clearly and always before the mind the great principle of our movement in reformation. We must remember that we are laboring, not to introduce a totally new church, but to restore the things which are wanting in one already existing; not to overthrow what is good, but to teach the way of the Lord more perfectly. Error as to ordinances may exist where there is genuine faith. Error is always injurious, but not necessarily fatal. In some points we do all offend--and in humility let us forbear. To restore the erring in the spirit of meekness, is the part of a true Christian charity. The transition from systems of error to the prescribed order of revelation, must be gradual. The introduction of the new economy by our Saviour was a work of long preparation, and by methods of great forbearance and prudence. The prayer and alms of Cornelius were acceptable to God, and he was honored by special and very convincing evidences of the Saviour's confidence and respect, in order to lead him to a fuller knowledge and reception of the new revelations concerning his [241] kingdom. He was treated as a member, while yet ignorant of its regulations. He was a disciple in heart, through faith and the spirit of obedience, while yet without the outward forms of recognition.

      If Peter had been left to his Jewish prejudices and exclusivism, he would doubtless have refused to admit Cornelius to baptism. It was the overwhelming evidence of his reception by God, that compelled the apostle to say, Who shall forbid that he shall be baptized? So ought it to be with us. Can we deny that God has recognized and is still recognizing the truly pious and full of faith and good works in the many divisions of professed Christians, as really and truly his people! Will any one take the absurd position that the noble list of illustrious men who have been the light and ornament of religion in the ages that are past, and whose piety and learning are still the admiration and glory of the Lord's people--that all these, because of an error, not on the significancy or divine authority of baptism, but what we must be allowed to call its mode,--that all these, because of such an error, must be pushed from our ranks as reprobate--torn from our Christian affections, as heretics--thrust from the communion of the body and blood of the Saviour, whom for a long life they so truly loved and devotedly served, and counted no more worthy of our Christian fellowship than so many heathens and publicans! The conclusion is too monstrous for any but the hide-bound zealot of a cold and lifeless formalism. I should feel that I had injured the Christianity which I profess and which I love, could I recall that even for a moment I had allowed my head so to interpret its pleading mercy, or my heart so to restrict its wide-embracing charity.

W. K. P.      

      The American Christian Review said, Harbinger, 1862, page 120:

      We copy the foregoing from the Millennial Harbinger, and lay it before our readers in full, that they may have a fair opportunity to consider the whole matter. While we do not desire any controversy, or the slightest unpleasantness with any of the noble brethren who have spoken in this matter, we cannot say that we are fully satisfied with the spirit, shape, and tendency of these articles. We, therefore, proceed to submit the following remarks:

      1. The heading generally contains the subject of the article that follows it; and where it does not, it is most likely to be taken in that light. The heading, as the reader will notice, is, "Communion with the Sects." The first article speaks of "Intercommunion with the Sects." Now, if the question be whether Christians may commune with the "sects," we say most distinctly that they may not. A "sect," in the Bible sense, is a heresy; and "sects," and heresies,and Christians, can have no fellowship for, much less communion with, "sects" or heresies.

      2. There are individuals among the "sects," who are not sectarians, or who are more than sectarians--they are Christians; or persons who have believed the gospel, submitted to it, and, in spite of the leaders, been constituted Christians according to the Scriptures. That these [242] individuals have a right to commune, there can be no doubt. But this is not communion with the "sects."

      3. Where is the use of parleying over the question of communing with unimmersed persons? Did the first Christians commune with unimmersed persons? It is admitted they did not. Shall we, then, deliberately do what we admit they did not do?

      4. When an unimmersed person communes, without any inviting or excluding, it is his own act, not ours, and we are not responsible for it. We do not see that any harm is done to him or us, and we need no exclusive remarks to keep him away, and we certainly have no authority for inviting him to come.

      5. If it is to be maintained, that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"--that "as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," as we have it in the Scriptures, and that none were in the church, or recognized as Christians, in the apostolic times, who were not immersed, it is useless for us to be talking about unimmersed Christians, and thus weakening the hands of those who are laboring to induce all to enter the kingdom of God according to the Scriptures.

      6. We have nothing to do with any open communion or close communion.--The communion is for the Lord's people, and nobody else. But if some imagine themselves to have become Christians, according to the Scriptures, when they have not, and commune, as we said before, that is their act, not ours. We commune with the Lord and his people, and certainly not, in spirit, with any not his people, whether immersed or unimmersed. We take no responsibility in the matter, for we neither invite nor exclude.

      7. But if these good brethren, on the ground of the supposed piety or Christianity of unimmersed persons, open the way and invite them to come, or reason them into the belief that they are proper communicants, they involve themselves in a responsibility that we are not willing to take, and, at the same time, by palliating their consciences, and relieving their feelings, may be the means of preventing them from ever taking the proper steps to enter into the kingdom according to the Scriptures.

[GEORGE W. ELLEY.]      

