Vermont Telegraph

Ath. The crime of your brother in being a partaker with the thief. If this be not censure—if this be not a strange thing in this strange world, I know not what is so. And I often think how our Savior must regard it. The truth of it is, this non-fellowship is anti-christianity—what God never made to be, and it is utterly impossible to make right, straightforward work of it. No one position taken to justify it will cover the whole ground. Therefore there is witnessed the strange process of swinging backwards and forwards, like the pendulum of a clock. Sometimes the non-immersed are refused fellowship because unbaptized; then again as being criminals in remaining as they are; sometimes the one reason for not setting down with such and such persons is uppermost in the mind, and sometimes the other. And often probably if the truth could be known it would appear that in the breast of the rigid communionist, both are operating together. It no doubt is the latent sentiment of the heart—whether understood to be so or not—but an individual must be excluded not only because not immersed, but as guilty in not seeing that he ought to be.

5th. The distinction between christian and church fellowship. A part—I know but it may be a numerous one—of my strict communion Baptist brethren, make distinction between christian and church fellowship. Each church say they have right to regulate its own affairs, and among other things the communion table. They spread it for the common Lord; and therefore none have any reason to be offended by being shut out from it—it being merely a church matter towards those excluded. They say they mean no unkindness. They regard them as brethren; and in love exclude them: and the moment the sacred feast is over, they can take them into their hands as brethren and go heart and hand in hand all out the one thing in the journey towards heaven. But, my brother, stop and think how that one thing has been an apple of discord for a century or two, and will be, so long as kept above ground, between the followers of the Lamb. Facts every where show, and common reason readily sees why that the elbow held stiffly out makes and keeps up an unfriendly feeling between the saints of the Lord. The truth of the case is, the rigid communionist does not exclude his brother from the table because it is a church concern. No, it is not so; but because some how or other there is a wrong about this brother, that makes him keep him away from the feast; and the other knows that this is the reason why he is kept off; he knows and always feels that his Baptist brother holds him back on the account of his considering him somewhat faulty in one particular. This feeling respecting fault is universal. There is no mistake about it. Baptist churches look upon their other brethren as faulty, while they exclude them; and these latter generally consider themselves as so regarded by being excluded. Now only think of it—how perfectly unreasonable, how little it looks any thing like cordial union, love and christian fellowship. Under such circumstances as these, temporary, agreements and unions may take place—but none that will be permanent. The great cause of disunion must cease. I mean that act which always says, I have some fault to find with you my brother, or every attempt at union will be as vain as would be to try to heal a sore by only working at the surface, while the wound remains at the bottom. The community well knows that there is every where a want of a whole hearted christian fellowship between a close communion Baptist and others; and matters will so still remain, unless we lay hold of, and pull up the great root of bitterness. I ever feel as often express myself, if we would thoroughly cure any evil, we must do it by a thorough process—by applying to it eradicating principle. Would you banish war from the earth? Your efforts are vain useless you throw the defensive doctrine overboard. Keep that, and you nourish the whole disease. Would you destroy intemperance? Total abstinence from all intoxicants must be your motto. And slavery, can only die by insisting upon immediate emancipation, and refusing to admit that man has a right to hold property in man. So, to talk about, and labor to promote, christian fellowship, while we exclude something common to christianity, is as perfectly vain as to attempt to plow the wind. The thing can never be brought about. But I have something else to heave up, while we remain on the spot. My Baptist brethren are always insisting upon it that while they exclude others, they really intend no unkindness—that the excluded brethren of other persuasions are beloved in the Lord. They say that Methodists and others take it in wrong part, that they are held back—that they, the Baptists, can draw them to the heart in loving embrace, though they don't let them come to the table. If it be so, pray explain one thing to me. You will cut off, as I have twice before noticed, your members, simply for communion with these brethren, which you say you so embrace. Now I want to ask, do you intend to continue christian fellowship with these cut off persons. Church fellowship I know you have done with. Do you answer in the negative? Do you say we are so offended with these individuals for having broken vows, that we can no more extend christian than we can church fellowship to them? Well, my brother, I want to say to you that I think you have rather a queer way of manifesting your christian fellowship to me: You treat as a wicked person one whose only offence is eating and drinking with me in remembrance of our own Savior. Now my brother if the tables were turned and you in my place, how would such a manifestation of christian friendship sit on your mind? You will call me brother, and profess fellowship towards me as a christian, yet