LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. %ji. tom¥ Tfc......... bW ~XA/4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CLOSE COMMUNION: OB, Plea for the Dunkard Peoplk IN TWO PARTS. n ^ b - t BY LAN DON WEST. DAYTON, OHIO: H. J. KURTZ, PRINTER. 19$ |T 1IE U***** of cowy** Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, BY LANDON WEST, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. PREFACE, To all who love the truth is the present effort offered upon its me? its, be they what they may. If any are made wiser or bet- ter, the humble wish of the writer has been realized. But if not so much as this is obtained, the fond hope is still entertained that no one will be made worse, or here- after see less beauty in the word of Jesus than before. That its style is not perfect, the writer is fully aware, but this is not what he aimed to show forth. His aim was to present truth, and he feels that in proportion as this point has been reached, in the same ratio has his work been pre- sented aright, but no further. The style and all may be quite imperfect, but the truth, when reached, is perfect. To that point, when made, he trusts his effort will be received by all. Landon West, Mat, 1880. CONTENTS. Introduction 7 CHAPTER I. Our Faith 13 CHAPTER II. Communion, what it implies 18 CHAPTER III. Church Relation 20 CHAPTER IV. Church Claims 23 CHAPTER V. But one Standard 36 CHAPTER VI. Which to take 39 CHAPTER VII. Who is Orthodox? 42 CHAPTER VIII. Furity to bo sought 54 CHAPTER IX. It is Deceptive 59 CHAPTER X. Dangerous to Piety 63 D CONTENTS. CHAPTER XI. Law is set aside 69 CHAPTER XII. It is Partial 77 CHAPTER XIII. There is no Standard for it 94 CHAPTER XIV. By it we make ourselves the Judge of others 99 CHAPTER XV. It allows too much 112 CHAPTER XVI. It allows too much 128 CHAPTER XVII. No Good can result from it 137 CHAPTER XVIII. Special Reasons 145 CHAPTER XIX. Very Special Reasons 177 CHAPTER XX. Conclusion 185 INTRODUCTION, The faith and practice of the people commonly known as "Dunkards," whe taken as a whole, seem to have a very gen- eral approval from all men. But when this faith is by them made subject to a close analysis, — a description of all its parts, — it is then quite common for us to be cen- sured because our views upon soma subjects are not so liberal as are the views of many others. To approve the right and to con- demn the wrong is most proper, but can not be done safely without investigation. But to condemn the right, and that without a hearing, is a sad mistake. And to condemn our people, or any others, without knowing their reasons for any view or practice, is, to say the least, an unwise conclusion. It is to overlook the advice to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I. Thess. 5 : 21. This word at once ad- dresses itself to our intelligence, and as- sumes that we know that some things are 8 INTRODUCTION. good and that others are not. It shows, too, that, in case we do doubt the propriety of any act, or thing, it should at once be tested, — proved by us, — before we accept it, or any part of it. It lays upon us the duty to test " all things," and, after such test is made, to accept of all that is good, no matter where it is found, or who gives it; but to reject -all that is bad, let it come from whence it may. Two duties are here imposed, the one not being enough; and to accept of one and not the other, is to reject this counsel altogether. 1. All things should be tested or proved. The propriety of such a course is at once seen in all matters of worldly business, and as we may as easily be mistaken in our views of religion as in any other matter, and as the mistake is so much the more fetal than in things of the world, the proving or testing of our religion does at once become a question of the gravest im- portance. It is not work for time ; it is for eternity. And it should not be confined to those things alone which we may doubt, but applied to those as well which we may now believe and accept. The faith we now hold should as well be tested as that which we may seek. : And the Word tells us to " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the INTRODUCTION. 9 faith; prove your own selves/' II. Cor. 13 : 5. It can not be other than pleasure to us all to know that the little religion we now have, if it have the sanction of the Word upon it, has also the approval of God. But if we do not find either our faith or practice sanctioned by the Word, then we may be assured that our religion is not ordained of God, and should there- fore not ask his approval of it. 2. The duty to follow the proving of all things'Ks quite as important as the first. It is to "hold fast that which is good." Reason is one witness, and often good, but not always sure, and should be applied to all proper subjects and always in a proper manner. But the Bible is our main wit- ness, the faithful and the true one, and is always good and always sure. It tells nothing, promises nothing, and proves nothing but what is both good and sure ; and we need all of it, but we need no more to insure to us the favor of Heaven's King. Its word is the mind of the Eternal One, and when once obtained should be held in preference to any and all others. We are then right. Other aids may be used as helps to obtain the truth, and should be applied as such, but should not in any case be allowed to %et the Word aside. 10 INTRODUCTION. The duties enjoined by the command- ment above cited are such as to require of us to reject nothing without at least some investigation, and to accept of nothing without some proof that it is good. When proof is thus obtained we are to accept it and then hold it fast; but if not good, or with- out proof, to be let go at once, even if it be the faith of our childhood. This great and general rule applies as well to our faith as to anything else, and is the only\aure f test we can have that we have the right (thing and have it in the right way. By this rule is the proving of all things, the holding of all good ones, but the keeping of no others. I now close the introduction by saying that the Bible is the standard of truth, the book of God's inspiration, and by it, and it alone, we can soon learn whether or not our faith and our practice are both what they should be, and can know if we are in the faith or not, and when we learn that we are not in it, can very soon learn how to get there. Here is a wide field for the full play of faith and hope, and work and prayer, and we do hope all who love the truth as it is in Jesus- will labor much to improve it. I am aware that my introduc- tion is quite lengthy for so small a work, but I give it thus to show to all of its r«a- INTRODUCTION. 11 ders that we, as a people, regard the Bible- as we do no other book or books — greater and better than any or all of them. I think this is already shown. And as there- are many instances in the following pages- where I aim to make a further application of this truth, I here try to present the im- portance of Bible supremacy, not only on this subject, but on all others pertaining to- the people and the worship of God. And, further, as I think this little work is more apt than other books might be, to- come under the notice of those most inter- ested in the subject of religion, and of those, too, who may not at all be acquainted with the faith and practice of our people,, the present effort is presented the more- cheerfully, hoping that all may at least ad- mit that I am candid in what I thus trjr to do. I fondly hope, too, that all will ad- mit that we are also safe in adhering as- closely as possible to that Word which was spoken from heaven. We all want to be- safe in life, in death, and also in the great hereafter, and to gain this we try to do our humble part. CLOSE COMMUNION. PART I. REASONS FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER I, OUR FAITH. I stated in the introduction that the faith of our people is not so often censured, as is* their practice. Why this is so I can not. now say, but I regard it as a very imper- fect decision, for, in my view, the practical part of one's life is the only positive proof of his faith, and the extent of it, that he- can in any way give. If one's faith can in any other way than by his life be shown at all, I know not how. This may be con- sidered a weakness in us, but it is one of the greatest peculiarities of our people, viz., to show our faith by our works. See alsa James 2: 14-26. 14 CLOSE COMMUNION*. To illustrate this thought more fully I cite a few facts: Our people believe that the Word enjoins the anointing of the sick whenever it is called for. This call is often made among us, and the deed is as often done, and that too for the same objects named in the Word, namely, the pardon of sin, the raising up, and the saving of the sick. See Mark 6 : 13 ; 16 : 18 ; Acts 3": 6-16 ; James 5 : 14, 15. The Word urges / too, that we pray for one another and for ;all men (I. Tim. 2:1; James 5 : 16), and this part also we try to make practical throughout, even to the offering of a peti- tion for our enemies. Matt. 5 : 44 ; Luke 6: 27. We also believe that baptism by trine immersion in water is the only valid, apos- tolic baptism in existence where water is used at all as an element. This view of the subject is not often censured, but our ■practice is very frequently condemned be- 'cause we will not accept any and every •other form of baptism. In this we are not faulted for having this one way, but we are faulted because we have no other way. We meet many who agree, with us, that feet-washing is a commandment by Jesus, ^and yet these same condemn our whole ♦church because we w r ill not agree that any CLOSE COMMUNION. . 15 come fully up to the standard of truth unless the example and command in the thirteenth chapter of John is literally fol- lowed out. I could cite to other views of our people which are approved in precept by our neighbor professors, but in which we are sometimes very roughly censured for the practical observance ot the same; but I think these are enough to show that we are fully aware of some of the inconsisten- cies that surround us. Whv there should be this very apparent inconsistency in the conduct of others toward us I can not, and of course will not, try to account for. But we come now to consider one feature of our people's faith both the theory and practice ol which are condemned by a majority of the religious denominations of to-day. That feature is what is known as Close Communion. I think the views of our people upon this subject are not well understood, especially by strangers to us. This reason alone I hold to be sufficient to call forth from our brotherhood an essay upon the subject. I know not what argu- ments and how many may have been urged by others heretofore in favor of this prac- tice, whether the same as ours or not, but what I now give are, I think, particularly 16 CLOSE COMMUNION. suited to the doctrines and faith of our own people, and for them only do I thus aim to speak. The sentiment that favors close or re- stricted communion is very generally con- demned as a narrow and selfish one, and I grant that such would indeed be true if there were no higher motive to prompt it than mere self-indulgence and sectarian bigotry. In that case we all say the less we have of such a spirit the better for the world. But in our case I will say that such is not the feeling. It can not be the indulgence of self, for that is often denied. It is not merely that we may exclude other sects, for it often comes within our own fold. And as we regard the reasons for close communion to apply with peculiar fit- ness to our own people, it is but proper, we think, that we should be heard on this sub- ject. We claim to be a peculiar people in more than one thing, and for that reason the arguments that favor us in this may not favor any other, and of course will not be presented by them. And whilst they may not apply all that we do, yet we feel to ap- ply all general arguments, as well as those in particular. And should our view of this subject come to the notice of those who favor open communion* I ask them to con- CLOSE COMMUNION. 17 sider not only our objections made against it, but also to consider the faith and prac- tice of the people who make them. If this be done I have no fears as to the result, for special conditions must always produce special results. As to the feeling had by many against our people's practice, I say, we know that- many who are friendly tell us that to them close communion appears very selfish and unchristian. I do believe that such would not be the feeling if the reasons for our practice were plainly set forth. To do so is the object of the present effort, and I invite a careful investigation of the subject by all those who feel to have any interest in the matter. Prove all of it; hold fast only to that which is good. 18 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER II. 'COMMUNION, WHAT IT IMPLIES. My first effort will be to show what we ■understand to be implied in the act of com- munion. Worship with one another and the partaking of the sacred emblems im- plies, methinks, the nearest and dearest, have so many sects to interrupt this union that is so strong ? Why not have a less .number, or only one, as our Master prayed, CLOSE COMMUNION. 61 if our love be so great? My brother, if there is really so much love as to have but one table, why not less persecution ? Why not show forth this heart's overflowing in a more practical way than merely the taking together of a bit of bread and a sip of wine ? For our part we are afraid of that feeling which seeks to show love and union- by doing so little. The man of God must have that love which " suffereth long, and is kind," and "thinketh no evil." I. John 3 : 18. We notice, too, that those who are the most in* favor of open communion are also the most ready to show the spirit of persecution. Those who cry loudest for liberty of conscience always allow it least. The church that clings most closely to the- word of Jesus always suffers most. And that church which will persecute others tor their understanding of the word of God,, is always on the wrong side. The Christian* never persecutes another. Jesus did not,, and Christians must be like him. " Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Phil. 2: 5. Open communion is always made upon the claim that it is a common cause and one common faith. I ask, what are the- proofs of it? We can not know the tree but by its fruits, which, as we see here, do< *G2 CLOSE COMMUNION. not show love in any case. And many •dozen churches opposing each other, with no one thing in common, is a very poor in- dication that they have a common faith. I would ask what it is which is held in common by all? If we were to judge of the feeling actually existing between the many different churches by what we see of their treatment of each other we would think love to be the least of all feelings, if felt at all. I very much doubt if more love is to be seen with their broad claims to religion than might be seen without any -claim to religion at all. We think open communion a very poor way to show a feel- ing which does not exist, and for that rea- son oppose it. If love did exist, other proofs could be shown in ways much more lasting and practical than this one, and in them alone. Love ever seeks many ways for exercise. CLOSE COMMUNION. 63 CHAPTER X. DANGEROUS TO PIETY. Open communion does not favor a high degree of piety. I am fully aware that many who favor an open feast lay a broad claim to love and piety, and who seem, too, to regarl their liberality in sentiment as a fair index to that happy condition. The condition is one to be desired, and the Scriptures greatly encourage the efforts to attain it, but while this is offered, the point set for Christians to strive for, and within reach, too, is a high one. It is no less than victory over self, the world, Satan, and the grave. To gain these through our Lord's mercy to us should be the constant effort of us all, but to be sure of these, none should be satisfied with merely a name in the church. There are too many now who "hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." Eev. 3 : 1. This sad condition is far too common now, with all the effort made to infuse new life, but to make the way wider, and to take oft the restrictions on professing people which 64 CLOSE COMMUNION. this would certainly do, could not at all be favorable to more holiness. It is now too little, and its holders are far too few for us to think of taking away any of the guards already placed around and in the church. To be thought worthy to approach the Lord's table is a point worth gaining, but it is worth more to hold it. To do this re- quires a close watch, not over others, but over ourselves, and not for the time, but for life. To gain this point and then to hold it does not in any case rest solely on our feelings, for good feelings are not so much the cause of action as the result of it. They are more apt to follow than to go before. Jesus said, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." John 13 : 17. If our desire is to -show these toward our fellows by feasting with them at the Lord's table, it does not show this toward them alone, but toward our Lord as well. And, to do this acceptably, we must show this not in feeling, but in a more practical way, one that can be seen and felt by others as well as ourselves. Matt. 5: 47. James 2: 15, 16. If our happiness comes only from a sense of feeling that we had communed with others, and is all that we feel, it is small indeed. For the time spent of one's life, CLOSE COMMUNION. 65 while engaged directly in the feast, is very short when compared with one's whole life- time, and for us and them to have no more love for each other than that felt at the table, would make it small indeed, and, of course, our happiness not very great. I have tried to show that the love between churches was not so very great, and now to have no more of it, and to enjoy it no longer than a few moments in a year or lifetime, is to put a very high estimate upon our time, but a very low one upon this holy keepsake of the church, and as weir upon the love between churches. It is to show that our love is small — can be quickly shown and is soon forgotten. Now, who will seek for a high degree ot piety when he does not need it to bring to himself any more than he has. Open com- munion s*ives all he can ask for in doctrine and in almost anything he wants in the church, or out of it, and so he wants no more, and, of course, seeks no more. He is very thankful that he lives in an age when it is so easy to be a Christian. And why should any seek more when the church allows all she can, and he has the world beside? Satan himself could be a Chris- tian under such favorable circumstances, where nothing is restricted but all is in- 66 'CLOSE COMMUNION. dulged. This shows for itself that the church is very little valued, if at all, by those who are in it, and not respected at all by many who are out. With so little love, so little time spent in showing it, and so little benefit to each other in any way, why should it be ? Why should anything liave respect when it does not respect itself? It is always the exercise of any feeling which increases it, and this one having so little exercise, is far more apt to die than to live. The impression with many now is that love between churches has been a long while dead, and so long, I fear, that to feast together once in a year, or in a lifetime, •could bring life again no more. I do believe that the hopeless inscription, "Death is an eternal sleep," might now be written upon the tablet of church union. I think it dead, and that, too, to rise again no more. The Gospel requires of its people a growth in grace and in knowledge ( II, Pe- ter 3: 18), and if this be urged by those who hold open communion, it is to require of our own more than we do of others, for these must be admitted without it, as we *can have no rule over them. If it be not urged, then is there no growth or if any, It is small. I say this as much for our own CLOSE COMMUNION. 