      Isaac Errett replies in Harbinger, 1862, page 122 [sic], et seq.:

      Our thanks are due to our Bro. Elley, for his manly utterance of sentiment touching the articles in the December number of the Harbinger on the question of communion; and also to Bro. Franklin, who, while not desiring discussion, has seen fit to enter a caveat; and sound a note of alarm in the camp. We cannot help thinking, however, that these brethren would have done better had they taken a little more time for reconnoissance, and better understood the position they assail--for they certainly are mistaken as to that position. And although our valorous Bro. Elley, in true knightly style, throws down the gauntlet with a somewhat elegant air, and boldly proclaims, while putting on his armor, that "no man living can justify the position of Bros. Errett and Richardson," we should not be surprised if, ere the tilt is over, he will ask his questions and make his affirmations with a less triumphant air. [243]

      First of all, let us remove erroneous impressions.

      Bro. Elley speaks of the correspondence as "upon the subject of communion with unbaptized persons among the sects, or with the sects as such." And the Review says, "If the question be whether Christians may commune with the sects, we most distinctly say that they may not."

      Now if the intention is to criticize the heading of Bro. Hawley's letter, we are quite sure that Bro. Hawley is capable of explaining himself. But in criticizing, as Bro. Elley does, the replies to Bro. Hawley, we are surprised that he should be led into such an error. Our plea does not recognize sects as divine, but it recognizes a people of God among these seats and it seeks to call them out.

      He tries to make us say what we certainly did not say. "All are permitted to come" does not mean unregenerate and regenerate, and would so make us affirm that horse-thieves, pirates, rebels, traitors, and the worst of the lawless, have an equal liberty with the pious and faithful, to come to the Lord's table! There is precisely the amount of fairness in this, that there is in the Universalian construction of the same little word in many passages of Scripture; and if my good brother knows how to dispose of them, he knows just how I would dispose of him! Now I do not doubt his honesty, nor dismiss him from my fellowship for this: and yet I am sure that he had as little reason to misunderstand me, as pious Pedobaptists have to misunderstand the language of the apostolic commission. When the Spirit and the Bride say, "Whosoever will, let him come," does it inspire Bro. Elley with fear that the world will empty all its error and wickedness into the church? Yet this is the language of urgent invitation. What occasion has he, then, for fear, that there is no invitation--where the table is spread in the name of the Lord, "for the Lord's people," and the simple liberty given to all who know themselves to be the Lord's, to come from the various parties in which they are scattered, and sit down together, every one on his own responsibility: what reason, we ask, for fear, that the liberty will be used as a cloak of maliciousness? And if, in abuse of this privilege, an unbaptized, unregenerate person should, now and then, sin against the occasion, by sitting down at the Lord's feast;--should that be a much sorer affliction to a Christian than to know--what he cannot help knowing--that baptized unregenerate persons are often found there?!

      Once more: Bro. Elley says, "We urge fellowship or communion with all such as are entitled to membership in the house of God, and none others," thereby intimating that those whom he criticizes urge communion with those who are not members of the house of God.--We shall have something to say about this position hereafter. At [244] present, we note it merely as indicating a mistaken view of our position. The Review also says, "If these good brethren, on the ground of the supposed piety or Christianity of unimmersed persons, open the way and invite them to come, or reason them into the belief that they are proper communicants," etc. Now we say nothing here about the uncharitable squint belonging to the phrase "supposed piety"--as if there were any more reason to doubt the piety of millions of Protestants out of our communion than our own;--but we quote it to show the mistaken apprehension of our remarks. That the scarecrow is in the imagination of these brethren, will be evident as soon as we quote the language of the letters published in the December No. of the Harbinger. Our own letter says, "Our practice, therefore, is, neither to invite nor reject particular classes of persons," etc. The sentence was italicized in the letter, just as it is here. Dr. Richardson says, "We neither invite nor prohibit." Yet, in the very face of these explicit statements, Bro. Franklin says, "If these brethren invite them to come;"--and Bro. Elley intimates that we urge communion with unbaptized persons. We have no thought of impeaching the candor of the brethren in their mistaken utterances; but we cannot help saying that if we had no more charity for them in their blunders, than they seem to have for pious Pedobaptists in blunders not more gross; if we would allow a certain narrow kind of logic to get the better of our hearts, they would soon be to us as "heathen men and publicans."

      Having said enough, perhaps, to redeem the controversy from false issues, we proceed to remark, that there seems to us to be a mistake underlying the whole extent of criticism and argumentation occupied by these brethren. They are discussing the question of communion as between the church and the world. Bro. Elley's questions would be pertinent in such a controversy; but this is a question arising out of the apostasy, and relates to parties not known in the Scriptures. It relates to a condition of things known only in prophecy, in the Scriptures--in which the people of God should he found scattered, bewildered, and erring, but still fearing Gad and working righteousness; loving Christ, and as far as known to them, earnestly and joyfully walking in His ways. There are myriads of godly people, who are in error on baptism, of whom, nevertheless, we are compelled to say, "They are not of the world." To urge against these a strict and literal application of passages which were meant to mark the distinction between the church and the world, and thus to attempt to thrust them out from our Christian love, among heathens and reprobates, is, in our view, a grievous wrong. As it is a question growing out of the times--a question not directly known in form in the Scriptures, it must be settled in the light of well-established Christian principles, [245] and not by a severely literal construction of Scripture language, spoken with reference to other classes of persons, and another condition of things.