you will knock down—if I may so speak—one of your members, if he only eats with me as such. All he intends by communing at my Lord's table is, to express a little christian fellowship towards me, and this you say you are willing to do in all places but one alone; but if he ventures to do it in that one, away goes his life, so far as you have power to kill him by a spiritual anathema. This truly looks odd enough. It seems like loving and hating with one and the same breath. And I think it must so appear to the minds of all the standers-by, whether good angels or evil spirits. In sober truth, to profess christian fellowship towards one, while we refuse to fellowship him in something that is common to christianity, is really imposition, though through the blindness produced by our evil training we may not realize it so to be. It shows how strangely men will act when warped by a sectarian education. I will in this place state, that my wife's mother who, nearly forty years since joined the Baptist church in this town, was excommunicated from it for no other reason, as my father-in-law informed me a few days since, but her partaking with the Congregational Church and others assembled in a great or protracted meeting. I suppose she then had the feeling of christian fellowship operating powerfully upon her mind; and how could she be blamed for yielding to its holy and loving impulse? After this, she went to her own Church and partook there. And the Deacon of that church was excluded, as he now thinks—but if this latter part be a mistake the truth can be got at—for letting her eat at the Baptist table after she had been at another one. What an act! And may I not be justified in exclaiming, what will not sectarianism do? And would not the spirit and the principle which holds to such work carry people to persecute unto death, if the light of the times would tolerate it? I know not why not. And I feel it a duty to say in one word that this refusing the non-immersed—then such as have been immersed, if these eat with those—then the cutting off their own members who have thus eaten—and lastly in dealing with their other members who are still willing as to fellowship such as have gone to other persuasions to commune—I say that there is a harshness about all this which does not look much like the loving and lovely spirit of religion found in the New Testament.

5. Non-Communion—considered in its tendency to break the unity of the Church and diminish the Lord's spiritual body. I have all along been objecting to this rigid communion on other grounds. I want not to speak of its natural and necessary tendency to divide the true Church those who have been born of the spirit. This, to be sure, has in a measure already been before us; but as it is an all important point, let us look a little more at it. The fact is that the excluding of Christians from the feast of the Lord does sour their minds, the one towards another—creates bitterness, and promotes warfare, cannot be denied. The matter is as plain as noon-day. Baptist christians and others are jealous of, and are watching against each other—are ever ready to take advantage of each other whenever it is in their power. Baptists, on their part, do not consider any to be truly christian churches but those of their own orders—all others not having come in by the door, immersion, and are not in their view, properly speaking, christian churches—churches of Christ. Then as a matter of course individual members of these churches not being in the true church, they have the right, yea verily it is the positive duty to labor and that as abundantly as they please, to proselyte them from where they now are into the real Baptist church. This is often done, and whenever one is brought over he is not considered as coming from a sister Baptist church of the common Lord, but as a deserter, enticed away from an enemy's camp. Don't you exult, my Baptist brother, whenever you can get one to come over to you after this sort? Is there not crowing, whenever a case of this kind occurs? It can't be denied. Men and angels know it to be the fact. Other bodies serve you just so, and exult in the same way, whenever they can induce one of your members to leave you and join them. Does this look like the work of the Holy Spirit of Christ Jesus—not acting as one body, but as rival parties. What a sight this, for angels and the redeemed saints in glory to look upon—the parts of the bride of Christ yet upon the earth reciprocally bent upon tearing out each other's bowels; and affecting it to the extent of their capacity. But it will be said, admitting all this to be the fact, what has it do with the point which you are upon—the strict communion of the Baptists? I will tell you. This close communion of yours in the first place produces then keeps up, that edgewise feeling which exists between you and christians of other denominations. Take that away, and this is gone at once you know. Oh, but, take that away you will reply, and what becomes of the Baptists' peculiarity, and consequently our testimony against what we consider as no baptism? Ah, let me here too exclaim, do you not manifest that you regard your peculiarity, and correctness concerning an external rite, as of more importance than the unity of the Redeemer's family, and that love which is the fulfilling of the law? If your manner of testifying leads to sourness, discord and division, if the direct tendency of it is to create and perpetuate the unkind, edgewise feeling so generally existing between rigid communion Baptists and others, I think you have the most weighty reason solemnly to inquire whether your manner of testifying be not absolutely anti-christian, though you yourself have never yet seen it to be so. I think, my Brother, you assume a most tremendous responsibility in testifying in the