67 people as for any others, for the claim to take the whole Gospel is no evidence that all is taken, or that all is applied. But allowing that this lack of growth is com- mon to all churches, free communion could in no way better the condition, for men are too easily satisfied with being like those around them. Hence there is no effort made to reach a higher point. Our Master is the standard, and to be like him in char- acter should be the aim of us all, — "that ye should follow his steps. " I. Peter 2 : 21. To strive for no higher than our surround- ings is to be but little better than the heathen, for his aim is no more than to be like his fellows. The Christian's example is from heaven, and we learn to imitate it here, that we may through him be enabled to gain its pure and holy society, where there is " nothing that defileth." Eev. 21 : 27. It is sometimes said to us that if all were Christians and all would do right, it would be so nice for all to feast together. So say w r e. But even then it would be close com- munion, for there would be but the one church, all of the same faith, all practice the same thing and in the same way. The Bible would in every case be the standard, and not a promise, or a blessing, but what 68 CLOSE COMMUNION. would be enjoyed by every one. It would then, as now, be confined to those, and to them only, who obeyed its commandments. Did those who advocate open feasting show most piety, most humility, and most charity, it would then be an argument we could not and would not wish to meet, but as it is we oppose a practice w T hich can not but lead more to the world than toward heaven, and for that reason is not to the glory of God. CLOSE COMMUNION. 6 J CHAPTER XL LAW IS SET ASIDE. With an open feast it is impossible to disoum an unruly member. It need hardly to be argued that men under law often need reproof for their con- duct. Disloyalty -is too common and weak- ness too prevalent for rebuke and punish- ment to be unknown, or for any to doubt the need of it. This is the common hind- rance to civilization, and it is all because man is not as civil as his law would make him. He, although claiming the most in- telligence of any or all other beings, is yet the most intractable of any. To maintain the purity and objects of any organization framed by man or for man, it is absolutely necessary that penalties be attached to all laws. This is because he is not always, obedient. Offenses come, and that so gen- eral and so frequent as to require a very great part of the law for their correction. This correction must be had or society is lost. The rule of law is to grade the pun- ishment with the crime. For a small 70 CLOSE COMMUNION. offense the punishment is small, where laws are civil, but for a greater one, or for a repetition of the first, the punishment is greater, and still laid with a hope to reform the erring one, and at the same time to guard carefully the interests of the body- that imposes it. And let the feelings of mercy toward the one at fault be what they may, and the crime be great or small, there is and must be a point at which for- bearance ceases, unless it is decided to in- dulge the fault. The only difference in different bodies is, that some come to this point much sooner than others do. Some decide right at once to indulge no more, while others will claim that it is no crime at all to indulge it from first to last. Of the latter it may be asked whether it is government at all, but where moderation is used penalties are at first inflicted with a view to reformation. If this is not reached in a reasonable time that member is cut off. This view of punishment is held by our people and offenses are treated about as follows : For offenses termed private or in- dividual, the church requires of each and all its members to use the 18th chapter of Matthew, 15th to 17th verses, and until it is done, the trouble can not be heard by the church. But for sins against the body CLOSE COMMUNION. 72 a different course is taken. The erring one is visited to learn first if the report be true, and in case it is, or there is room for suspi- cion, it is brought to the church and there heard. If the accused is at fault, restitu- tion is called for, if any has been wronged ; but if it be against the body in general, confession is asked, with a promise to sin no more. Upon this pardon is granted and the mxtter is dropped. But if it be re- peated and the church thinks that reforma- tion is hopeless, they are then cut off. I would say, to 3, that very often reports are spread for which the church thinks there is just ground, and the member charged is then restricted from coming to the com- munion, until the truth is learned, and satisfaction is made. And again, when we learn that there is a private difficulty be- tween members and it unsettled, we say to both of them, or all, not to come until peace is made. We think it far better to have ten to commune where there is love and union than to h&vefive hundred where there is not. We do not in any case seek to indulge sin, and to. maintain the purity of the church these guards are set. And, with all this, there is yet too much of a lustful world indulged. To indulge any form of sin, whether public or private, can 72 CLOSE COMMUNION. not be for the glory of God. It nevre has been, is not now, and, I think, never will be, for his glory, or for the welfare of any, to indulge a wrong in the church. It is the life of the body that is most important, and to secure it the diseased part must be cut off, when there is no hope of reform. Jesus says: " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away." John 15 : 2. This is one of the main objections to an open communion, and will remain so as long as there is a rule of right, and so long as men do not obey that rule. One fact well known is, that there are a vast number of so-called churches in the world. Another is, that the members of these do not all live up to the standard of their church, and hence fall under censure. A third fact is, that no two, or but a few of these churches have the same standard of purity, or treat crime in the same way. The fourth and the worst thing I know about it is, that there is not a crime on the list that a man can do, and for which he may lose his membership in one church, that will in any case prevent him from going right into some other church, if he only asks for it. There is no deed so dark, none so low, and no crime so high, as to prevent him from being easily admitted CLOSE COMMUNION. 73 into some orthodox church. (We, of course, let each define his own faith.) This may be thought a hard saying, and quite a low grade of piety, and I grant it is both; but the saying is a true one, and cases can be found within easy reach. In my opinion such a course puts the veto upon every restriction in the Gospel, and open communion gives its sanction to that veto. This being the way in which crime is treated, or rather indulged, I ask of what use it can be to cut off an unruly member for any crime whatsoever, let it be theft, murder, drunkenness, adultery, her- esy, or anything else, and then when he has obtained a membership in another church, invite that church, and him, too, to come back and commune with us at what we call the Lords table. It is to say that we do not count him good enough to eat at our table, but he and all others like him may eat at the Lord's table. To me this looks like we thought ours better and more holy than the Lord's is. And is it not so ? I think this method of indiscrim- inate feasting, although we say it is the Lord's table, is far more unholy than a mere private feast at our homes. They are none too pure, or holy, but they are better 74 CLOSE COMMUNION. guarded than a banquet with all classes under the cloak of religion. The character of anything is just what we make it. If the character of a house is good, it is because its people make it so. If its name is bad, it is all because it is made so, and its people are to blame for it. Just so with a feast. If it is holy, those who feast are holy. If it is a " feast of devils," it is only because devils feast at it. Its right name must always follow the character of those who partake at its board. If a disowned member can thus be ad- mitted back again, what was he disowned for? What has he lost by bad conduct? I answer, nothing. It is rather to put a premium on those who run away from jus- tice, and to give a precedent by which all can see that loyalty is on a par with re- bellion. By this rule the " spots" of Jude 12 are apt to spread so as to be seen no more — all to be of one color. To do thus is, in my opinion, the most inconsistent practice that a professing people can be guilty of. In theory they claim to honor only the faithful, but in their practice none are honored but the faithless. I would here suggest to all Christians that when they make up a meal and call it "the Lord's supper," that they invite none to it CLOSE COMMUNION. 75 but those, and they alone, whom the Lord lias invited. Upon this subject as to who is fit and who is not, see I. Cor. 5 : 7-13, where the Christian is forbidden to keep company and to eat with the classes con- demned. This scripture is thought by many to apply to the eating of a common meal, and by others to apply only to the partaking of the holy emblems, but all agree that the Christian is here forbidden to partake of the communion with the classes named. To obey this word is to have close communion, and that, too, of the* closest kind, but to disregard it in any w T ay is to have a practice inconsistent with the Scriptures and all good government. This case is close communion in the same church. Before I close this subject there is one- point in particular to which I invite the attention of all, and more especially of those who in any way favor an open com- munion. It is this : All people who know what right is, know well that with all the- care taken to keep the church pure, it is far from being so. Bead Revelation, 2d and 3d chapters, and any one can see that such a state has existed from the first, and is to be found yet. To advocate and prac- tice open feasting is to wink at the faults of Christians, and to indulge them in sin. 76 CLOSE COMMUNION. They being indulged thus will seek no re- form, for they have no rebuke, and feel that reform is not needed. They may feel that ihey are favored, and so they are, but it Is in sin, and it is no honor to the church, unless it admits that carnality is an honor to the Lamb's wife. Eev. 21 : 9-18. But her purity and holiness should be sought by all her members. CLOSE COMMUNION. 7T . CHAPTER XIL IT IS PARTIAL. There is a point at which open com- munion must stop, and at which it does stop. As has been hinted before, the practice of open communion is not so liberal, after all that is said about it. Those who con- tend for it, never say to make it general, but only ask that it be practiced among neighbors who, though of different persua- sions, have a good feeling toward each other. And there is with all a point not far ahead where this feeling stops short off. Beyond this point it is all close communion. The desire to feast together does not arise- from a religious feeling so much as from that of a social nature. The social feeling in human nature is a very proper one, and we may well say it is indispensable to the happiness of the race. But great as is this gift, and happy as is the exercise of it, it has its proper bounds as well as any other feeling. No feeling should at any time be allowed to set aside the claims of 78 CLOSE COMMUNION. law, for to do so is to govern man only by his passions. The Christian is not governed thus, for it is otten that his feelings must be disregarded, " crucified," in order to fully forsake all, for Christ's sake. "And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me can not be my disciple." Luke 14: 26, 27. In those places and with those who do practice open communion it is not their re- ligious feelings that prompt this act, for if it were, I hardly think this one would be all that is prompted. Religion does not show itself in only one way, nor will the social religion be confined to one thing when it is in full exercise. But all men want to be thought social, even if they are not, and so some put on this appearance in their lovefeasts when it is seen no where else. Why this is I can not tell, unless it be to make others think that love is abound- ing, when in truth it is not. To throw aside all prejudice and discipline so as to feast together can not be objectionable, for this must be done in every case to have a feast of love ; but the fault is that all bad feeling is taken up again as soon as the feast is over, thus showing that the love and union is but momentary. To indulge bitterness and opposition by the year, and CLOSE COMMUNION. 79 to show an apparent union for the moment is to show plainly which feeling predomi- nates. The one which lives longest must have more life than that which dies soonest, and of the last it is to be doubted whether it had a life at all. Open feasts imply open hearts, and that not for the moment, but for a lifetime. They imply love for all religion, for all peo- ple, and for all time. The principle does not embrace only a few neighbors, but all churches there represented, with their errors, both in doctrine and in practice. It allows no discrimination as to churches or individuals, for these, if taken at home, must be accepted abroad. It applies not to a few school-districts, but to all the world. It implies, I think, more than its warmest friends will allow for it. But let it imply what it may or what it can, the decline from truth down to error is so great and often so rapid, that this feeling of love and indulgence must stop somewhere, or else take in all the world, with all its religions and all its wrong. Let the reader ask him- self the question : If we can take the reli- gious w T orld without distinction, can we not take all the world in the same way? I think it quite as easy to take it all and thus enjoy ourselves socially to the utmost, 80 CLOSE COMMuNION. as to take so large a part of it, and not take it all, and for this reason : There is no sin found in the outside world, as we call it, that is not found in the church, as it is called. And if we can indulge the princi- ple and the practice in the one, we can as well indulge them in the other. Ignorance, sin, and lack of faith, with all the fruits of darkness, are to be found everywhere, and are all off the same stalk wherever found, whether in the church or out of it. To cut off from the feast all the fruits of un- belief is to cut off at the same time a large part of the religious world, and to take all of the religious world as it now is, is to take all thei host of sin. With these facts in view, not one who pleads for open communion who does not in his mind have a point not far ahead at which he says, "thus far and no farther." From this point onward they all fall into line with the friends of close communion. In order that the reader may have some- thing more than my assertion merely, I cite the faith and the practice of our Meth- odist friends, who not only claim to be in favor of open communion, but are very free to condemn those who hold to close com- munion. I quote from their Discipline of 1872, page 34: CLOSE COMMUNION. 81 •'It is expected of all who desire to con- tinue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salva- tion. Thirdly, By attending upon all the ordinances of God. Such are, The public worship of God, The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded, The Supper of the Lord, Family and private prayer, Searching the Scriptures, Fasting or absti- nence." T[ 37. "These are the general rules of our societies, all of which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written word, which is the only rule, and. the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these we know his spirit writes on truly awakened hearts. If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be known unto them who watch over that soul as they who must give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But if then he repent not, he hath no more place among us. We have delivered our own souls. " It will be seen in Tf 36 that six duties are imposed. In T[ 37 it is told what shall be the result of a neglect of these, which is no less than the loss of member- ship. These, are faults in any professor, 6 82 CLOSE COMMCNION. but they are not generally treated as those that are criminal; but here they are so used, and the offending one is expelled for negligence. In Tf 42 the subject of com- munion is named as follows: "No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a member of our church." By these rules none can be allowed to commune who do not attend worship, preaching, or the Supper of the Lord ; or if they do not attend to reading the Scrip- tures, to fasting, and to family and private prayer. These are required of the mem- bership, but while this is the rule, the practice is quite different, so much so that if we were strangers to either the faith or the practice of the church, we could not believe that they both belonged to the same church. I will now give the practice as has been observed here. And as we know the church to generally favor open communion in practice, and as we also know that human weakness is world wide, we conclude that the same practice prevails wherever the church is known, and that the same inconsistencies also appear. In the summer of 1858, if I mistake not, I was at a Methodist Quarterly Meeting, CLOSE COMMUNION. 83 and when the time for the lovefeast had come the minister stated that all was now ready, and that they, as a people, were lib- eral in their practice, and so he would " in- vite all of other denominations who were in good standing in their churches." (These were his words.) Among the many that went up was a man well respected through- out his acquaintance, and a preacher, too, in the Universalist Church. Soon after taking his place among the kneeling guests a friend was sentjto tell him to go away, and I saw him go away. The minister justified his act by the rule of the discipline, but many in that congregation condemned him for an application of the same. In this case there was a public claim made to open communion, but still it was close communion, and that too of the posi- tive class. I only state the fact without further comment, and leave the reader to pass his own decision as to the merits of the case. In order to illustrate the workings of the system of open communion I notice, further, that the same discipline speaks of the treat- ment of other crimes in connection with neglect of duty. Charges for "Immoral conduct/' "Imprudent conduct/' "Dissen- sion/' "Disagreement in business/' and 84 CLOSE COMMUNION. " Nonpayment of debts/' in addition to " Neglect of the means of grace," if sus- tained, are all dealt with as criminal, which is proper, and the offending one, if not sub- missive, is expelled. See Discipline of 1872, p. 132, f 324; pp. 134, 136, 138. After the treatment for these crimes has been set forth, we have this decision: "After such forms of trial and expulsion such .person shall have no privilege of Society or of sacraments in our church, without contri- tion, confession, and satisfactory reforma- tion." t 350, p. 139. Other portions of the work could be cited to show that a high degree of piety is sought for in theory, and we commend such a desire in any and in all, but the indul- gence of every fault here condemned, and that, too, in the sacraments of the church, is to do what we at once condemn. Our only wonder is that any who seek for a life of holiness should in any way advocate so loose a system as that of open com- munion, for no other plan could so effectu- ally set aside the rules of a church as that which makes those outside as good as those who are in it. By those decisions I have quoted above it will be seen that the com- munion v\ closed against those who, have fallen, and this is right, for there can not CLOSE COMMUNION. 