      But, although in one sense an untaught question, it is not without importance. We are aware of the sensitiveness of many excellent brethren, when we talk of the denominations; and although the Saviour did not scruple to commend Gentile faith, and even help up the children of this world as models for the children of light, these brethren sound an alarm as soon as any one speaks a kindly word of commendation in behalf of surrounding religious parties. But are not these parties in existence? Do we not often come in contact with them? Must we not necessarily sustain some position toward them? And are there not facts and principles in the Bible which can be fairly applied to the existing condition of things, and out of which we may elaborate conclusions safe and certain? "The perfect law of liberty" which governs us, has often to be asked to shed its light thus on questions of duty, as they arise amidst the confusions and revolutions of earthly things; not in stern utterances of command, not in precise logical syllogisms, but in the more genial enunciation of eternal principles;--not in the nakedness of the letter, but in the richer, and deeper, and wider scope of the spirit of Bible teachings.

      But these brethren insist that if the Bible knows nothing of these parties, we should know nothing of them. They triumphantly ask, "Did the first Christians commune with unimmersed persons? It is admitted they did not. Shall we, then, deliberately do what we admit they did not do?"

      We answer, Not too fast, brethren; lest in your eagerness to escape from one difficulty, you plunge into a score of troubles deeper still. We, too, will ask questions; and we flatter ourselves we shall assist these worthy brethren to see that this is not dealing fairly with a question not known in primitive times.

      1. Can any person be a Christian who is not "in Christ," or who has not put him on?

      2. If not, can any one put him on who has not been baptized "into him"?

      3. Can any one be freed from sin who has not obeyed the form of doctrine delivered to him by the Holy Spirit? If not, can he be right. fully allowed to sing, and pray, and give money, by the action of God's church?

      4. Can an unsaved and unpardoned person be allowed to sing and pray, and contribute money, by church consent?

      5. Is baptism demanded of penitents, in order to pardon or sonship? Do not the prayers and praises and contributions, and the [246] Christian sympathies and friendships of God's house, belong to the children? And shall we take the children's bread and give it to the dogs?

      6. Did the first Christians show Christian love to unimmersed persons? And shall we deliberately do what we admit they did not do?

      7. Did the first Christians receive money from unimmersed persons? Did they ask unimmersed persons to sing, or pray, or give thanks? Did they, in any sense, recognize as Christians the unimmersed?

      We trust our brethren are not about to plant themselves on that position of ineffable diminutiveness occupied by the Regular Baptists--that baptism is a mere prerequisite to church membership and communion, while every other Christian rite and act of fellowship may be freely shared with the unbaptized. Although, in Bro. Hawley's letter, the question took the form of communion in the bread and wine, it is essentially a question whether we shall have any religious fellowship whatever with unimmersed persons. The reply to this question must admit some additional Bible principles beyond what the Review or Bro. Elley seem to have in their horizon.

      But we are not done with our catechizing. We want these brethren to see that they themselves step outside the strict construction of gospel conditions, the moment they begin to decide on our relations to any of the religious bodies around us; nay, they have already done so, and are condemned by the things which they allow. Let us ask:

      1. Do the Scriptures recognize any as Christians, or accept any to baptism, on the narration of a religious experience?

      2. Do they admit any to baptism who come with the avowal that their sins have already been pardoned?

      3. Do they recognize admission to church membership by subscription to human articles of faith?

      4. Does the gospel recognize any baptism but that "for the remission of sins"?

      5. Did any come to the Lord's table in primitive times who had,, not been baptized for the remission of sins?

      6. Did the apostles or first Christians invite to the Lord's table "all immersed persons who have piety"? Did they have fellowship with immersed persons, not members of the Christian church? Did they receive persons to membership who had been immersed by unimmersed persons?

      7. And shall we deliberately do what we admit they did not do?

      "When Bros. (Elley and Franklin) shall have Scripturally answered the above questions, then will they have, in my judgment, forever damaged their plea for a mixed communion"! As it is the Lord's [247] table, and not Bro. Elley's, we warn him to be careful how he allows his "feelings" for his old Baptist brethren to override Scripture teachings--for he surely knows that the apostles never invited any members of Baptist churches to the Lord's table! Are not sects pronounced carnal? Why "open wide the door" for those who patronize carnality, to corrupt the church, and to compromise our plea, and thus "weaken the hands of those who are laboring to induce all to enter the kingdom according to the Scriptures"! Yet Bro. Elley approves of "fellowship with all the pious people among our neighbor parties who have been immersed upon their faith;" and speaks of it as "communion with that class of God's children who, are improperly associated." Will he please give us the Scripture which approves of persons immersed by Baptist and Methodist preachers, and who hold membership in Baptist and Methodist churches;--who were not baptized for the remission of sins, and who do not walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blamelessly;--who are governed by human laws, and constantly sanction and support by their presence, their prayers and their money, un-Christian and anti-Christian practices:--I say, will he please give us the Scripture for inviting such persons to the Lord's table, merely because they have been immersed?

      We will not say, in Bro. Elley's language, that "no man living can justify his position"--for that has a swaggering air which accords not with our taste; but we will say, in the apostle's language, "Happy is he who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

      The Review says, "There are individuals among the sects who are not sectarians, or who are more than sectarians--they are Christians;" and he argues that these have a right to commune. Will the Review give us the Scripture for that? "Did the first Christians commune" with immersed persons "from the sects"? If not, "shall we deliberately do what it is admitted they did not do?"

