Baptist Courier

There are certain questions of church usage which cannot be determined by reference either to distinct precepts or precedents. In such cases we decide by considerations of expediency. There is no precept or precedent for the employment of church clerks and the keeping of church records; none for the employment of a sexton or of ushers; none for the use of pews, or pulpits, or carpets or lamps, or blinds to prevent the glare of light, or furnaces to keep out the cold. There is no special precept for Associations and Conventions. But as convenience and comfort and Christian usefulness may be and are promoted by these various expedients we are perfectly at liberty to exert our common sense in adopting any or all of them. When it is settled that nothing in the precepts of the New Testament or in the genius of Christianity forbids them, we may safely adopt them.

In the same way we would settle the question of the propriety of extending an invitation to the communion table to baptized believers maintaining their Christian profession, and occasionally present at the observance of the rite in a church of which they do not happen to be members. According to Baptist theory, no one can properly take a place at the table of the Lord who has not professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and has not been buried in baptism. Accordingly, candidates for baptism who have been received as such are not invited to the table. Confidence in their Christian character has been felt and expressed: and yet, as baptism, according to the New Testament, is a condition precedent to participation of the Lord's Supper, no church is warranted in asking such accepted candidates to the table. This is what is stigmatized as close communion. when a Baptist church declines to invite the members of other churches who have adopted any substitute instead of the immersion of believers. The pious Pedobaptist, however, and the accepted candidate for baptism are placed on the same footing and are treated exactly alike.

But the case is very different when an accredited member of a Baptist church is present accidentally with a church to which he does not belong. In his case, faith in the adorable Redeemer has been professed in the Divinely appointed way, and there is no bar, moral or ritual, in the way of his approaching the table. Should he commune, no harm, so far as we can see, would accrue, either to the church or himself, from his taking part in the observance of the ordinance. On the other hand, both he and they, over and above the special blessing of commemorating Christ's dying love, would share the joy of a holy courtesy extended and accepted. All this falls in with the very spirit of our religion, and would seem to be thoroughly expedient, provided it does not run against any prohibitory precept or principle laid down for our guidance in the premises. We know of no such precept or principle.

Paul wrote to the church in Rome: "I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also" (Rom. 16:1, 2).

Suppose now that our sister Phoebe remained in Rome long enough to be present when the church there gathered at the communion table, is it supposable that they would not have made her welcome to a seat among them? They had believed in Christ: so had she: they had been baptized: so had she; they desired to commemorate Christ's dying love: so did she. What was there to hinder their inviting her to participate with them? If there was a single statement in the Scripture that partaking of the Supper must be limited to the membership of individual churches, this would settle the question: she could not commune with the brethren in Rome, though she was entitled to do so in Cenchrea. But if no such interdict existed, the only question would be one of expediency.

We have hastily written the above in answer to the request of an esteemed brother who has asked an expression of our opinion.

F.