85 be purity of the lump without it, but that our Methodist friends should thus deny it to their own, and then invite others over whom they have no control whatever, and allow every one to be his own iudge as to fitness, is, in my judgment, an inconsistency too great to need any further comment. I wish it fully understood that I do not in any way fault a people for the restrictions laid on those in the wrong, for I do not, but I do fault them for setting aside those restrictions, and for thus making the crime to be no crime at all. "While speaking of inconsistency I notice this feature in an- other way. It is that we, as a people, are faulted for being close communionists in full, when all without any exception I know of, are close communionists in part, and some even carry it much farther than we. To illustrate this further, I cite another instance. We, as a people, admit all our membership who are not under censure for immoral conduct, and that, too, if baptized only a very short time before. But we notice that those who practice^infant bap- tism, and who also favor open communion, do not admit near all who are held as actual* members of the church. In proor of this I cite the Methodist Discipline again, f 54, page 41, which says : " We 86 CLOSE COMMUNION. regard all children who have been baptized, as placed in visible covenant relation to God, and under the special care and super- vision of the church.' ' I think that a relation held as this is would be quite enough to admit any and all to the Lord's Supper, but yet it does not in the case above. Why this is I can not say, for if there be any connection with God nearer than a " visible covenant relation," I know not what or how it is. If any re- lation will or can admit more than this one, I know not of it. This view, which is held by Methodists and perhaps by others, I think, gives to us the worst form of close communion that I now know of, for it will not admit to communion all who are held as members, and those, too, who are admitted by all to be the most innocent. If baptism and innocence will give this happy relation to God and to membership, why not then admit them as the most worthy of all? We are faulted because we will not com- mune with those of our body who are under censure, but no one can say that we refuse to commune with any members who are as innocent as children. That is one degree in close communion we have not yet taken, and for that reason think our people are not so rigid as some have thought them. CLOSE COMMUNION. 87 We will at this place notice another thing for which our people have been often faulted, and that is what, by some, is called "avoidance." I referred to this subject above, and I now reply to the objection. This was referred to at another place also, but I bring it up here, as I think this is the most proper place to consider it. There is a view of this kind held by our people, and it in some cases has been carried into practical effect, and I am told, too, that it was with good results. This view was that the apostle's words, I. Cor. 5 : 11, latter clause, did not allow the membership to "keep company" with those guilty of the crimes named, not so much as to eat with them. And this has been carried into effect so fully in some cases as to meet this view exactly. There is, however, a differ- ence of opinion as to the extent of this re- striction, and this difference is found with others as well as among us, yet with every people who will admit that unfitness is pos- sible, all agree in saying that the crimes named by the apostle are sufficient to ex- clude any and all who were thus guilty from the Lord's table. There is no differ- ence whatever among professors as to the meaning of this verse (I. Cor. 5 : 11), but the only difference is as to the extent of it, 88 CLOSE COMMUNION. — whether it means all tables or only the one. All are agreed, I believe, as to one, but not as to all. My own opinion is that it means just what it says, and for this reason: We are forbidden to "keep company" with such, and as we could not eat with them without being in their company, we lor that reason conclude that it applies to all tables,— to our own as well as to the Lord's table. If it does not apply thus to all tables, as many of our people think it should, I can not see in what way the priv- ilege of eating together could in any way be a favor to any when at the same time no one was allowed to keep company with one who was guilty of the crimes named. The one restriction tells what not to do, and the other tells how far to go with it, — not far enough to eat with them. To obey either one strictly and in full is, in my opinion, to make " avoidance," as it is called, very nearly, if not fully, complete. Wilson has it thus: "But now I write to you not to be associated with any one named a brother, if he be a fornicator, or a covetous person, or an idolater, or a re- viler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a person not even to eat." However, let the extent of the punishment for these crimes be what it may as to com- CLOSE COMMUNION. 89 mon meals, it must be plain to all that the commission of any of these crimes renders the ones who are guilty unworthy of a place at the Lord's table, and that is " close communion " in the one body. For the guilty one to go off to another church and obtain a membership, because the crime is indulged there, and then to come back and partake with those of the first, in an open feast, as it is asked, is to virtually set aside all Gospel rule, and to say that the crime, be it what it may, is no crime at all. It is to set aside every restriction imposed on the church of God, and to allow that those not under law, and outside of the church, have more of its privileges than those who are within. What could be gained by let- ting the members of other churches come and partake and at the same time with our invitation, while we would not allow them to come at all, if members in our own church. It is an inconsistency, I think, not equalled by any other on the -list. It is a fault for which no good reason can be assigned. To have church government at all, to applaud the pious and to rebuke the faithless, there must be a penalty of some kind set to what is regarded as crime ; but if this penalty be known only in name, open communion will virtually take it all 90 CLOSE COMMUNION. away. Here it is that professing people can well show their loyalty to. the govern- ment of God in applying all the restrictions imposed for and upon the members of his household. If correction is sought for by the upright, and it is their aim to punish evil doers (who abound everywhere), the work must not be rigid, it must be only a partial one ; for all those who are expelled from the many churches can find a home somewhere in the religious world, and then in open feasting come right back and par- take of the very things which had been denied them. This fault is not so much in the individual as in the system that in- dulges it. For if one be at fault in the church so much as to leave it, there is no fault he may not have when out of it. If we have a penalty for crime at all, we can not apply it to those who leave it without a trial. And at open communion these come back without rebuke. If we have no penalty to crime, then we have no govern- ment, and then our faith, if it can be so called, is as liberal as fallen man or Satan himself could ask for. When the penalties for breach of law are taken away, that government is not of God, for all his laws, both natural and revealed, have their pen- alties, and without repentance, confession, CLOSE COMMUNION. 91 and a reformation, are sure to follow. These can not and will not follow where the crime is not regarded as a crime, for there the law has none to execute it. For that reason there is and can be no govern- ment. But where a government is sought for, there must be a law; that law must have a penalty, which must be applied in case said law is not respected, and what is- required must be regarded as a penalty for the crime. All who regard the act done to be a crime at all, must respect the sentence- passed. Those who do not so hold it, are not and can not be governed by the same law so long as its penalties are not regarded. They are not of the same government and therefore are not the same people, no matter what claim is laid. Law and order are of God. They are his ordinances, and the body, be it church or state, that will disregard these principles is not of God, and for that reason can not have his blessing. Any principle which is not set forth in the word of God does not come from him, and is therefore not of him. It is that which no Christian will have- See I. John 4: 3. "The law of the Lord is perfect." Psa. 19 : 7. In proof of what I have here said in regard to the govern- ment of churches, and in fact of all bodies "92 CLOSE COMMUNION. that claim to be governed by law, I cite the history of the reformation. Since that date church organizations have multiplied at a rapid rate, systems have been adopted and then have been thrown aside, so many changes have been made in both church and state rale, until at this time it can not be said of churches that they all regard any one crime to be a crime at all. The present condition ot popular religion, as it is called, and it is that which calls for open communion, is not at all flattering to the few who wish to have their hope fixed on a Bible basis. With that class the fear is that the laws laid down to govern the household of faith have all been well nigh set aside. The "earthly kingdom/' as we sometimes •call the church, has for the time been left in human hands for their management with what assistance they could obtain from the word of God, and of the Spirit of God which was given to help our understanding of the word. See John 14: 26; 16: 13. JBut great as was the favor to the race, I think the Qause has suffered much in conse- quence of an improper use of those heav- enly gifts, or as we should say, the cause has suffered because they (the gifts) were not used at all. For the lovers of the CLOSE COMMUNION. 93* truth to now bring the jewels of the church down to the dust at their feet, and to thus set aside the restrictions imposed, and widen the way to take a world of crime in, is, in my opinion, to hasten the time when. " iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold/' While I see no good that can result from! an open communion, as it is called, I do^ see, I think, enough that is not good to re- fuse it our sanction, at least until the prin- ciple be tested and those who practice it most have more time to show more prac- tical proofs of their love to the many who claim faith in the one Savior. When this is seen to be. general with this class, and it is seen, too, that they are more devoted ta all the commands that he gave, I shalL then *hink my present views premature. ii 94 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XIII. THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR IT. For open love/easts, as they are catted, there can be no standard set up that is safe. It might be said, too } that there can be none that is just. In a former reason against it I said, and I think truly, too, that there is a point at which this feeling should stop, and at which it does stop. When the feeling stops, the practice, of course, also stops. No one will ask for it to go further than the feeling which prompts it. This being the condition in which it is found, it is then important to know where to stop. To know that we go far enough and not too far. To ^rightly determine this point, and that too .at a time when our thoughts should be .more upon our God and upon ourselves than upon others, would, I fear, be one of those things that finite man can not do. I think it then to be not the place to make all the examination that is made as to fit- ness, whether it be in ourselves or in others.' If there be no more time given to the ex- CLOSE COMMUNION 95 animation of one's self, or of the doctrines and lives of others, than that made when all is ready, it must, of course, be very rapid and imperfect. Men in business do not, as a general thing, hurry through their most important affairs; but if hurry is made, it is always with that of least im- portance. But here those who claim not to be doing business for time alone, but for eternity as well, will jump at conclusions, and do in a quick hurry the most solemn work in any way connected with the church of Christ. It is nothing less than to com- memorate the death of the one who founded the church and said, " This do in remem- brance of me." See Luke 22: 19; I. Cor. 11 : 24. If an open feast is to be had, and it is proposed to invite the best of those present, I think it would depend much upon those appointed to make the selection, as some would do far more than others. I fear that what would be quite satisfactory to one would not be so to another, for, as we all know, one may think a brother to be a good man, but another may think him almost, if not a rascal in full. For this reason my choice could not in this case suit my brother, and his choice would not in all probability suit me. And to have a 96 CLOSE COMMUNION. feast under these circumstances and call it a Christian lovefeast would be, I think, to have a close communion under false colors, unless we could have some one to make a selection to suit all. To find one to do it thus would be as difficult, I think, as to find the guests to suit all. When others can not suit themselves it is quite difficult for any other to do this for them. But, I ask, can it be done at all ? Can there be any way, or is there any way in which Christians in their present divided and un- feeling condition can be brought to one table and there feast together as the disci- ples of one Lord ? I answer, I think not. The eating and drinking could be done at one table, or with each other, but to do so as would become those who claim a disci- pleship in the school of Christ is not to be expected by any way yet discovered. If there is any way in which so great a work can be done, and that, too, in a way to have God's blessing on it, I hope the friends of open communion will consider and adopt it. I here suggest the thought that there is not in existence any rule, but one, which can be laid down and adopted to suit the wishes and feelings of all who partake, and that is the Gospel rule. But it provides for only one church, and can be applied in full only CLOSE COMMUNION. 97 to the same. To apply it fully is to have a close communion, and that, too, of the strictest class. In that church it is not for one to examine another any further than outward acts speak, but the examination there to be made is to be applied to ourself. "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." I. Cor. 11: 28. Some will have it that this last is all the standard that is needed, and that none other should be ap- plied, but that, in my opinion, would be to set aside all and every restriction that God has given. It is here that the government of the church, and of the world itself, has already suffered much in consequence of each man judging himself to be better than he was. I now leave this thought to be considered in the next chapter. If there then be no rule or standard by which to go in order to have open feasting between the many churches, and which can with satisfaction to all be applied to the many, it is then a question to know by what rule we can go to make a selection from among the so called orthodox churches. How shall a selection be made from among them so as to secure the enjoyment of a Christian lovefeast ? It is here again that the same difficulty is met. There is no 7 98 CLOSE COMMUNION. standard in full accepted by any outside of their own church, and very often not by all who are within it. There has as yet been no rule applied that I know of but to let each one invite his own friends — pick his own company and to have his own enjoy- ment of the feast all to himself or to the few thus chosen. It is here that open com- munion is seen to go just so far as one's feelings go, but no further. Beyond this point we all fall in upon the same path, that of restricted communion. From this it would appear that feeling is the standard. It would do well if it were not so often a blind guide. CLOSE COMMUNION. 99 CHAPTER XIY. EY IT WE MAKE OURSELVES THE JUDGE OF OTHERS. When we propose an open lovefeast, we thus seem to say that we think all others are as willing to partake with us as we are to feast with them. We thus judge of their feelings toward us, and also toward each other; and we thus seem to judge that all present are willing and ready to partake of those sacred emblems together. But it is here, I think, that a blunder is often made. For the professors present may think very well of us, but not very well of our church ; and they may think quite well of the church, but not well of us, its members, and this last would be a sad mistake. But the whole thought from first to last would seem to be from what was heard of it, that it was not the worthiness of others here to be manifested, but to have their approval upon us and upon our feast. We of course must judge from what we see and hear, and so the above conclusion has been made in my mind, whether it be right or wrong. 100 CLOSE COMMUNION. If we are wrong we are ivrong, and it is our loss; but if the conclusion be correct, then a lovefeast under such conditions as the above does not seem to seek the ap- proval of God so much as that of ourselves and that of our neighbors. If this be the feeling w T ith any, whether for open com- munion or against it, a better one should be gained. Let us all first have the ap- proval of God, and if that of others then follows, so much the more to be glad for. But if we, to have the favor of God, bring on us the displeasure of our fellows, let us never give up the one to secure the other. " Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake." Matt. 5 : 10. Another feature of this is, that those who favor it in practice, and for the time make all allowance for the failures both in the faith and in the practice of those who par- take with them, do oiten seem to lose in a very short time all forbearance toward those who do not belong to the same church with themselves, and so much so as to then ridicule both the faith and practice of those who had so lately feasted with them. I speak of this here because I have seen and heard and have wondered how it was that any who claimed piety at all could have one feeling so warm, and then in so short a CLOSE COMMUNION. 101 time have another so different. For a little time all allowance is made for the faith and wrongs of others, but in an hour they can make none. How two decisions can be passed upon the same person for the same thing, and by the same judge, and that, too, in so short a time, is indeed not known to me. We are allowed by scripture to pass our judgment, but always under restric- tions, — only one kind of judgment. "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." John 7: 24. By this rule no two decisions can be put upon the same thing at the same time, and be both according to truth. Justice alloios but one. If one is thought good enough to feast with, his faith and his practice should then pass without censure. But if these are to be condemned and corrected, by all means let this be done before the feast is had. To feast with those who are in error as to doctrine, or in practice, is to have them think that all is approved; but if they be denied a place at the Lord's table, as it is often called, and they know too the reason why it is so, they are then much more apt to examine themselves as to their faith and practice, than if all was indulged by open feasting. It is proper here, I think, to notice again 102 CLOSE COMMUNION. an argument often used in favor ot open feasting, and I believe it to he the only scripture I have ever heard used in favor of the practice. It is this: that each one should "examine himself and so let him eat." It is claimed that this is all that is necessary, and that it is to be made by each one and that only for himself. In part this is true, and in part it is not. Self-exam- ination can and should go further than any other can go, but yet it may not go far enough, for human nature is very partial in the disposition of its own wrongs. To have a proper decision upon some acts, we must have other than the mind of him who committed them. Criminals are not always thought competent to dispose of their own capes. It is not because mercy will not be fully applied, bnt because of the wrong that is sure to be indulged. And so in this case indulgence is far more apt to prevail than the laws of justice. For that reason I think self-examination not all that should be had, although I think it can more readily determine our real condition than any other. It can show, if we will, our true relation both to God and to man, the state of our affections, their class, and also their bounds, and it can know our desires and also our intentions. But I think this is field enough CLOSE COMMUNION. 