      It has now become a question, growing out of the peculiar logic employed by these brethren, whether we shall have any religious fellowship whatever with any outside of our own churches? Whether we shall not outvie the Old Landmark Baptists themselves in exclusiveness, and make ourselves ridiculous before the whole religious world by the monstrous extravagance of our assumptions?

      It will, we think, be apparent by this time, that to attempt to settle this question in the light of conditions which were submitted when no question like this was in controversy, is unfair; and that, if insisted on, it will bear equally against the position of Bro. Elley and Franklin, and authorize a voice of alarm to be raised against them as "weakening the hands of those who are laboring to induce all to enter the kingdom of God according to the Scriptures," and as [248] "breaking down all the landmarks separating Christ's from human kingdoms."

      Let us see, now, if there is not a better way of approaching this question, and disposing of the difficulty before us. We view it in the light of Scripture and of history.

      The saints were carried captive into Babylon, and remained there a long time. The church lost her primitive purity and excellency. The truth was in chains. Yet God had a people in Babylon--for when the time came for reformation, the proclamation was to be, "Come out of her, MY PEOPLE," etc. (Rev. xviii. 4). Now our good brethren may be able to prove to their own satisfaction that all these people of God in Babylon were immersed believers; and they may point, here and there, to bands of religionists, who kept up a protest against the corruptions of Rome. But it strikes us that a people could not come out of Babylon who were not in Babylon; and immersed believers, walking in the light, would have been hard to find within Babylon's limits! But there was a people of God in Babylon. We incline to the opinion that most of them were unimmersed. They were in many respects an erring people--in regard to baptism they certainly were in great error; but they "feared God and wrought righteousness;" and--what seems as great a stumbling-block to many good men now as it was to Peter until the trammels of sectarianism were knocked off--"in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." At one and another trumpet call of reformation, multitudes came forth from Babylon. They did not reach Jerusalem. But they wrought great deeds for God and for his word. They talked much and suffered much for the name of Christ. We inherit the blessed fruits of their labors. We follow them through the scenes of their superhuman toil, to the dungeons where they suffered, and to the stakes where they won the glories of martyrdom, and whence they ascended in chariots of fire to the heavens; and as we embrace the chains they wore, and take up the ashes from the altar-fires of spiritual freedom, we ask not whether these lofty heroes of the church militant, to whom we owe our heritage of spiritual freedom, may commune with us--but rather, if we are at all worthy to commune with them! We feel honored in being permitted to call them brethren. Our reformation movement is the legitimate offspring of theirs. Neither in Pennsylvania, where the Campbells and Scott began, nor in Kentucky, where Stone and others led the van of reformation, did this movement spring from Baptist, but from Pedobaptist influences. It is the legitimate result of Pedobaptist learning, piety and devotion. Unless we can recognize a people of God among these heroical, struggling, sacrificing hosts of Protestants, from whom we have legitimately sprung, then the promise of Christ in regard to his church has failed:-- [249] since, if we insist on the rigid test of the letter of gospel conditions, no such people as the Disciples can be found for many centuries. But of this people of God of whom we speak, we affirm that they loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. They loved and magnified his word. They possessed his Spirit--manifesting it in very precious fruits of righteousness and holiness. The spirit of obedience dwelt not less in them than in us. They erred in regard to the letter of baptism, even as it may yet be found that we have erred in regard to the letter of other requirements. We felt the necessity of further reformation. We have seen the mischievous and wicked tendencies of the sect-spirit and life. We have eschewed it. We invite all who love the Saviour to a Scriptural basis of union. We do not, meanwhile, deny nor refuse their prayers, their songs, their exhortations, nor their sympathy with truth and goodness. Whilst we can not endorse their position nor their practice, as lacking immersion, and as practising infant rantism, but lift up a loud and constant voice against it--we must still deal with them as Christians in error, and seek to right them. To ignore their faith and obedience, and to deal with them as heathen men and publicans, will be indeed to "weaken the hands" of the pleaders for reformation, and expose ourselves, by a judgment of extreme narrowness and harshness, to the pity, if not the scorn, of good men everywhere.

      Now it seems to us that if the Bible bears on such a case as we have presented, it must be in a class of passages very different from that to which Bro. Elley refers. The question is not, Can an unbelieving, impenitent, unbaptized person be recognized as a Christian? or, Can a believer who refuses baptism be thus recognized? But, must a believer in Christ, who, in the spirit of obedience is seeking faithfully to serve him, be rejected from fellowship and from Christian recognition, because of an error in regard to the letter of baptism? We understand Bro. Elley to say, yea, reject him; tell him he is without Christ and without hope; that he has no more right than a Turk or a Jew to our Christian fellowship; that as a "gentleman, a neighbor, or a friend," we will recognize him, but no farther. And could not Bro. Elley say as much as this for infidels, Jews, spiritualists and Pagans?! Does he not shut out the whole Pedobaptist community with the common multitude of unbelieving men, merely to be recognized as "gentlemen, neighbors, and friends"? And has it come to this, that the Wickliffes, Luthers, Melancthons, Calvins, Knoxes, Wesleys, and Latimers; the Edwardses, Whitfields, Taylors, Chalmerses, and Melvilles; the Wilberforces, Howards, and Oberlins; the Martyns, Elliotts, and Brainerds; the Tholucks, Bengels, Henrys, and Clarkes; the glorious, heroic and immortal spirits, "of whom the world was not worthy,"--of many [250] of whom we might almost say in the language of Paul, that they "through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens";--and of whom, as reformers, we might add, "these all having a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having reserved some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect"; has it, we ask, come to this, that such as these, in whose presence many of us are dwarfed almost to nothingness, must hear our feeble and unworthy lips saying unto them, "Stand by thyself; come not near to me; for I am holier than thou"? Are these lofty sons of faith, or their associates in faith and piety, to be utterly thrust out from our Christian love, from fraternal greetings, from Christian recognition, and to be refused the children's bread, when they approach In humble faith to receive it; and must they be told that we will recognize them just as we would any well-behaved infidels, Turks, or Pagans, who might chance to live in our midst--"as gentlemen, friends and neighbors"? We have only to say, that we have not so learned Christ.