way you do. The effect is bitter. The fruit is wormwood. Surely sour grapes do not grow on sweet branches. But it is hard to give up opinions long entertained, however tho reasons that bear against them. Therefore I think I hear you replying to me we are right, and you admit it in considering immersion to be real baptism; and surely we feel that no other mode is. Of course we are unable to come to others; but they can come to us. You must yield in order to have the trouble end; and you are unreasonable in not so doing. Then if matters are not harmoniously settled between us the blame must rest with others. We are clear. Don't blame our strict communion any longer. But stop, my Brother, one moment. I want here to speak two words to you. 1. the position you now assume says that you consider your pedobaptist Baptist brother to be an unprincipled man—that he has no conscience about him. What a censorious position. Surely you must ask you do you think that the multitude of your brethren of other orders can be brought to feel that they are unbaptized. Do you think it depends merely on their volition, to say whether they will or no have something like it—a real conscience in still thinking they have been actually baptized? Your last plea, then, is good for nothing. Thousands of them cannot come to you without sacrificing conscience. But 2. You are again censuring him, while, you thus consider him as wanting in moral principle, and treat him as altogether unworthy of your confidence and christian fellowship. If he is so destitute of all principle as not to go down into the flood and be immersed when he might do so without any trouble from his conscience, you ought to discard him at once, and no longer treat him as a christian in any respect. But I must not forget the point. I am upon the effect of this rigid communion, in dividing the one body of the Lord. This I have repeatedly brought into view. It is a dreadful fact, which the whole world know, that Baptists and those who are not baptized have the edgewise feeling, I speak of. It is always coming in thousands of instances, and on almost every occasion. As, what is it owing to? difference of opinion about Baptism? No, there is nothing in this to disturb the harmony between them. They could and would feel as brethren, notwithstanding that. Now then what is it that creates the whole difficulty? The stiff elbow the one brother holds out, meaning to let the other know by this act that he has something against him; and the other one always considers it in that light that there is fault finding in that elbow; hence he never comes in sight of it without having his feelings hurt. Thus a mutual coldness and sourness is kept up. The true spiritual church is sundered. God dishonored, angels grieved, and devils gratified. And indeed as it respects these last, I have for a great length of time considered this Baptist rigid communion to be a master device of the devil, to keep christians divided—while they have been sincere about it, and conscientious too. But must not this conscience be a bad one? For can a Christ-dividing conscience come from the right quarter? Satan has by it secured a darling object, and one he ever has much at heart. He keeps those who belong to the one family of the Redeemer aloof from each other. While by other methods he keeps christians of other sects divided he could find no other way to keep Baptists and their brethren alienated but by rigidness in communion. So he pitched upon that; and he has been successful indeed in pulling upon this string. Ever since the day when I first knew the Lord, my heart has gone out strongly to all who appear to wear his image. My attachment has uniformly been in proportion to the evidence manifested by one that he or she has been made a partaker of a spiritual baptism. I love all of God's children, because they are such. The church, the whole church has ever been my motto; and that they might be one in feeling and fellowship has been the perpetual prayer of my heart. Hence any thing which tends to divide it is an object of loathing. Knowing that close communion does thus tend, and that powerfully, my testimony has been emphatic against it, I feel that it is the Lord's testimony, and that all the grand characteristics of the gospel speak against the practice; and it must be condemned when our Redeemer shall come to judgment. The rigid communion does violence to the great law of love. That such is the fact, we have already seen. The Bible requires of believers that, while they differ in opinions, and are led to practise differently, yet to treat each other kindly to bear and forbear in love. How express and how strong the apostle Paul on this point. Now this strict communion utterly sets aside these injunctions. There is no obeying them under its influence. Love and kindness will not be kept up while it is practised. The very act itself is a blow into the vitals of love, and will always be felt to be so, however we ourselves may consider it. What, elbow me off, and love me? Exclude me in something common to my Lord's kingdom and love me? Cut off, excommunicate a man and deliver him over to Satan for eating with me—and love me? Can you make angels believe that? But you ask—is there no love between the Baptists and others? Do they not often mingle together and manifest christian affection for each other? Yet I mourn before God that it is so little. No. No. Every thing in and about that tends like a deadly frost to nip and kill all love; and my word for it to you, my brother, if Baptists and others were to stand and look at each other and never think of anything else but baptism and the Lord's supper, they would never lose much. Do you believe they would? The truth is, they only love because they at times have something in mind besides these things.

To be continued.