103 foi one "to dress and to keep/' and as far as the decision is likely to be impartial. I at one time thought that self-examination should embrace our faith in the Son of God, but I now conclude that we may even be mistaken in this, — may think we have faith in his blood, when it is only our assent to the fact that he died. To assent to this fact is not enough to give us a living faith (and the world is full of that kind which assents), but we need a faith which believes tliat Jesus died, and that he died for us, — died that we might live. When faith is found of this class and to this extent, it can always be seen by that which is done. Love can not be long felt, even to a small degree, without some expression of it being conveyed to others. And so it is with our love to Jesus ; it can not be indulged long nor much without the knowledge of some one else. And the reason is plain. Affec- tion for others or for another does not seek our own pleasure so much as that of the one loved. To please them is our happi- ness, and we seek nothing more than to hear their wish and to do it. We feel that we can not love as we wish, unless we do something to please the one loved. This is the feeling that is especially felt by all who love Jesus. Tliev all want to do- something 104 CLOSE COMMUNION. for him, as he has done so much for them. And just here he proposes a test of our love to him, when he says : "If ye love me, keep my commandments." It is' here that the passion we claim to have is made visible, and in doing this our faith is shown — not so much to God, nor to ourselves, as to our neighbors and friends, with not a little even to our enemies. James says: "Show me thy faith without thy works,, and I will show thee my faith hj my works." This is faith's only test, but it is a sieve one. In this way it is shown that the pearl is pos- sessed. But there is danger that we may think ourselves in possession of it, when we are not, — have only the shell. We may think that because we fast, and pray, and pay tithes, and try to feel all that a heart can feel, that sure enough the jewel is ours. To prevent a condition so awful we must examine ourselves as to our motives and intentions, when w T e do well. If it be for the glory of God,— '-for the love of the right, then all is well, and we have the ap- proval of both God and man. It should not be so much a question as to who, or how many, are worthy to partake with us, as to know that we ourselves are allowed to come. Open communionists seem to judge all worthy who may think CLOSE COMMUNION. 105 themselves so, while close communionists hold that none are of themselves worthy, but that it is only through grace that any are thus allowed to partake of the Lamb of God. I think there is little danger of close communion being too strict, and keep- ing any away who are in full relation, and who are worthy, while I do fear that open communion will admit and indulge many who may judge themselves so very worthy as to entirely overlook the solemn event celebrated. Before leaving the subject of self-exam- ination, I wish to offer a few more thoughts, with a su^estion. If the work of self-exam- on ination was thorough in each and in every case, there would be need of no other. But here is a commandment as frequently overlooked, perhaps, as any other, and as examination mast be had, and as some fail to do it altogether, and others do it so par- tially, it then becomes the duty of the body to examine its members in particular. It is the life of the body that is now sought for, and if it can retain all its members, with love and life in every one, it is well for the body and for all; but if any mem- ber is or can be made of no advantage to the whole, then to cut off is the only rem- edy. If the only examination to be had 106 CLOSE COMMUNION. was that by the member at fault, and it to be made and executed by him alone, I think that amputation would seldom occur. Withdrawals are quite common, we know, but it is more often done for the advantage of the individual, as it is thought, than for that of any or all others. Not many with- draw from the body of their own accord, that it may be a purer, holier lump. We see it that those who withdraw mostly do so to spite somebody else — to gain some- thing for themselves with others, or to pre- vent a public trial and condemnation. Self is at the head of the fault, and there is apt to be too much of it to leave for any cause but its own. I offer another thought on self-examina- tion. One fact is that faults are committed, and that, too, by many who have taken the Christian name. These in many cases, when reproved for the wrong done, will at once confess the act, and admit that it was wrong, but will ask more for its indulgence than for its removal, — will plead ignorance, little faith, and the host of besetments, but it is not often that any will own right up and say that it was passion, lust, covetous- ness, or envy, — in a word, sin that prompted the whole of it. The indulgence of this seems to be sought for, and any plea that CLOSE COMMUNION. 10T will bring it is sure to be applied. For this reason I think self-examination good, when it goes far enough, but if it in any case will indulge a wrong, then it is not enough. I now suggest that we all look at our own minds and hearts, and let others pass upon our lives. I trust that all will see that self-examination is not enough, though we think it a duty so proper, and one that should at no time be lost sight of r yet, when it is all that is had, many faults pass untouched, for the one who is in the fault never sees himself in that light. Hi$ brethren, or a neighbor, and sometimes his enemy, must do that for him; and if reproof and correction ever come to him it must come from another. This must often be done by the body, if it would have peace and purity in its fold, when these wrongs are made right or the member cut off — yes, cut off from the church, and from nothing so much as from the lovefeast, and that,, too, because unworthy of it. Now this method and the only remedy for all hopeless cases can be applied no further than in his own church. For if we- know of the faults of those in other churches, \*e, although we can talk about them, cart do nothing to correct them. If their church will let the faults pass without re- 108 CLOSE COMMUNION. buke, we must also let them pass, be they what they may. For this reason we oppose open lovefeasts and think them calculated to do no good, but rather to do harm. They do harm, because reproof and correc- tion are not and can not be applied. I repeat the argument in favor of open feasting, "that each one should examine himself and so eat," and ask why it is that the friends of it do not let the examination rest there? Why not let it stay where they put it? If one is thought good •enough to feast with, he ought also to be thought good enough to judge of himself, especially when that is the only rule given him — the only restriction that is laid. But no, each one must still have his decision, ■and pass it, and that, too, quite audibly. The one decision is not enough, although made in candor; but others must still have their opinions, and not unfrequently com- pare them. More than one decision is passed upon all such subjects, and no mat- ter how penitent the erring one may have felt when trying to celebrate the Lord's •death, yet each one held his opinion, and had no more respect for the other who had thus judged himself than was had before. A decision thus fixed is not to be revoked by our merely seeing the accused party CLOSE COMMUNION. 109 go to the Lord's table. To thus see one have a desire to bury the past does not always change a verdict already made. And I have heard it from those who favor open feasting that they had wondered, often, how such and such ones could partake as they did. With a heart of true penitence, and with a knowledge of a condition such as the above, what must be the feelings of an erring one who would thus partake! I think that to them it would be anything but a lovefeast. To prevent a condition such as the above, the church should come together, and then every charge should bo heard, confession or innocence should be obtained, and all who sought a reformation should be forgiven, while those who are obstinate should be set back. When such a condition is obtained then the tomahawk should be buried to rise no more, and then it is, and only then, that there can be a lovefeast. There could then be a feast of love, because that feeling had been indulged, and in a much better way than merely in eating together. The sacrament, as we believe, is not to feast with the Lord, but to partake of him in spirit, and ivith each other, and to thus celebrate his death till he comes, which event, from the signs noAV seen, can not be far in the future. See 110 CLOSE COMMUNION. Matt. 24: 6, 7. To have a feast of love we must have that feeling for each other before the table is approached, for if we have it not till the table is reached, going there will not make love. If we all go there without love each for the other, we for that reason will not and can not have a feast of love. Feasting together will in- crease our love which we had before, but it will not make it. Before I leave the subject of examination I will offer one other thought. It is this : Those who favor open feasting seem to judge others better than they are, or better or more worthy of the feast than they may think for themselves. They invite others to come and partake with them, and the request being urgent and for fear of being thought illiberal by those who are called liberal, they come and partake because others do. Here is no examination of self had at all, and it is only to please others that they come. It is no feeling of worthi- ness that prompts it, but for fear of being thought more unworthy than what they are. Should we not call this "eye-service" and "men-pleasing?" Here are two faults in- stead of one, for it is a fault to come to please others, and the system that indulges it is also at fault. It may be asked why it CLOSE COMMUNION. Ill is we oppose open communion so strongly. I reply that we are sure it is to indulge sin, and the Lord knows, and we, too, that sin needs no indulgence. It has already toA much now. 112 CLOSE COMMUNION. CHAPTER XV. IT ALLOWS TOO MUCH. Open feasts admit all sects, and so admit of all doctrines. If it does not admit all, it is not free communion. This has been offered before, but I call it up here again in my reasons against an open feast. Not many will admit all^tated in the leading sentence, for not many can admit of all doctrines, and I do not see how one with mind at all could do so ; but we are now dealing with the principle, either in full or in part, and my aim is to show that we, as a people, do not seek or claim to sanction all that-is held by the reli- gious world, nor a very large part of them, and we do not allow our practice to go very far beyond our sentiment. That others do this in open feasting Lthink I have shown, and I think, too, that it is shown at every time when there is an open feast. I leave the prefix love off, for I believe love is found only where there is agreement or union, and think it needless to apply it where these, its fruits, are not seen. I state it as a fact, CLOSE COMMUNION. 113 which I think all will admit, that there are now and have long been far too many sects of religion in the world for the saving of the world. And I feel, too, that it will never be charged to the race that they did not have enough plans of religion, for it would be difficult, I think, to conceive of any more. There may indeed be a blend- ing of doctrines, a shearing of principles, but to get up others of purely raw fabric, is not at all likely. To speak in a general way we might say that the world is too religious — has too many religions, but has not enough religion — has an over-abundance of it in theory, but not near enough of it in character. Men seem in this to think that much of a bad thing is better than a little ot a good thing. It is the bulk ap- parently that is sought ior, and not the class, as should be. But so it is. The race is again deceived because it is "pleas- ant to the eyes," and I fear the mistake will not be discovered till life's work is done and the judgment-day has come. Some tell us that "this is a world of va- riety, and that every one has a right to his own opinion." As to its being a world of variety, I grant it, but I claim that it is man, as he now is, who makes so great a variety. But admitting that we have a 8 114 CLOSE COMMUNION.. world of variety does not say that we should have a thousand ways for the saving of sinners, or that every man's opinion is enough to save himself. We are not saved by opinions, nor by opinion alone, even as "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Dent. 8:3; Matt. 4: 4. . There is, I believe, a "great salvation" provided for our lost race, but that does not allow that it is to be applied by a thousand nor a dozen different methods, and that, too, in just such a way as a man's fancy will dictate. Had it been made a matter of fancy, I think that these had all been made out, while "they sought out many inventions." Eccl. 7: 29. But, no! it is from heaven. Piety, the precious fruit of pure religion, is not so well secured in so many ways as it would be in the one right way, because that which will secure it for one will secure it for all, and that, too, without them going so many roads to get it. The favor of God can be obtained without assuming any relation but one, — that of a disciple (learner), and to accept of the one message, that of the truth. "Thy word is truth." Then it is that the learner's profiting appears unto all. When he has the truth he is right. When all CLOSE COMMUNION. 115 get it then all are right, and nothing is heard of a world of churches, for we have but the one church. It is not the truth which makes so many sects, but it is the error. With light to our path one can walk straight up to the object sought for, but it is in the darkness that the many crooked paths are made. And so in this, it is nothing less than darkness which would invent so many roads to heaven. "I am the way, 11 means but one way. So great a variety in what is assumed to be the worship of God is better suited to in- dulge the perverted tastes and follies ot men than to secure any other one object. And not any will or can allow that all the different views upon any subject of Bible truth is at all proper. Therefore some and indeed many of the views held must be wrong. It may be that all are wrong, but it can not be that all are right, from the fact that not many hold the same view, or hold it in the same way. Union and com- munion imply much more than merely a desire to be united. This being the sad condition in which the religious world is at present placed, I ask why it is that there is any claim laid to union at all. If it is found among the many who claim it, I know not of it, and to claim unity when an 116 CLOSE COMMUNION. open feast is had is to be united for the moment and divided by the year. A cat and dog could do as well, if not better. In order to have an open feast and to have it so that it could be called a Christian lovefeast, it would be most proper, I think, to have those come who hold the same faith and who have it in the same way. But much as this has been prayed for by the many now living and those who are dead, such a feast is not possible yet, for a proper con- dition has not yet been realized. And those who may agree upon some point of doctrine or practice, do not agree upon anything else. It may be a question whether there is more than one doctrine taught in the Gospel. But let that be as it may, the professing world do not all con- sider it, or any one of them, alike. If the Bible has but one doctrine, some take more of it than others do, while it is to be greatly feared that no one takes it all. If there be in it more than one doctrine, the chances for division of mind are so much the more increased, so that, take it as we may, not any of the many religious bodies in the world are agreed upon any one of the most important truths of God's book. It is true that some might be brought together who believe some things in the same way., but CLOSE COMMUNION. 117 upon others they are as far apart as Jew and Gentile — may be together on some one thing, but far apart on everything else. All can not be admitted to one feast because of the great extremes between them, and the same extremes are to be found among those who are now admitted. One need not go to China, or to Salt Lake City, to find the extremes in doctrine, for these can be found here. And we may well ask where it is that these can not be found ? For this reason open feasts are not lovefeasts. There are as great differences between the so-called popular churches, that is, if their disciplines, creeds, etc., are any index to their faith, as between midnight and noon. It is because of these many and great dif- ferences that many have at once discarded the whole system of revelation, and have become its enemies, instead of its friends. Some take a part of the truth and oppose so bitterly all who do not see as they see, that others have thrown it all away, and now oppose the whole plan. Satan's work could not succeed better than under the present management. It allows men all the religions they want, and the powers of darkness get all the glory. But some may tell us that the doctrines, creeds, etc., as heretofore set forth, are no 118 . CLOSE COMMUNION. index to the faith of the churches now, and that the feeling for each other is now more liberal and still improving. If this be true, I am glad of it, but I doubt it much. And because I do doubt the improvement in feeling, I will ask, Why then have so many different organizations ? Why not drop off a few hundreds ? And why not revise those old and illiberal creeds, if the feeling and faith are not what they once were ? But not so. Instead of a decrease in the number of church organizations, they are rapidly on the increase. If the feeling between churches is now so good, why not blend a few scores of them together and thus do away with so much confusion — so much cost and so many small congregations, and so little of that holy influence which the world has so long been asking for? I think the inducements for a rapid change quite enough for us to press the claim. It would most assuredly afford us all much pleasure to know that all believed the Word, practiced it in the same way, and- all. belonged : to the same church. It would be some pleasure, too, I think, to know and feel that our feasts were then consistent, in union with each other throughout, and were really what their name is, love} 'easts. I urge it again, let the change be made. CLOSE COMMUNION. 119 Let the churches all be fused into one glo- rious church with Christ at its head, and then-all that can now only be anticipated will be fully realized — >will all "be made perfect in one, that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me," John 17 : 23. Just at this point I meet with an ar- ticle in the Methodist Recorder, and copied from the London Christian Signal, in which the names of the different leading branches of the Methodist Church in Eng- land, Canada, and the United States, are given. Twenty-one branches are here named, while others are referred to, and the article closes with this remark : "It is a remarkable fact that, subdivided as Methodists are into so many sections, each has been faithful to the doctrine of Methodism as it was preached by Mr. Wesley, and this for a period extending over more than a century and a quarter. Of the numerous divisions that have taken place during that time, not one has been caused by divergence from doctrine, but all on church discipline and order." ; What we find in this that is so remark- able to us is, that a score of sections can all have the same faith, and that, too, for over a hundred years, and yet not be one 120 CLOSE COMMUNION. organization. The doctrine of Mr. Wesley is most remarkable, too, from the fact that it will allow of so many ways to apply it and still be the same thing — will adapt it- self to everybody, and in every way, and for so long a time. Bat this is more than ean be said of most principles that are true, for we must adapt ourselves to them, and not them to us. And we had much rather hear of all Methodists adapting themselves to both the doctrine and life of Mr. Wesley, t'han to hear of them adapting these to them, as is here being done. I offer one more remark upon this divided condition in which the labor of Mr. Wesley is now seen. Such a state could not have come, had all been faithful to the doctrine and practice of the great reformer, for I believe his practice, in the main, to have been consistent with the doctrines taught, and if this had been faithfully observed by all his followers, there had been no twenty ways in which to follow the one man. But why boast of loyalty to a man, — Mr. Wes- ley, or any other? Why not rather lay claim to the doctrines and life of one Jesu§ Christ, and strive to be faithful to the Word as preached by him, the Lord from heaven? But no, it is the spirit to follow our prefer- ences that makes division, and this- makes CLOSE COMMUNION. 