      To our mind, there are three items of Bible teaching which seem equally clear and indisputable.

      1. That where a spirit of unbelief and disobedience shows itself, even in the rejection of the least commandment, there the disapprobation and curse of God will rest. Adam and Eve in the garden, Cain at the altar, the sons of Aaron with strange fire, and Saul in his dealings with Amalek, are clear instances of this. In the light of such awful facts, we dare not make it a light thing to disobey God.

      2. That a mere compliance with the letter of a commandment, while the spirit of it is rejected, cannot be pleasing to God. Such was Balaam's case. In the light of such facts, to invite all immersed persons to the Lord's table, and make welcome there, as Christians, many unworthy persons, merely because they have complied with the letter of the law of baptism, is to take a fearful responsibility.

      3. That where the spirit of faith and obedience is found, a person is accepted with God, even when failing to obey positive commands, because it was in his heart to disobey.

      As this has the most immediate bearing on the matter now in controversy, we will be at pains to establish it.

      a. "Now circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou practice law; but if thou be a transgressor of law, thy circumcision hath become uncircumcision. And if the uncircumcision keep the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And will not the uncircumcision which by nature fulfilleth the law, judge thee, a [251] transgressor of law, though a Jew by the literal circumcision? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter of the law. Of this man the praise is not from men, but from God" (Rom. ii. 25-29, Macknight's Translation).

      Here Paul decides persons to be Jews who had never been circumcised. Bro. Franklin says, "Why talk of unimmersed Christians?" We answer, for the same reason that Paul talks of uncircumcised Jews.

      And for the same reason that Paul asks their uncircumcision shall be counted circumcision, we say, if the unimmersed keep the precepts of Christ, shall not their unimmersion be counted immersion? Bro. Pendleton admonishes Bro. Elley that there is a logic of the heart, as well as of the head. Most truly and worthily uttered. But we wish to say to our good Bro. Elley, that we do not fear his head logic in the least. We believe Paul is capable of reconciling head and heart logic, so that the judgment will as surely approve, as the heart will love, his conclusions.

      b. The covenant of circumcision was strictly binding; the law of baptism is not uttered in language more imperative than the law of circumcision--"The uncircumcised man child shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Yet, in millions of instances, the letter of this law was violated without the visitation of the penalty. See Josh. v. 1-9.

      c. The Passover was kept "otherwise than it was written," without forfeiting the approbation of God. See 2d Chron. xxx. 1-20. It was kept in the second month instead of the first. And "a multitude of people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the Passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people."

      d. Not to multiply instances from the Old Testament, we observe that the Saviour also overstepped the letter of his mission, to satisfy the spirit of it. He did so in healing sickness and in plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath day; and in extending religious recognition to Gentiles and Samaritans, although he declares he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

      Here we pause for the present. We have other materials in reserve. But these are sufficient now. In the light of these facts and teachings, we feel authorized to affirm that it is not always a sin to approach an [252] ordinance of God without a literal compliance with its antecedents; and that where people "prepare their heart to seek God," an error in regard to the letter of the law does not thrust them out from divine fellowship, and cannot authorize us to drive them from ours.

      We pass by what Bro. Elley says in regard to the uniform practice of our brotherhood, and some other minor matters, until another time. One or two items more, however, we will briefly notice in closing up this article.

      Bro. Elley says, "If A asks church membership at our hands, as a Pedobaptist, without immersion, we say no; but if he only demands the children's bread, we say yes. Where is our consistency in this matter? I am unable to see it."

      The allusion of Bro. Elley is unfortunate for his cause. For Jesus took the children's bread and gave it to a Gentile believer. But would he have admitted her to the Jewish institution? Our good brother may say, "I am unable to see the consistency of Christ." We reply, we cannot help it. It is to our mind much more likely that even so good a man as Bro. Elley has a jaundiced vision, than that our blessed Saviour was inconsistent.

      Bro. Franklin counsels us not to weaken the hands of those who are laboring to restore primitive Christianity, by too wide a stretch of Christian charity. We thank him for his counsel. We are not aware that the brethren to whom he tenders this advice have shown less integrity, zeal or efficiency than himself, in this plea for reformation: but we all need counsel, and for our own part we receive it with thankfulness. In return, we trust Bro. F. will allow us to counsel him not to damage this great plea for Christian union by a spirit of exclusiveness which will only allow of "supposed piety and Christianity" in neighboring denominations, which refuses to recognize as Christians all the unimmersed, and claims for ourselves to be Christians par excellence, because of a bit of accuracy on the question of baptism;--lest it should place us in a position so ridiculous or so odious, as to close the avenues of approach to multitudes of godly people--our equals in faith, our superiors in piety and humanity--whom we wish to enlighten on the evils of sectarianism. A denominationalism more intense and more intolerant it would be difficult to conceive, than that in which we must land, if this kind of argument is to prevail among us. We are not yet prepared to repudiate Bro. Campbell's defense of Protestantism, nor ignore the noble plea of the leaders of this movement, for the "union of Christians on Christian principles."

I. E.      

      On page 256, 1862, Isaac Errett continues the subject:

      We have attentively considered all that has come under our eye, from our brethren, in opposition to the statements of our letter in the [253] Harbinger for December, 1861, as well as all that has been said in review of our defense in the March number of the current volume. Having no personal ends to accomplish, we have sought in the fear of God to weigh candidly every objection. We are constrained to say that we find ourselves not only unmoved, but really more firmly established in the position we have always occupied, as expressed in the letter referred to. We cannot make a formal reply to all, and will not therefore to any. Bro. Franklin may expect it, and the size of his recent review might seem to demand it; but there is really very little argument in it. Indeed, we have seldom seen so many inconsistencies in the same number of articles, as we find in those of the Review on this question of communion. He makes merry over a question which, for a special purpose, we copied verbatim from Bro. Elley, and in his eagerness to snatch at something to our discredit, raises a laugh against his own side of the house! He condemns all the writers on this question in the Harbinger for December, as "shrinking from our principles, yielding to popular feeling and a pseudo-philosophy; mistaken, sophistical and sickly charity." See Review of March 25. Yet, in his paper of April 8th, he publishes Dr. Richardson's vindication of his position, in which he reaffirms the position taken in his letter, and "fully vindicates all he had said on the subject;" yet Bro. F. calls it "a very excellent article," and approves both the letter and the spirit of it! While approving Dr. R.'s second letter, in which he still insists that there are unimmersed Christians, and leaves his charges of Phariseeism and exclusivism still standing; he belabors the co-editors of the Harbinger for expressing the same opinion, and challenges them to prove it! When Bro. King gives assurance that he speaks the mind of the churches in England, and declares that they "refuse fellowship" to the unimmersed--that they repudiate unanimously the position stated in Dr. Richardson's letter, and our own, of neither inviting nor prohibiting the unimmersed; the Review assures him that he has been "misled" by the letters in the Harbinger, and that "there will be found, when the matter is considered, no difference between the brethren on this side and the other side of the Atlantic." Yet when Dr. R. stoutly reaffirms the practice of the churches in his country, and expresses surprise that any one should have doubted the correctness of his former statements;--lo! the Review approves this too--the letter and the spirit of it--and gives in his adhesion to "Informal Communion"! After publishing Bro. King's letter in favor of refusing fellowship, and assuring him that there is "no difference" between them, he says, in his recent review, "the argument is not about excluding them (the Pedobaptists) from the communion." "We have nothing to do with excluding them--where is your authority for receiving them?" And [254] in the Review of January 21st, speaking of an unimmersed person communing, he says, "We do not see any harm that is done to him or us, and we need no exclusive remarks to keep him away, and we certainly have no authority to invite him to come." In his paper of April 22d, in felicitous allusion to pugilistic scenes, he speaks of our being "pressed to the wall," and represents certain concessions as extorted from us, in explanation of our first letter; and yet, in the Review of March 25th, before he had seen one word from us in defense of the original letters, he admitted that our letters had been misinterpreted, and volunteered to give the same explanations which he now intimates were extorted under our overwhelming dread of his theological prowess! After stating the position of the co-editors of the Harbinger to suit himself, he asks, "Where is your Scripture authority for the practice you set out to justify? Are you not as conscious as you live [will some philosopher explain to us how conscious that is?!] that you have none? that you are trying to induce the brethren to acknowledge a practice wholly unknown to Scripture?" And then, before he is through with this fanfaronade, he says, "It will be seen that our trouble is not so much with the position of brethren Pendleton and Errett, when defined as we have done it, as with the arguments intended to prove it"!

      These are mere specimens of the contradictions which abound in his papers on the communion question. We confess we are puzzled to know how to reason with a man who, like Dryden's Zimri,

The only matter in which he seems perseveringly consistent, is, the attempt to attach to the co-editors of the Harbinger a suspicion of unsoundness in the faith. This he seems never to forget. We could pursue this line of criticism still farther, but we care not to do so.

      Whilst the Review makes a great show of attack, it is singular that he does not directly assail a single position we have taken. All that seems to us worthy of special notice in this long article, we can dispose of in a few paragraphs:

      I. The first objection to our position is, that the Lord's supper is an ordinance in the church--that baptism is the initiatory ordinance--and that none but the baptized, or immersed, therefore, have a right to an ordinance of the Lord's house.