121 parties, or churches, as at the church ot Corinth; and tD indulge this, open feasting is practiced, not so much to create love, or because there is love, but to have it at least in word, and in appearance, but not in reality. Everybody knows there is division, strife, opposition, and confusion, and any method that will attempt to cover up the wrong without first removing it, is to allow more than is right. The apostle James seems to have foreseen the present workings and spoke of them thus: "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." James 3 : 14, 16. Before closing my remarks on this sub- ject I will ask one more question. If love be so great or so much as to commune with all Christian churches, why is it that there is so much bitterness against those who may leave off in one church and go and join some other church? If there can be Christians in one as well as in the other, and liberty of thought be granted to all, why then deal with those w r ho apply this feeling as though they were heretics? If 122 CLOSE COMMUNION. we can fellowship the church and love it, we ought to love and fellowship all who join it. But if we can not love all who are in another church, why do we then have an open feast and invite that church with its members ? It is to be hoped that all pro- fessors will try to be more practical in their religion, and that their love will not be ap- plied so partially, but with at least some more consistency than is being done at present. The principle which is offered in this chapter is, that "open feasting allows too much/' I should have said that it claims more, and much more than it will reduce to practice. For it does not approve of character, but of relation. It seems to take it for granted that all who have the church relation have also the Christian character, and as such they are worthy to partake of a Christian feast. But this con- clusion, or any practice that favors it, is a mistaken one, as I think I have already shown. But if we apply the rule, not to relation, but to character, and then admit the best of the best churches to one and the same table, the same rule will also ad- mit the best of those who make no pro- fession at all,— those who are known every- where as "outsiders." The reason is a CLOSE COMMUNION. 123 plain one, for the popular churches of to- day tell us that many of the plainest com- mandments in the Bible are not important, — not essential to salvation, and we need not to take a score of the leading churches r in both doctrine and practice, till they will set aside almost, if not altogether, all the commandments which Jesus taught. And to admit them to a feast, with that faith, is to admit a majority of all the "outsiders"" in the land. For the principle that will set aside any truth or obligation, will, if ap- plied in full, set them all aside. Man's faith is so varied that I think it has well nigh covered all the ground, both of truth and error; and while all may have a little that is good, each may have much that is not. Some may not know what truth they have. We make the claim then that all those doctrines that are not of the Bible are not the truth, — are not the mind of God, but are the "doctrines of devils, ,r and if in our feasts a majority of these pre- vail, or if even a large part of these are seen or felt, the feasting is then not at the "Lord's table," but at the "table ot devils." It is the principles held by those who feast r whether of truth or error, which deter- mine most positively the character of the feast, and the spirit which governs it tells- 124 CLOSE COMMUNION. plainly whose table it is. It is the truth, both in faith and in practice, which makes it the " Lord's table," but it is error, either in faith or in practice, that makes it a ^'table of devils." This being true, I ask, how can we blend the two together so as to have a "Lord's lovefeast," and it made up of truth and error ? I think and will say, it can not be done, nor do I favor any system which attempts it. But while this is my feeling, I do not wish any to think that I would approve of all who may feast without fear at our own tables, or that I condemn any who feast with fear to God at others, for this is not my feeling. I am now opposing any and all efforts that will jumble all creeds, doctrines, and relations into one heap long enough to eat together, and that will then give to it the name of a "Lord's lovefeast." If there be error in -any or in all when the feast is had with themselves, it will by no means take it &way to unite them with others and have but one feast. It makes the mistakes to be greater, because it destroys all relations, but gives no other than that of no relation, -either to God or man. If we call up the condition of those who built the Tower of Babel, after their lan- guage was confused, we can conceive in CLOSE COMMUNION. 125 some measure, the condition of the churches and their members in what they call "open lovefeasts." After the confusion of tongues had taken place, each individual must stay with his own family to have any intercourse whatever. This state not only destroyed his happiness, but also cut off his relation r not with God, nor his own family, but with all other families. They had close com- munion then to the full extent, a.nd there- was, I believe, no more of a selfish spirit seen then than before. And now it is not a confusion of languages so much as confu- sion of religions. The world is to-day, and has been for centuries, more confused, divided, and distracted upon the subject of religion and the exercise of it, than upon any other or all other subjects. And such is the condition yet. For the religious people of to-day to attempt to unite the many churches, with all their differences, both in their faith and in their practice, is to bring about a condition like unto what would have occurred at Babel, if the fami- lies there had all come together. In the- one the confusion would have been so great that one could have doubted whether he had a language at all, and in the other it is to be doubted whether some have faith or religion at all. The only thing which could 126 CLOSE COMMUNION. be done at Babel, under the circumstances, was to separate, not in feeling, but in their work, the mighty tower of their foolishness, which they were building, and then each to remain and work with those who had the same language with himself. And so in this. It is a sad thing to the cause of Jesus that there is so much division and confusion -among those who all claim to be his fol- lowers; but the best now that can be done is for each to try to build a tower that the hord will approve of, and not try to unite so many factions to build what neither God nor man will approve. With this view of the subject, the "Dunkard People," as they are called,, wish to stop where all have the same doctrine as near as can be obtained, — to stop where we think we have a right to say whether a brother's faith, or his life, or both, are right or wrong, and if either or all do not, as we think, agree with the law from heaven, where we can have a right to instruct, reprove, and correct as may be needed. This is our practice, and we find that with all the care thus taken, error in belief and mistakes in life are far too common. For the reason that with all our care we are none too pure, and because the religious world around us is not in any better condition than we ourselves, and CLOSE COMMUNION. 127 above all because love, either little or much, does not exist between churches as bodies, we wish to go no further in this than we do. We feel that we have safe reasons for the present practice, while as yet we know no reason for a change. If those who claim so much for open feasting were most loyal to the commands of Jesus, then we ought to be silent. But to overdo one thing and to undervalue many others, is not, I think, the best way in which to show an attach- ment to any cause. Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments/' and we believe this to be by far the best evidence of both love and faith that is known. We ca,n show our loyalty in no other way, 128 CLOSE COMMUNION, CHAPTER XVI. IT ALLOWS TOO MUCH. This practice of open communion seems to justify every one who will admit the one fact "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I have before referred to this same subject, but I call it up here again to show that with no more than this for a standard we may admit everything else. And I would ask any friend to open feasting to tell us how one could be unworthy of a place at the Lord's table, if to make the one con- fession was enough to admit the one that made it ? If that be enough to make one worthy, what is it that will make him un- worthy? One can not then become un- worthy of it by any other means possible than to be a downright infidel or sceptic. This confession or admission will admit thousands who make no profession, and will allow back again to church fellowship the many who have back-slidden, and it will also admit legions of devils, all to commem- orate our Lord's death. To give this reason for open feasting, and it to be the best one, CLOSE COMMUNION. 129 is, I think, to set up a standard that is far from being a safe one, because it would al- low of no distinction between saint and sinner, good and bad, the pious and the impious. This rule, if applied in general, would disband every church in existence, set aside every proper relation, destroy every church ordinance, — that of the com- munion itself, — for if to assent to one fact is enough to admit to this table, why should we have a table at all ? If this one truth will do so much, what further need is there of anything more ? But it is not enough, and is a reason against an open feast, be- cause of the spirit of presumption to be seen with those who advocate and practice open feasting. The feast is in all cases dedicated to the Lord, and it is then presumed that all who partake of it do also belong to the Lord's household. If this was not the opinion held of those who partake, it would be in the highest degree disrespectful to the Master to invite those who were not of his family. And to believe one's self in the Lord's family is not enough to admit any. It is then important to know what the Lord has said upon the subject of admis- sion, and to admit none but those whose admission is therein legalized. If we do 130 CLOSE COMMUNION. admit more than the Lord has authorized, it then ceaseth to be the Lord's table; and irom the fact that his wish is not respected. His table belongs only to his own family. And to set aside his word upon the subject is to put aside his mind or wish, which is to show at once that the Master of the feast, to whom it is said to be offered, is f not to have the honor of it. His approval is not sought. As soon as the feast is dedicated to the -Lord, the partaking of it is at once re- stricted to the Lord's household, be they who they may, and to be taken of by none but the Lord's people. And the only thing vthat I see necessary to be done further is, that each one should carefully consider whether or not he is sound in the faith, has kept himself pure, and is resolved to be faithful until death. This he must do for himself, as no one else can do it for him. *"Let a man examine himself and so let trim eat." If his relation and life are proper, he has a right to partake. It is his *duty to partake. But if his relation is not proper, or if once proper, but now lost by transgression, or by unfaithfulness, he can bave no right whatever to partake of it, and all the powers of earth combined can ;not give it to him, for the table does not CLOSE COMMUNION. 131 then belong to earth. It belongs then to the Lord from heaven, and to such as he will invite. When the table is given away to the Lord, it is not for men to say who shall approach it; but the word of God directs how and what to do. It requires that all must partake to have life (John 6 : 53), and this is a necessity. But there is danger that it may be partaken of un- worthily; and to prevent this an examina- tion is had, both by the church and also by ourselves, as has been before shown, to pre- vent if possible the awful consequences mentioned in I. Cor. 11 : 27-30. It would then seem that we do not partake to merely please others, but to obtain life, and that abundantly, and to celebrate the death of him who gives the life. I give the restric- tion in full for fear that some one may not look to see what is said. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- 132 CLOSE COMMUNION. cerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge our- selves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation." There are two points which must be made before even self-examination will ap- ply. We are to come into the church as our Lord would have us come, and we are then to maintain that relation by doing what the Lord would have us do. The church will most likely know these things better than we ourselves do, and should ap- prove and admit us, if these are proper, but disapprove and refuse us, if not. But it is here that self-examination comes in, and should in every case be applied, but can go no further than to look to our faith and to our determination, for none can know these but ourselves and our God; and these, if not right, will render any one unworthy, although our brethren may ap- prove and admit us. The Gospel does pro- vide for the one church, and commands self- CLOSE COMMUNION. • 133 examination, bat it is still confined to the one church, — applies to no more, and in this one points out no less than six classes which are not to be admitted at all. See I. Cor. 5: 11. It is not to be presumed that all the tables dedicated to the Lord are for that reason the Lord's tables, nor is it so that all who may lay claim to be of his household are for that reason members of his family. If this were enough to give any and all a place in the Lord's family and at his table, then self-examination would in all cases be enough. We would then need no more. If worthiness of any favor rested merely upon our view of the subject, and the decision we would m all cases pass upon our right to the enjoyment of it were enough to secure it, there are but few if any favors we would not get. If faith in the benefit of and the desire to partake were enough to give worthiness of charac- ter, not many favors would be denied. Heaven itself, with all its enjoyments, will be sure to nearly all the race, for quite all believe there is a heaven, and all have a longing desire to possess it. From Jesus' own language we learn that mere belief is not enough to secure for its possessor a proper relation with his Savior, and that the doing of many wonderful 134 CLOSE COMMUNION. works is not enough to secure it. And if our relation to Jesus is built upon nothing more than a desire to love him, and some- thing we may have done in his name, then will we hear at that day, "I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniq- uity." Matt. 7: 22, 23. The only safe way is to believe the right thing, to do the right thing, and that, too, in the right way, and then we are safe. This is Jesus' rule, and nothing short of it is safe. By this rule all people will believe alike, for they will believe the same thing, and in the same way. By it they will do alike, for they will all do the same thing; they will all mind the same thing, and will do it in the same way. This will make them to be all alike, and then they can all have a feast together. But then there would be only the one church and one people ; it would be Christ's glorious church, and the Lord's people. But as we now see it the world's religious people do not believe alike, do not do alike, but rather to the contrary, and this is why we oppose the having of an open feast. They are not in a condi- tion for it. When they are in the proper condition for a lovefeast together, other things will tell it more than by eating at one table. Before I leave this part of the CLOSE COMMUNION. 135 subject I will speak of the influence of open feasting. I may have treated this thought before, but I call it up in this con- nection. The professing world, divided as it is, does not have the influence in favor of piety and holiness it would have if all professing bodies were more consistent with their claim than they now are. Their divided condition with their opposition to one an- other, is no light to the world in any sense. But the reverse is true, and the power which should be in favor of light and truth, is now in favor of darkness and error. They all claim to love Jesus, but they do not all obey his word. They claim also to love one another, but they bite and devour those of other bodies, and sometimes those of their own, and this, to an observing world, does not look like love, for blind as our race is in other things, they well know what love means. To them all it means- kindness, long-suffering, gentleness, and peace ; and if these fruits be not seen, then it is not love, and no claim whatever, by toy or all, can change their opinion of it. Nor should it be changed, for the fruits of God's love are to be seen and felt by those who are in the world, not only by those in the church relation, but by those outside of 136 CLOSE COMMUNION. it, and it is to be feared that when there is no more indication of love among those who claim religion, than that of taking a bit of bread and a sip of wine together, that love does not exist at all. With this view of the fruits of religion the world gets no light whatever from those who claim to have the light. And we must all admit that that which is not light is its opposite, darkness. "If therefore the light that is in thee, be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matt. 6: 23. "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy -whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole • shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light." Luke 11: 35, 36. We want that all who claim to love Jesus should let their light shine, but let us first get the light into ourselves, and soon others will see the flame. When all catch it, then is the world lighted with the light which is from heaven. CLOSE COMMUNION. 137 CHAPTER XVII. NO GOOD CAN KESULT FROM IT. I can not see that any good whatever can result from open feasting between churches as they now are. If it be said that to have love we must cultivate that feeling, I fully agree with that sentiment ; but my effort has been to show that love does not exist, and if it is desired to culti- vate this principle, there are many ways in which this can be done, and from which the most glorious results will follow. I do not regard the act of feasting together to be a means to cultivate love to each other so much as the result of love which does already exist, and which has been produced in some other way. If this was the proper way in which to beget a kind regard for others, then we ought always to feast with those we love least. But this is not the rule at present observed, for the effort seems to be to feast most with those who are loved most. Love is in this not so much an end to a means as a means to an end. It was not the blood that brought us 138 CLOSE COMMUNION. love from heaven, but it was the love which brought the blood. And so in feasting to- gether, it is the happy effect of a feeling already enjoyed, or it can not in any sense be a Zove-feast. To beget love it should be given to those with least love. The reason why I can not see that any good can result from it is, because I know of none that has been shown. If there be any good what- ever in the application of this principle, namely, the communion between the liberal churches, I have not yet seen it. The practice has had ample time, I think, to have revolutionized the feelings and the re- lations of those who have enjoyed it most, but up to this time it has been a failure. In most things, when a good result is not seen and a bad one is feared, men are slow to adopt them. And now shall it be differ- ent with this? Shall we adopt and favor a practice of which no good has yet been seen, and of which much evil is feared? If we do, it is to treat this matter as we do no other. Sentiments thought too liberal are not safe to indulge, and the abuse of any feeling does far outweigh any good which is only expected. Nor can I see that any are in any degree made happier by open feasting, but if such is the fact, I think the pleasure enjoyed in CLOSE COMMUNION. 139 this way to be of short duration, for we see things go on about as they did before. Tho only difference to be seen is that there is somebody and often some unpleasant thing talked about of those who partook. Nor do we see any more love between churches thought to be so liberal, and who thus partake together, than we do between those who have close communion. I have said all the while that love is none too great with any, but there is no more of it between those who have open feasts than with those who have not. And I ask, if love between the churches be the object sought for, why have the many churches ? If the feeling is one, why not have but one church, and of course but the one relation ? But we are told that "this is to suit the fancies of people. People have a variety of fancy as to churches, and to be liberal we must indulge these fancies." I am as- tonished to hear men talk of fancy in truth,, or variety in truth. As though truth, that never varies, in life or in death, on earth or in heaven, should now vary so as to adapt itself to the fancies of a thousand minds. Is it not strange that the mind of Almighty God must assume any shape, sup- port any and all theories, in order to suit the fancies of a perverted and carnal mind ? 140 CLOSE COMMUNION. It is strange logic to us to hear men talk •of love between the many churches and all the while favoring a variety and a multi- tude of churches for nothing more than to humor the fancies of men. And I ask, if fancy is to be indulged, and variety in reli- gion is sought for, why not have all that is possible ? Why have any restraint ? Let no two believe alike, think alike, talk alike, or act alike, and then we will have this feeling of fancy indulged to the full. But then what kind of religion would we have ? I think we would then have to perfection of what we now have a large part, a great deal of fancy, but not much holiness, — a great deal of it in name, but a very little of it in character. The feeling is world- wide that men must have some kind of re- ligion, and so we have it, but have only a little share of its power, and the result is, not much of its fruit — I mean the fruit and power of the true religion which all claim to have, and all should have. And it is true that the world has a kind of religion, and that, too, with all the variety and fancy that is possible under the circumstances. But to indulge it further, or to lay it aside, in only one thing, and that for the moment, as open feasting now offers to do, is not, as we believe, for the advantage of any. I do CLOSE COMMUNION. 141 think we would have more piety, holiness, if we had more of the mind which is from above, and less of our fancy and variety. It is the carnal mind that has long ago ruined the world, and the effort of revela- tion has ever been to induce our race to bo less fanciful as to its own mind, and to be more and more subject to the divine mind, which we speak of as the law of God. This is always reasonable, regular, and to be subject to it is to enjoy that which is real and unchangeable. But it is our fickle, unstable mind that is not subject to the law of Grod, and indeed can not be, and in proportion as it is yet unsubdued, we may be assured that the proper change has not been made. At this place it is easy to see how complete our conversion is, if made at all. To allow of a thousand modes of wor- ship merely to indulge the fancies of those who seek to be religious, is to allow a great deal for fancy and not much for truth, and is to allow in religion more than is allowed in anything else. But if others claim the right to their opinion of what is right and pleasing, then the "Dunkard people" should also have theirs, and that is, to have a close com- munion, under all circumstances. But if it be not our own wish which is to be con- 142 CLOSE COMMUNION. suited, but rather that of others which is to be respected, why not first consult the wish of the great Jehovah, who has said, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." And again, why not consult the wish of him who made himself of no reputation, and did nothing •of his own will, but always to follow the will of him that sent him. Let the mind &nd life of him who went about doing good be in us all, and we will not have the variety in everything, and' more especially in what we call religion, that we now do. But let us all mind the same thing and be of the same judgment in this matter, if in no other, and then strife, persecution, and division will cease. We will then have but one church, and it will be Christ's church. As it now is, we know that all do not have the same mind upon any one thing what- ever, and much less that of religion, and for that reason alone no good can ever come from open communion among professors in their present divided and distracted state. Open communion will not in any way lessen the number of church organizations, nor will it in the least purify those already formed. If it would prevent the increase of churches a word might be said in its favor, but it does not prevent this. New -churches spring up faster among those who CLOSE COMMUNION. 143 favor open communion than among those who do not. And if the churches which favor it were purer and better than those which oppose it, there would be another plea for open feasting. But they are not. This systeni winks at and allows of every sin. It purifies no one. If it would pre- vent the spirit of persecution now so prev- alent in the so-called Christian churches, we would have still another argument in its favor, but the past has shown as much or more persecution among those who prac- tice open feasting than with those who do not. None can claim it otherwise. Or, if its effect was to increase love and union between the many denominations, and thus enable them to turn all their forces against the common enemy, then we would have a strong argument in its favor. But we do not see it thus, for there is no more evidence of real love between the churches which feast together than with those which do not. Or, if those who talk so loudly for it were most zealous for the teachings of our good Master, then I, too, would favor it. But they are not, for it is among this class that we hear so much said about non- essentials. It is that class which says our Lord did not always mean what he said. These want some words to mean nothing. 144 CLOSE COMMUNION. As no good has yet resulted from open communion, I conclude that with the time and chances it has had, that none will ever come; for it has had time enough, and no good fruit has been seen yet. The fruit already seen has been so very corrupt that I conclude that the tree upon which it grew, viz., open communion, is also a cor- rupt tree. "A good tree can not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matt. 7: 16-20. In presenting what I have upon this sub- ject, I have said little but .what may be applied in general to all, and by all those churches which favor and practice "close communion ;" but I come now to consider this subject in its application to us as a peculiar people. That we are such a people will be admitted at once, when I tell why it is that we are such. The Lord's people are such, and this relation we claim and wish by all proper means to hold. CLOSE COMMUNION. 145 CHAPTER XVIII SPECIAL REASONS. As was said before, I come now to offer reasons for close communion which apply to and can be urged by the "Dunkard peo- ple" in particular. The first which I will offer is that of BAPTISM, as it is held by us as it is not held by many others. And the very great difference to be seen in the practice of this rite, and their non-agreement as to its design and importance, are sufficient, we feel, to forbid anything like a Christian love-feast, so long as those differences are to be seen. I know not in what light all of the many churches view this rite; but from the manner in which some speak of it, I can not think that they esteem it very highly. And we- know, too, from what they say and from what they do, that they do not at all regard it as essential to salvation. They seem not at all particular whether baptism is had or not, or in what manner it is had. In what other sense they can view it and practice 10 146 CLOSE COMMUNION. it, in some form or other, and still hold it to be unimportant, is what I do not know. What it is held for, or what design it fills, that is of so little consequence, but still must be held, I know not, and for that reason will not say. The difference between our people and those of others in this matter is, that we do hold it, with all the truth, to be important, while it would seem that they do not. We allow for baptism a place and part in the work of human salvation which nothing else can fill. And we hold that the word of God regards the change of relation indicated by the act of baptism, to be an important one, and that this change of relation can not be secured in any other way than that of being "buried with him by baptism into death." And our faith is, that "if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death/ 7 and continue faithful in that rela- tion until death, that then "we shall be in the likeness of his resurrection." Rom. 6 : 4, 5. Therefore we hold it to be so very important a condition that nothing else can fill its place, or give the same relation, and for this reason we admit none to member- ship and to our lovefeasts, but those who have assumed this right relation in the right way. We not only hold to the im- CLOSE COMMUNION. 147 portance of the thing done, but as well to the manner in which it is done, and without an exception have but one mode of baptism. We believe also in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but we concede to none but to God the power and the right to administer a gift so precious. I speak now altogether of the rite of water baptism. To satisfy all that water holds an important place in the change to the new relation, I cite the words of Jesus, John 3 : 5, where we have it thus: " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the. kingdom of God." This is positive; and with this view of its importance we regard those not thus born as not being in the new relation, and there- fore not in the kingdom. And although some claim that they have the baptism of the Spirit, who have not had the baptism of water, yet our people in no case admit the church relation without the immersion of each candidate three times in water. We then ask God for the Spirit. Our mode of baptism is always by the trine immersion, that is, by the dipping of each candidate three times under water, or once at the naming of each person of the Holy Trinity, and that, too, by the forward motion. This is, in short, the Brethren's view of 148 CLOSE COMMUNION. it, and I will not stop here to argue the subject of baptism, or its mode, but cite the reader to the works of my brethren Peter Nead, Christian Wise, James Quinter, Robert Miller, B. F. Moomaw, J. H. Moore, and J. W. Stein, with others, who have all treated the subject of baptism as to it de- sign, its importance, its history, and its mode. However I here remark that history gives to this mode of baptism the preced- ence of all others ; that no others date back further than to A. D. 360; that it is safe because it is accepted by all as genuine, and is rejected by none; and Jwhile many who have received baptism by other modes, become uneasy and dissatisfied with the mode received, we have yet to hear of any one who was uneasy about or dissatisfied with his trine immersion. We claim it to be apostolic, and for that reason altogether safe. The apostles had but one mode of baptism; for all the modes now in use, save that of trine immersion, have come into use long since their day. For these reasons we claim to have and to practice the only legal mode of baptism in existence, and hence feel that to practice open feasting would be to legalize any and all the modes now in use, to do which would, we believe, be inconsistent with scripture, history, and CLOSE COMMUNION. 149 good sense. Some will then say that "we look upon all others as unbaptized. I re- ply that such is the fact, and as proof that we do so regard it, I will say that all ap- plicants are, without an exception, baptized when received, no matter how or by whom received before. Nor are we alone in this view of the subject. Robert Hall, of England, who died in 1831, is thus quoted by Howell : "We are," says Hall, "compelled to look upon the mass of our fellow Christians as unbaptized." Hall's Works, Volume 2, page 212. Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Bap- tism, Part 2, chapter 9, is thus quoted by J. M. Pendleton in his "Reasons why I am a Baptist," page 188. Wall says": "No church ever gave the communion to any person before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before they were baptized." Hibbard, in his "Christian Baptism," while speaking of the Baptists, says the Biptists hold, "Th.it baptism is essential to church membership. They have denied our baptism, an 1, as unbaptized persons, we have been exo-udel from their table. That they greatly err in their views of 150 CLOSE COMMUNION. Christian baptism, we of course believe. But according to their views of baptism they certainly are consistent in restricting this their communion. "We would not be understood as passing a judgment of approval upon their course; but we say their views of baptism force them, upon the ground of strict communion, and herein they act upon the same princi- ple as other churches : They admit only those whom they deem baptized persons, to the communion table. Of course they must be their judges as to what baptism is. It is evident that according to our view we can admit them to our communion, but with their views of baptism it is equally evident that they can never reciprocate the courtesy; and the charge of close com- munion is no more applicable to the Bap- tists than to us, inasmuch as the question of church membership is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches — so far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned, that is, it is determined by valid baptism/' — Hibbard's Christian Baptism. From what I have here quoted from others, it will be at once seen that we are not the only people who regard the rite of baptism as important/ but that others es- CLOSE COMMUNION. 151 teem it as highly as we, and that others see with us, that to have open communion is to at once set aside our consistency with the principles held. I am glad to know that some see it thus, and to help others to get the same impression has been the constant effort of the writer. For our people to have open communion is to say that bap- tism by any mode is non-important, and that is to set the whole thing aside ; but Jesus says a water-birth must be had. Open feasting would say that God has near a dozen ways to do one and the same thing, and that that thing was one of no consequence. It perhaps might do for those who treat baptism in the same way, and who treat crime in the same way — who re- gard it as a mere idle form to take in or to turn out, but it will not do for those who wish to keep safely the doors of ingress and egress. We must know who is in and who is out to have a church at all. With these views of baptism, the rite of induction into the church, we can not do otherwise than to hold a strict communion. To change the act we must change the thought and of course change our faith. 152 CLOSE COMMUNION. THE TAKING OF OATHS. There is a difference to be seen among professors of religion upon the subject of swearing or the taking of oaths. The dif- ference seems to be first in what is con- sidered an oath, and second, where it is taken. If the name of God be called in order to confirm or strengthen what is said in conversation, the act is called profanity, and is condemned by all religious and well- bred people, as it indeed should be. It in this case is thought to show an irreverence for sacred things, no matter whether the statement made with the oath be true or false. But when the same holy name is used on evidence in court, or in business as required by law, the habit of swearing is then by some justified, and the evidence taken, although every word of it may be a lie. Why the place where a thing is done should make this very apparent difference dn the thing which is done, and that, too, when place has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the statement made, is what I do not know. If God's name was improperly used at one place, it was so at the other. If the man could tell the truth without it in one case, he could in the other. And if his statement could be be- CLOSE COMMUNION. 153 lieved without it in conversation, it could also be believed before a court or in busi- ness. And again, if the man would tell a lie with God's name used with it in the one •case, he would do so in the other. And if to put this holy name in a man's mouth was to make him always tell the truth, we should not then fault the practice so much. But it does not. We find that men can and do tell the truth, both in conversation and before the court, without it being linked to an oath. We also find that those who swear most do not always tell the most truth. With these reasons I conclude that there is no reason for taking an oath, for the man who will tell a lie under a promise to tell the truth will also tell a lie under •oath. And the man who will tell the truth when under oath, can just as well do so when under promise. Besides he can do no more than to tell the truth when under oath. It is the truth, not the oath, which makes the statement strong and to be be- lieved; and to believe a man's statement merely because he had the name of God in his mouth is to put a reward on irrever- ence and profanity. The law assumes that •a man can, and that he does tell the truth when he takes an affirmation, if he prefers to speak in that way, and for this reason 154 CLOSE COMMUNION. we hold that there is no cause whatever why any should swear or take an oath. Another reason why a man should not swear is because it in every case dishonors the holy name used, both in the sight of him who takes it and also of them who hear it. And it is a disgrace to civilization to use the name of God so very often and in the manner it is now done. There is no class of men from the ruler of the people down to the drunken mob, with all the out- laws to society, but who use the holy name of Heaven's King more freely and with less respect than they would use the name of a common dog. The name which is above every name is thus used in relation to every subject and everything, and that, too, in every way. And as to the class of relations in which it is always used, many are such as to disgrace a being of the lowest order. But the holy name is there and no better use made of it than to trample under foot. There can not be the reverence shown to him who is worthy to bear that name that there should be in and with such a system as this, and for that reason we claim that the whole system of swearing, both legal and illegal, is wrong. In support of what I have said upon the subject of swearing I quote from "Encyclo- CLOSE COMMUNION. 