      Now if this were said to prove that we could recognize none but the immersed as members of the church, we could see some force in it; but as bearing on the question whether we shall refuse the bread and wine to unimmersed persons whose faith and piety are unquestionable, we do not see nor feel its force. We have shown that the question under consideration grows out of the apostasy, and results [255] from the hitherto imperfect efforts at reformation; and have argued that it must be settled, not by passages of Scripture written with another object in view, but in view of general principles, and of the genius and spirit of Christianity. We are sorry to say that we have seen no honest and manly dealing with this argument on the part of our opponents.

      But we have gone farther. We have shown that the brethren who object to our argument, practically admit its force and its truth. To call this out, we propounded a number of questions, some of them copied for a special purpose from Bro. Elley, and part of them our own. And although, as we have said, Bro. F. tries to be witty over one of Bro. E.'s questions, under the idea that he is raising the laugh against us, and answers some of the inquiries very strangely, yet he has affirmed in his answers more than enough for our purpose. He affirms, in his answers as well in a previous paper, that immersion on a religious experience is not Scriptural baptism; that baptism not for the remission of sins is not Scriptural baptism; that baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not Scriptural baptism. Also, that baptism is as much a prerequisite to prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and benevolence, as to the Lord's Supper.

      Yet these brethren will not only not prohibit, but will actually invite and urge persons to come to the Lord's table who were never baptized on the good confession; nor for the remission of sins; nor into the name of the Father, etc.; and that, too, while they belong to sects, and give their influence, time, and money to build up sects. They will ask men to give thanks, and to pray, and to sing, and to give money, who never were immersed at all.

      Nay, more: they will receive into the church persons whose baptism is defective in at least five important particulars; and then charge us with corrupting and perverting the primitive gospel, because we spread the Lord's table for the Lord's people, and do not, object to Pedobaptists of undisputed faith and piety, when on their own responsibility they sit down with us at that feast!

      Now, they tell us, "two wrongs cannot make one right." Do they then admit that they are wrong in all this? We will believe so, when we find them refusing to worship with Pedobaptists in private or in public; refusing to receive into the church all who have not been baptized on a confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God; all who have not been baptized for remission of sins; all who have not been baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; all who have been "baptized into the fellowship of the Baptist church"; all who have been baptized by unbaptized persons. Till then, we must believe they merely admit the wrong to evade the force of our argument. Into this extreme position their peculiar logic crowds them. [256] Let the dogmatism and extravagances of Thomasism teach them to beware!

      We reasoned from the fact that God had a people in Babylon for many centuries, that he must have owned as his people many who had the spirit of obedience, but who failed in the letter of it: and that, unless this were admitted, the church of Christ had failed.

      Our premises were admitted. But, it is replied, "immersion was the universal practice for 1,300 years." Yes: infant immersion was the universal practice for centuries! Is it here they would seek the people of God? "Is Saul also among the prophets?" Is Benjamin also among the Pedobaptists? Or would he seek his people of God among the adults who were occasionally baptized? Then he accepts chrism, putting spittle on the eyes and ears, putting salt in the mouth, and numerous other mummeries and blasphemies of the Mother of Harlots, and exalts this baptism against Protestant sprinkling! Every one who knows anything about it, knows that he cannot make out a case of a people who faithfully kept the letter of the gospel in Babylon. Even if they had been proved to have done so in regard to immersion, they failed in numerous other particulars, which must have equally vitiated their claim, if the ground taken by our brethren is correct, that there can be no obedience to the spirit of the gospel where there is a failure to obey the letter of it. Moreover, it is worthy of note that at the very time when the call began to be effective, "Come out of her, my people," immersion had ceased to be the practice, and in Catholic and Protestant Christendom, sprinkling had largely taken its place. Our argument remains unanswered.

      We reasoned, also, from various significant facts in Old and New Testaments, that "it is not always a sin to approach an ordinance of God without a compliance with its antecedents;" and that where people "prepare their hearts to seek God," and there is reason to believe that they are not cast out from divine fellowship, we have no right to thrust them out from ours. That these facts were legitimately used by us, is now evident from the fact that different brethren have attempted to reason from the positive nature of the law of circumcision to the positive nature of the law of baptism. The facts we have arrayed perfectly annihilate their reasonings. There has been no answer to our argument from these facts. Our brethren generally reason forcibly from Old Testament facts as to the danger of neglecting the positive appointments of God; but there is another class of facts, which they have strangely overlooked, showing that the most positive of external forms have frequently yielded their claims, and the spirit of obedience has been accepted instead. I do not wonder that Bro. Franklin says, he did not expect to meet such arguments. He does not understand them. He has something yet to learn As an honest man, he would never [257] have charged us with torturing the word of God, had he at all understood the facts which we arrayed, and the use we made of them.

      We admit that the cases we referred to are anomalous. For that very reason we employed them in application to the anomalous case now in controversy. Our argument is unanswered.

      For the consideration of all candid inquirers, we submit two other cases:

      1. The normal method of entrance into Christ, is by baptism into him. Yet the Jerusalem church had at least 120 members who never were baptized into Christ. Were they, therefore, not "in Christ"? There were many others in the first churches who were never baptized into Christ. They were exceptional cases. They grew out of the transition from Judaism to Christianity by the ministries of John and of Jesus. We ask all discriminating readers to apply the logic of the Review and its correspondents to these cases, and see what they will make of them.