155* pedia of Eeligious Knowledge/ 7 page 753 r and from article, "Lord's name taken in vain" "Perhaps there is no sin more* common as to the practice, and less thought of as to the guilt of it, than this. Nor is it thus common with the vulgar only, but with those who call themselves wise, hu- mane, and moral. They tremble at the- idea of murder, theft, adultery, etc., while- they forget that the same law which pro- hibits the commission of these crimes does with] equal force forbid that of profaning his name. No man, therefore, whatever his sense, ' abilities, or profession may be, can be held guiltless, or be exonerated from the charge of being a wicked man, while- he lives in the habitual violation of this part of God's sacred law."- In the same article the language of the- celebrated and pious Hannah More is quoted from Volume 2, page 87, of her work on education. It is most tender and appropriate to our subject, if considered merely in the light of profanity, in which I really consider all swearing, but I give only the closing thought. She says, when speaking of how God's name is used : "His name is impiously, is unfeelingly, is un- grately singled out as the object of decided irreverence, of systematic contempt, of 156 CLOSE COMMUNION. thoughtless levity. His sacred name is used indiscriminately to express anger, joy, surprise, impatience, and what is almost still more unpardonable than all, it is wan- tonly used as a mere unmeaning expletive, which, being excited by no temptation, can have nothing to extenuate it; which, caus- ing no emotion, can have nothing to recom- mend it, unless it be the pleasure of the sin." We notice that all writers condemn swearing, when it is called profanity by custom, but approve of it whenever custom will approve it. But it is much to be doubted whether the Lord will make the same distinction in the kind of oaths we use, — will approve of some and disapprove of others, as we do. I am surprised, too, that any should refer to the Old Testament for support to the custom of swearing in •any sense, for Jesus calls up that law and repeals it, but gives another to govern the Christians down to the end of time. He treats this subject as he does that of adul- tery, and hatred to enemies. He takes •away the first, but gives and establishes a second. He says : "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neigh- bor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Lore your enemies, bless them that CLOSE COMMUNION. 157 curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Matt. 5 : 43, 44. It is in the same manner that he treats the matter of taking oaths. The old custom is abolished, but a new one established, and that not for the ram-professor, but for the Christian, who, to be a Christian, must know enough not to be profane in his lan- guage without a law to restrict him. We for this reason think that Jesus did not mean profane swearing, as custom calls it,, and it only, but that he meant to restrict his people from taking all or any kind of oaths. With this view let us read what h& says : "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : But I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven; for it is God's throne : nor by the earth ; for it is his footstool : neither by Jerusalem ; for it is the city of thq great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matt. 5 : 33-37. By comparing these directions with the- 158 CLOSE COMMUNION. laws given by Moses, all of which are here referred to, it will be seen that every part of the former law upon this subject is re- pealed, and a commandment given to all who will hear him who speaks from heaven, to "Swear not at all." And I here remark that for men in any way to attempt to set this direction aside is to show that they have more presumption than faith, and less respect than conceit. The same thought is repeated by the apos- tle James in his epistle, and if there could be any doubt in the mind of any as to the extent of our Savior's meaning upon this subject, James 7 direction in the matter is plain enough to take it all away. Hear what he says: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5: 12. I leave this without comment, believing that the language is as explicit as can be found, and seems to show that the writer had some fear that the words of Jesus upon this subject might be overlooked, hence the very earnest manner that is used to set forth this direction for the church. My .reason for presenting this subject at such CLOSE COMMUNION. 159 length is, because I know not that any of the Brethren have ever given to the public our reasons for non-swearing. And as this is a matter for us to consider in connection with open feasting, I give our reasons first for non-swearing, and then offer it as an- other reason against open communion. We are opposed to the taking of oaths, as has been shown, while other churches think it a matter of little or no consequence, and so do not practice non-swearing. I should not say that all regard it thus, for some do not ; but I mean to say that all but a few of the churches think and say that both James and Jesus had reference only to pro- fanity, and did not mean the taking of a legal oath. Now here is the trouble : We as a church regard swearing as both useless and wicked, while others regard it not only a duty, but a privilege as well, allowed them by law, and with this view they swear, while we do not. In their churches it is allowed, while in ours it i3 not; and in an open love-feast with, them this distinction would be entirely lost sight of, because we give to those who do swear all the privileges of the church, when we can not do any more for the members of the church, who do not swear. The command to "do good 160 CLOSE COMMUNION. unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith," (Gal. 6 : 10) seems to allow of a decided preference in the favor of those who belong to the house- hold. But in an open feast this preference \ would seem to go the other way, for it I would give to others more liberty than we give to our own. We try in our feast to show our preference to those who are of the household, and will be happy to show at any time the same preference to any and to all who will come into the household and become one of the family with us. Other- wise, we tjiink we can only show this pref- erence to and in the family, but can go no further. THE TREATMENT OF ADULTERY. I offer another reason why we can not, as a people, favor open feasts, and that is the manner in which the sin of adultery is treated. This difference of treatment as to one and the same crime makes it difficult, yea, altogether forbids us to allow of an open feast; for this would be to license a sin that is now too common everywhere, and to the commission of which our own people are no exception. It is a shame to all that is good, and to all that is civil, that this social evil is so prevalent. But it is no CLOSE COMMUNION. 161 the sin which I wish to speak of here. It is the treatment of it. I speak only of its punishment. With some it is regarded as no sin at all, and with some it is thought to be no more than a common failing and of little conse- quence. With these it is indulged, for it is not regarded as crime. With others it is thought to be an awful sin, but for other considerations it is indulged time and again, and from year to year. With them it is thought to be crime, but receives no pun- ishment. With our people the commission of this sin is far too frequent, but I believe that so far it has in every case been re- garded as crime and punished. And it is our hope that the present agitation of this subject in the councils of our brethren will not in any way lead to the indulgence, in any case, of a sin so contagious, and sq dreadful as to consequences. This being the difference between the churches in the treatment of the same crime, how can we, or any other church, maintain purity of the body, if this sin is indulged by open communion ? It can not be done. And this is not all; for the church that will thus license adultery, will also indulge the host of sins. The church of Rome has been censured 11 162 CLOSE COMMUNION. and persecuted, because it would grant in- dulgences for sin, but it is not the only church that has done it, nor all that do it yet. There is not a sin on the list but what is now in full operation in many oi the Protestant churches, and that, too, without rebuke. I aim not to make the impression that there is no sin with us, but I aim to say that the effort is. constant to reprove and rebuke not only the sin of adultery, but all others as well. The sin of adultery, with us, has ever been regarded and treated as sufficient to debar those who were guilty of it from a right to membership, both in those who mado application, and in those who had enjoyed the church relation. For us to admit of open communion is to throw this safeguard away, and in proof of this, I cite a case at hand. Not long since a man was disowned by our people for adulterous marriage, and afterward he and his present wife went to a meeting held by those who favor open communion, and 'where the emblems were that day taken. After one or more tables had been filled and served, and the invi- tation was still made for others to come, this man and woman went up and partook of the emblems from the hand of the min- CLOSE COMMUNION. 163 ister, when it was well known that they were in adultery, and the man not a mem- ber of any church.' Whether the wife held a membership with any church or not, I know not, but I do know that the same body in which this took place had not long before refused them a membership. But on this occasion they gave them the highest favor their church could confer, and that, too, when he was a member with none, and thought unworthy to be a member with any. A principle which will allow of a prac- tice so loose in morality as this, is a wrong principle, and those who claim religion at all, and indulge sin in this way, should at once examine themselves whether they be in the faith or not. To hold this principle, and to maintain this practice, is to have an open door wide enough for the sins of the whole world to come in, and is for that reason unsafe. And while we do not look upon all professors as being adulterers, and sinners of the worst degree, yet we feel free to condemn all who are such, whether they be in our own body or in others. And while the practice of most other churches is to wink at and indulge not only adultery, but other sins as great, we feel that our only safe way is to invite none. We feel, 164 CLOSE COMMUNION. too, that we have a perfect right from scripture (see I. Cor. 5th chapter) to forbid all who are guilty of the crimes there named, and as it is not our place and not in our power to make a selection in other churches — take some and refuse others, therefore we have strict communion, and refuse all of other denominations, and quite often some of our own. We seek not to please men, but to please God, and that should please men. We could not make the selection from other churches and ex- clude the unworthy, because their churches do not do it, and when the church is ad- mitted, all who belong to it must also be received. To allow it at all, we must ad- mit all, and this is to admit and feast with those in adultery and countenance a pre- vailing sin. If this sin be indulged in this way, J can not see that it or any other sin can be put away. To commune with such is to sanction every act and every relation, and to allow that which the Bible does not allow. One command of scripture is to "Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Eph. 5; 7. And another command is, "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be par- taker of other men's sins : keep thyself pure. 11 I. Tim. 5: 22. These commands CLOSE COMMUNION. 165 at once forbid the privilege of indulging sin, and when it is found it is not to be in- dulged, but rebuked. If the sin be an open violation of truth, the rebuke is to be given " before all, that others also may fear." (See I. Tim. 5: 20.) Let me ask, how can the sin of adultery be rebuked at all, if instead of being rebuked it is in- dulged before all? It can not be done; and this would seem not to condemn, but to legalize and encourage it, but all know it needs no encouragement. It is a sin, and we should treat it as such, and rebuke it wherever it is found, and that too as the Word has it, " before all." And there can be no better way in which to do this "be- fore all," than to forbid the guilty a place at the Lord's table. Both members and those who are not will soon know what was done, and also why it was done. We think this a reason for strict communion that is proper and feel, too, that none will fault us for holding the view, or for putting it into practical effect. In case any should call for positive proof from scripture that open communion be- tween churches is not right, and is therein forbidden, I answer that I can not give it, and for this reason : God never provided for more than one church in this matter, 166 CLOSE COMMUNION. and the provision to be made for the multi- plicity of churches must be made by others, and that, too, without the Word to support it. Christ founded but one. I have before referred to the 5th chapter of I. Corinthians, and I cite it again here in proof of my position, and then let all make their own application of it. In this chapter we have not only the subject of adultery, but other sins, condemned, all of which are as prev- alent to-day as at any other time, and all of which are offered there with also their treatment. In the 11th verse the reader will notice what provision is made when these sins are found in the church. It will be seen, too, that this writer provides for only the one church — all outside of it "God judge th ;•" but inside the church is to judge, and we are told how to do it, and how far to go. That wicked person is to be put away (verse 13), and they are not to keep company with him, nor to eat with him (verse 11). There are many who think this admoni- tion refers to the eating of a common meal with the fallen one, and it may. If it does, here is one form of rebuke not regarded bv any as closely as should be done, and as an inducement to the full observation of this command I will say that those who have CLOSE COMMUNION. 167 seen the effects of this kind of rebuke say- to us that its results have always been most favorable. If by this rule a common meal is withheld from the erring one in the company of his brethren and sisters, then we have close communion to perfec- tion; for if a common meal is denied, then it denies him a place at all other tables. There are others who think it applies only to the Lord's table, and apply it there as its proper place. All are agreed that it applies to the one table, but all are not agreed as to how far they shall go with it. But let it apply as far as it may, it excludes from the table it does refer to six classes of sins, and as many classes of sinners. And as sinners are the only class who are unworthy of a place at the Lord's table, I conclude that this is the table among others referred to, and that is to give us close communion of the strictest kind. Now we come to deal with facts. We know that all these sins abound; and we know, too, that in many of the surrounding churches these sins are indulged, and that ithose who are guilty of them partake in their feasts, and that, too, without rebuke. For us to have open feasts is to indulge both the sin and the sinner, and is to say that a man can not in any way make him- 168 CLOSE COMMUNION. self unworthy of a place at the Lord's table. We do not do so, however, either with those in our own church, or those out- side of it. ■ Open communion is a direct violation of every commandment in this the fifth chap- ter of Corinthians, for there is not an inti- mation of indulgence to sin in any form. I offer this as an argument from scripture against open . communion, and think it ap- plies fully to the case in question. To dis- regard this safeguard here offered, and to indulge the sins here named by open feast- ing is to allow all the favor that a sinner or Satan himself could ask for. For this reason we do not grant it, and we have no reason yet to regret that such with us has been the practice, which is to encourage the right, but to rebuke the wrong. WAR. It is no doubt very generally known where our people are known at all, that we as a body are opposed to the bearing of arms, and to war. And I do not think it necessary to give here our reasons against it, for I believe them to be apparent to all who will for a moment think of war and the fruits of it. It is now not so long since the bloody work was active in our own CLOSE COMMUNION. 169 country, nor are there any to say but that all or quite all of the nation's present dis- tress, financially, socially, and morally, is due to the one thing — war. And "while such are its effects in this happy country, we can only imagine, but not describe its results in other nations. All have suffered from its effects, but not one has been bene- fitted. All nations have tasted of the bloody, bitter cup, but none have been strengthened, — all have been wrecked by its destiuctive power. But it is not my object to give here our reasons against war, for it is only my aim to show how we treat the principle which begets and wages war. To those who may wish to investigate the •subject further, I invite them to read the work of Bro. J. W. Stein, "Christianity Incompatible with War" and also "Dia- mond on War." What we have now to deal with is this: Many if not all the so-called popular churches uphold the war principle, and are among the foremost to engage in war when- ever it may come. In peace they are for peace, but in war they are for war. It being almost cunstant, of course the feeling for war is in almost constant exercise, and if there be any time when the clash of arms is hushed, there is always enough of 170 CLOSE COMMUNION. the principle at work to keep the feeling alive and active. Wars may for the time cease, but the principle never dies. Its spirit lives on, and on. I have before re- marked that we were opposed to war, both in principle and in practice, and those who apply for membership in the brotherhood do in each case promise that they will not engage in war. And those who have dis- regarded this requirement of the church, and, as we believe, the Gospel, too, have always fallen under censure. To forbid our members from going to war, or from apply- ing that principle, and then to disown them if disobedient, when we invite and commune with the many who hold and practice the same principle, is for us to hold to one prin- ciple and to practice another. It is for us to talk for peace and to work for war. It is to condemn a principle in our own that we approve in others. A more apparent inconsistency, I think, could not be shown than for us, or any, to act in this way. It is, in my opinion, to throw the claim to principle and to truth entirely away. I fondly hope that while others manifest their love and zeal for the cause of Jesus, that they will not forget that he was the Prince of Peace — that he shed no blood but his own, and that was given for his enemies; CLOSE COMMUNION. 171 that his prayers ascended to heaven even* for those that spilt his blood ; and while he did much through love, he did nothing through hate. SECRET ORDERS. We have three reasons against allowing our membership to belong to secret orders,, and the same are offered against open com- munion, for in many churches those who- belong to these orders are indulged without censure. And for us to have open feasting would be to admit a class not allowed in. our own membership. Our reasons against all secret societies are, 1. Because of secrecy, 2. They are worldly organizations, 3. They are oath-bound. We can not approve of secrecy when organized or not organized, because the good part, if there be any, should be known; to all, and that which is not good should not be known at all. The second objection is that these orders all being worldly organizations, and gov- erned altogether by worldly principles,, therefore to admit to communion those who« are members of such orders is to get more- of the world than we now have, and the* 172 CLOSE COMMUNION. relation to them is such as to interfere with the relation to the church. Our objection to secret orders, because they are oath-bound, will be at once under- stood when the reader has considered the thoughts under the head of swearing. The reasons there offered will apply here, and so I offer but one here against those socie- ties known as oath-bound. If those who are members of secret or- ders did always have most reverence for the name of God and the word of God, with most zeal for the worship of his great name, then we ought to be still. But as it is we do not see any one of these, much less all of them, and we therefore condemn the whole, because they will take his name, but will not take his word. TEMPERANCE. I come now to offer this as another and last special reason against open communion. .And while it is granted that other churches may favor temperance and oppose intem- perance in part, the Brethren oppose it in full. For that reason it is offered under the head of special reasons, as I can apply it thus better than in any other way. As a church we are opposed to intemper- ance in any or all forms. And we regard CLOSE COMMUNION. 