      2. It is now admitted by our opponents that baptism is just as much a prerequisite to prayer, praise, and alms-giving, as to the Lord's Supper. If, then, we find a case of unbaptized persons whose prayers and alms were acceptable to God, it is precisely equivalent to a case of an unbaptized man admitted to the Lord's Supper. Well, such a case we have in Cornelius and his family.

      All these facts bear fairly, we conceive, on the case in hand; and we must be allowed to say that so far as we have seen, our argument from the facts is statement of facts is unimpeached, untouched.

      II. It has been objected that we admit to the Lord's table those whom we will not receive into the church. And this is thought to be a great inconsistency. Now we have no disposition to evade the force of a valid objection. We frankly admit the difficulty. It is a difficulty growing out of the confused state of the Christian world. But do not these brethren see that we are not helped out of the difficulty by taking their position? Do they not admit and even invite to the Lord's table those whom they would not receive into the church? Would they receive into the church a Baptist, while clinging to the Baptist name and creed? or an immersed Methodist, while holding on to Methodism and the Discipline? Yet they allow such to come to the Lord's table! They do, in spite of themselves, make a difference between the formal and the essential. They will never escape from this seeming inconsistency until they plunge into the greater one of unchristianizing the whole religious world outside of our own organization--an extreme of Pharisaic conceit and presumption, we must be allowed to say, most monstrous. To all who urge this objection we say, Physician, heal thyself. [258]

      III. But Bro. Franklin goes a step beyond this, and makes it a great inconsistency that we expect to meet in heaven those whom we will not admit to the church on earth! We confess we doubted our eyes, when we first read this. We read it over, and over, and over. There it is! He actually complains that we make the entrance into the church narrower than the entrance into heaven! This is to him ridiculous. He would not do so! He does not expect, therefore, to meet in heaven any whom he could not take into the church here. He, therefore, logically and theologically, shuts out of heaven, and consigns to eternal damnation, all of the following classes:

      1. All infants dying in infancy!

      2. All idiots!

      3. All heathen!

      4. All Pedobaptists!

      5. All Baptists who do not drop their name and creed!

      This is the most awful wholesale damnation we ever heard of!! It proves what we affirmed in a former essay--that it is difficult to conceive a denominationalism more intense and intolerant than that in which we must land, if this kind of logic is to prevail. And yet, Bro. Franklin denies that he treats Pedobaptists as heathens and publicans!

      IV. It is objected that we unsettle the terms of the gospel, corrupt the gospel itself, and sweep away all we have been pleading for these forty years.

      We deny these charges, in their whole letter and spirit, with emphasis. We pronounce it a calumny, come from whom it may. We have always believed as we now believe on this question. We have been preaching nearly a quarter of a century. Let any man put his finger on the scene of our labors where the gospel has not been faithfully preached, or where it has been shorn of its triumphs. Our venerable Father Campbell has always stood on this question where we stand now. Has he perverted the gospel? Brethren are basely slandering the man to whom they owe all they know of a pure gospel, when they allow themselves to talk in this way. We hold no opinion, we approve no practice which we would not joyfully abandon in an instant, if it hindered the free course of the gospel of the grace of God.

      When we commenced our public labors in Michigan, an excellent Baptist Elder, after we had explained our position as to the Lord's Supper, took occasion to express his fears that we would surrender the claims of immersion, and fail of bringing the people to that ordinance. We merely replied at the moment, as we had but a moment to talk, "Wait a few years, my good brother, and see whether you or we immerse the greater number." After the lapse of two years, when we counted our converts by hundreds, and the Baptists were fewer in number than at the time of the conversation, we renewed the colloquy [259] on the subject, and our friend expressed his surprise at our success. We replied, "You rely for sustaining the claims of immersion, on your exclusiveness in communion; we rely on faithfulness in preaching the gospel. While we do no injustice to the piety of devoted Pedobaptists, we do not fail to tell them the whole truth on the question of baptism on every proper occasion. You never speak of it in the pulpit, but rely on your close communion to sustain its claims. You offend the people without enlightening them; we enlighten without offending them." At this present writing we are 1,200 strong in a region where it is doubtful if the Regular Baptists, though long preoccupants of the territory, are as numerous as when we began. Let this be our reply to all who are talking of our shrinking from our principles, and weakening the hands of the pleaders for reformation.

      While, in this position, we surrender no principle, we gain the following advantages:

      1. We harmonize our practice with our plea for Christian union.

      2. We preserve catholicity of spirit.

      3. We guard against closing the way of access to the ears and hearts of the Protestant world, in whose hands must shortly be lodged the destinies of the human race.

      4. We avoid doing injustice to any whom God may be pleased to accept.

      5. We save ourselves from a position which would justly be regarded as presumptuous and arrogant, so long as, without superior piety and benevolence, our exclusiveness is based on accuracy in regard to a single ordinance.

      6. We shall have no change to make when the union of Christians shall have been accomplished. It will still be the Lord's table for the Lord's people, to which every one must come on his own responsibility.

      We have carefully avoided replying to clumsy witticisms, sophisms, and unkind attempts to misrepresent and pervert our former utterances. We have been under sore temptation to make some severe thrusts--but concluding that the impulse was from the flesh rather than the Spirit, we have subdued it. May the Lord recover his cause, cut of the confusion of Babylon, and gather together in one body his children who are scattered abroad.

I. E.      

[MHA2 239-260]