17$ the admonition to the church at Philippi to "Let your moderation be known unto all men." (Phil. 4: 5.) to apply with a special fitness to those who claim to take all of the Master's word. We claim that the word temperate, as used in scripture, has a general application ; but as now un- derstood and applied, it refers to one thing, and to it alone, and that is to the use of strong drink. We, of course, must accept the term " temperance," as at present used, and we do, and in that sense it is here used. But while many oppose the evil in part, we as a body oppose the whole of it, — oppose it in full, and regard everything and every man engaged in any part of the business, connected with the evil, as being a part of the whole. We oppose the manufacture,, the traffic, and the use of that thing which makes man not only as low, but lower than the brute. I have already spoken of the relations,, both to the church and the world, which men may hold, and this subject brings us back to that again. There are, according to the Census of 1870, three hundred and forty occupations in the United States,, giving employment to more than twelve and a half millions of persons. Of this list, nearly all are proper tor a Christian to* .174 CLOSE COMMUNION. -en gage in, but some are not, and to do so, -or to be connected therewith, is to make his business relation to interfere with his -church relation. He in one must render a -service to his ruler which he can not render ito his God. I will name but two, and these -are enough, for the work they are doing, and they are both engaged directly in the work of intemperance; and, as a hint to •the "temperance workers/' I will say that to take away any one of the two, is to break in pieces the chain that enslaves the nations, -and of course to break its power. It is to set the captives free. The two occupations and the one class directly concerned in the work of intemperance are the distiller, the vender, and the drinker. The Census of 1870 gives us of the first class, 2874 ; of the second, 11,718; but the drinkers are un- numbered. And from a statement recently made and published it would appear that there are now more than four hundred thousand men engaged in the liquor busi- ness, or one for every hundred of our pop- ulation. The classes named embrace the man who makes, the one who sells, and the one who drinks this liquid fire; and they are all unworthy of a place in any church. These are all engaged directly in the evil work, and to take away any one of the three CLOSE COMMUNION. 175 is to interrupt the traffic and to destroy the business. Our people do not allow any of their membership to either make or sell strong drink, and should any thus engaged make application for membership in the church, they would in every case be required to give up their business, or not come in. Nor do we indulge the one who drinks, unless it be for a time, in hope that he may reform ; but even then he is withheld from the love- feast until reformation is made. And if this hope be disappointed, as it often is, the drunkard is in every case disowned, so that we can truly say that not one of those con- nected with this evil work of intemperance are by us retained in the church or allowed to commune. Other churches do not do thus, so far as our observation goes, for they not only indulge the drinker, but hold both seller and maker from year to year, and for life. They thus allow that no busi- ness whatever can in any way interfere with one's religion. For us to hold open feasting with surrounding churches, and that, too, while they indulge so much of the thing which we so severely censure, would be to entirely overlook church rule, and to meet as brethren again many who have been disowned by us, not for drunk- 176 CLOSE COMMUNION. enness alone, but for the host of sin. And for this reason, in addition to those already shown, we can not and do not do it. I can not see why it is that any should ask us to hold it thus, for I know of no reason what- ever why open feasting should be held. There is great reason why Christians should all partake of the one broken body ; but to do so in order to obtain the life it imparts, they must all belong to the one church — "my church/' Matt. 16: 18. I offer this conclusion to special reasons : If any people have any reason for open communion, we have many reasons against it. If others have, as they think, good reasons for close communion, we have very good ones. If these find it consistent with their faith, we find it most consistent with ours. And if they find safety in the guard thus set, we find it most, for we find it a guard to the truth, and the whole truth. This we want, and this we have, and for that reason we ask no more. We now feel that we are free, and feel too that it is the truth that makes us free; and it is with the hope, too, that in the end we shall be free indeed. John 8 : 32, 36. CLOSE COMMUNION. 177 CHAPTER XIX. VERY SPECIAL REASONS. I have offered what are regarded by us as special reasons for close communion, and believed, too, to be the same against our adopting the open communion. But we come now to consider three under one head, as they always go together. I said three, but should have said four, and it may be that there will be even more than this. These apply to Dunkard people alone. My reasons for presenting it thus are, be- cause our love-feasts are peculiar as to their mode of observance, and for us to in- vite others to partake, and to admit them, would be to make confusion on each occa- sion. I have before remarked that the feel- ing in one and the same church was not always as good as it should be, and that to talk about love between the different church organizations was to talk about something which did not exist. Now for us (or for any) to admit more than our own is to make confusion in the fullest sense, and the blessing will not rest upon it, "For God is 12 178 CLOSE COMMUNION. not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." I. Cor. 14: 33. "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work." James 3 l 16. I do not put any further comment upon these than to ask the reader to apply this standard to the present religious world. That will be enough to show that love is the feeling least enjoyed, and peace the one most sel- dom seen. In order to present this thought better I give to the reader a description of the manner in which our love-feasts are held, and then it can be at once seen that in- termingled communion will not apply. I do this cheerfully, .and for two reasons : First, because many who may read this have never witnessed anything of the kind; and, second, because our love-feasts, being held as they are, being different in some respects from all others, it will be better seen by all that although they may not favor close or restricted feasting, yet that it is most consistent with our practice, and also with the truth. We at the time of communion, which is always held at night, provide a table and a meal, — a supper, to which all our membership who are present, and in good standing in the church, seat CLOSE COMMUNION. 179 themselves. The brethren are seated to one table, or part of it; and the sisters, all with a covering on their heads, are seated to themselves at another, or in case there is but one, then at a part of it, but always seated separate and apart from the brother- hood. When all is ready and thus seated, the scripture upon ^^/-examination is then read (the examination upon relations and conduct having been had before). The scripture usually read upon this occasion is the 11th chapter of I. Corinthians, of which the whole is generally offered for the consideration of the membership, but al- ways the latter part. A hymn is then sung, and all kneel in prayer. When this is done, the basins of water are brought in, and the ceremony of feet- washing is be- gun. A brother washes his brother's feet, and the sisters wash the sisters' feet. While this act is being done, a kiss of love is passed between the one just washed and the one who washed. The washing is con- tinued until all are washed. When the washing is completed, all are again seated to the table, and the Lord's Supper is eaten, in memory of the supper at Jerusalem, and in anticipation of the marriage supper of the Lamb. Luke 12: 37; Eev. 19: 7, 9. When the supper is eaten the union kiss is 180 CLOSE COMMUNION. passed from brother to brother and from sister to sister, as a pledge of our love un- til death. But it is not till these things are all done that the emblems are brought forth. They being brought in, a' chapter treating upon the sufferings of Jesus is then read, some remarks made upon it, and all arise and return thanks for the bread. It is then broken from brother to brother till each one has received. But to each sister it is broken and given by the officiat- ing minister. Our only reason for this is, that the women of Jerusalem took no part in breaking the body of Jesus, but wept and plead that it should not be done. See Matt. 27: 19, 55; John 19: 25. When all have been served then all partake of it at one time. In the same manner do all arise and give thanks for the cup; and in the same way it is passed from brother to brother, and from the minister to each sister, till all have partaken. When this is over, a hymn is sung, and the assembly is dismissed. Should any wish to examine these sub- jects, or to know our reasons from scripture for thus keeping them, I give the references only, but have not space to present the arguments. But in case any should wish to learn the arguments offered by the Brethren upon these subjects, I cite them CLOSE COMMUNION. 181 again to the writings of Pet^r Nead, James Quinter, R. H. Miller, J. W. Stein, J. H. Moore, and others, who have, in full or in part, given the reasons for each rite in par- ticular. Upon the subject of the passover I call special attention to the work of Bro. J. W. Beer, with also the essays upon these subjects offered from time to time through the Brethren's papers, and by sisters as well as brethren. The references in scripture offered in support of holding our feasts at night, are Matt. 26: 20; Mark 14: 17; Luke 22: 20; John 13: 30; I. Cor. 11: 23. For feet-washing, Luke 12: 37; John 13; Eph. 5: 26; I. Tim. 5: 9, 10; Phil. 2: 7. For the sisters' covering, I. Cor. 11:6- 13 ; I. Tim. 2:9. For the Supper, or feast, John 13 : 4 ; Acts 18: 21; I. Cor. 5: 8; 11: 20; Jude 12; Rev. 19: 7-9. For the kiss, Rom. 16 : 16 ; I. Cor. 16 : 20; II. Cor. 13: 12; I. Thess. 5: 26; L Peter 5: 14. For the consolation, Rev. 22 : 14. It will be observed by those who read, and has been witnessed by many who have attended on such occasions, that there is little if any disorder or confusion among 182 CLOSE COMMUNION. those engaged, and that all remain seated at all times, save at the time they wash feet and at giving of thanks. All is quiet and each one knows what to do, and how to do it, and each one does his part, but does no more. It is no partial service. The rea- son I offer this as a "very special reason" against open communion is, because we could not admit others to the table with us and avoid a degree of inconsistency and confusion altogether too great to be seen among professors. The inconsistency I have all along tried to show, in regard to non-agreement in faith, in government, and in everything else ; so I here speak only of confusion. And I know of no way in which to get up a greater degree of it among sober people than for us to have open com- munion. Some would perhaps take a part in some of the services, but would not take part in all. Some churches would take the feet- washing, but not the kiss; and some would take the kiss and not feet- washing. Some would take these, but not the supper ; and some would take the sup- per, but not the others. And while many would take the bread and wine, many more would take no part in the other three. Now, kind reader, do you really think that such a service could be held and not CLOSE COMMUNION. 183 have confusion ? I think not, for we know that on such occasions 'the rooms are crowded to their utmost, and there could be no such a thing done without such a state of confusion, more like a frolic than a re- ligious feast. What good could in any way- come from it, none can tell, and why it is asked of us, or of any, I do not know. Those who would be made happier to see it thus, are those, I think, with low views of what order is. But it is not selfishness that prompts us to hold our feasts in this way, or to guard them thus. Nor is it because we think none others are good enough to feast with us ; but it is because we want all to be in the right relation and want all to "be done decently and in order. " We feel this point can not at all be reached, unless all belong to the same body, believe the same, and do the same. We as a people could not be made happier here than to have all who seek, the truth to know, to come and partake with us. But then we want them to first get ready for it, and then it is our duty to have them come. It is then that they can come and they are welcome. When all come into the one church, then it is that they can have a feast, and if all were willing to hold no 184 CLOSE COMMUNION. other than the true relation to the church and to God, then could we hold a real love- feast in anticipation of the great feast to be had in the end of this world. I think it plain to all that we as a people do not seek to please men, nor ourselves, but to please God, and not in one thing, but in all things. But even when we seek it most We're far beneath the price we cost. "For even Christ pleased not himself." CLOSE COMMUNION. 185 CHAPTER XX. CONCLUSION. I have frequently spoken of confusion as the fruit direct of such a course, and I do not think I have at all overrated the subject. I now pass in a hasty review over it, and then leave for the reader to enjoy his own reflections. But while I claim that confusion is a fruit from such a course, I think it not all which will follow. In my mind open communion with present feeling and apparent results is to desecrate that which should be held most sacred. None, with it, can love the rite so well. It is known where we as a people are known at all, that we hold as doctrines of the church, and of the Bible as well, that faith in God, repentance in full, baptism by trine immer- sion for the remission of past sins, are es- sential to membership in Christ's church; that Christ did, to his people, forbid war, swearing, adultery, and all the host of sin ; that he has marked out for his people some duties as plainly as words can make them ; and that we as a people try to obey each 186 CLOSE COMMUNION. and all of these, while a large part of our Savior's word is by other professors passed by unheeded. Now, knowing these facts, and knowing also that no apparent good has resulted to those who have held free communion most, can any man with reason ask of us to hold open communion with any one, or with all the churches sur- rounding us ? Has any one a right to ex- pect it of us? I think none should ask it or expect it, and for these reasons think the demand, when made of our people, to be unreasonable. Again : Could any one feel edified in the least to either partake with us, without first obtaining a member- ship, or to see us partake with others, when their faith and practice are in the condition they are? No one is edified without full agreement. Can any one feel glad, or bet- ter, to know that the professed religious world agree in only one thing, and that not a matter of faith, and then upon it, and no more, claim to hold a love-feast in union, when such a thing is nowhere seen? It can not be that those who engage in it directly, or those who are but lookers-on, should feel the better to see it thus ; and therefore I again say, it is to desecrate the Lord's Supper and trail his mantle in the dust. CLOSE COMMUNION. 187 Every man may admit that Christians might hold a social feast with one another, but their present divided and distracted condition does most emphatically forbid a religious one, and most especially when we- would call it the Lord's Supper, and a love- feast. The next thought is that open com- munion between ours and other churches is impossible, and for this reason : They always hold their feast in day-time, while- we hold ours at night. And as these two* points never come together, we can not all partake at the same table, and at one and the same time. One's feast will be over before the other begins. I now come to the close, but do not ieel that the subject is at all exhausted. Neither do I feel that all will be convinced that we- are right in this matter. I might still offer- other reasons for close communion, but for the present will desist. I will, however,, name one not yet presented, and leave it then without argument. It is that of Apos- tolic Succession, which in the eyes of some- appears to be of so much importance. We, however, do not claim it by direct line, and do also very much doubt the claims of others, as to this rite; but we hold that those, and they alone, are apostolic who have the 188 CLOSE COMMUNION. character of apostles, and do all of the will ot God, as the apostles did, let them be who they may. We believe with Mr. Buck, that it is " impossible to prove that there is •now upon earth any one person who is a legal successor to the apostles." And I merely name this as another reason why we should not have an open communion; for many claim to have come down in a direct line from the apostles. But we do not claim this, and think that those who do the will of God are the rightful suc- cessors to the apostles. Therefore we feel that we are not of them who claim this -succession in regular line, and we do not and should not partake with them of what they assert came to them by regular suc- cession. We notice that those Protestants who favor open feasting, claim apostolic •succession, and also those who claim the latter always favor open feasting. We are mot of that line. It has no doubt been noticed before this time that I speak of others partaking with us, and of this only. I did this to meet the charge so often made against us, and will now only refer to the other, that of our people partaking at others 1 feasts. We op- pose it as we do the other, and I feel that •every argument will apply to this, as well CLOSE COMMUNION. 189* as to the other. I offer here but two rea- sons against this, and then leave it. I think it needs no more. 1. There is no reason for it, and for that cause there can be no need of it. AH of our people can have, if they wish, an opportunity to commemorate the whole ex- ample of our Lord, if they only seek it, and that, too, when there are no more than two or three to meet in his name. Matt. 18: 20.. There is no excuse to give. 2. It is to do what our people have no faith in, and therefore to them it is wrong. 11 For whatsoever is not of faith is sin"' Rom. 14 : 23. It is also contrary to their faith, for no others take all that our people- do, nor do any others take it as we do, or as Jesus did ; therefore for our people to par- take with others at their feasts, is to show that we believe a part of a thing is as good as the whole of it. For our people to take such a step is to leap the fence from the inside, when from the outside it is alto- gether impassable, unless we come in through the door. John 10: 9. In fact this is to accept from others that which wo with even a small degree of consistency, can never hope to return. To return it i& to lose our consistency at once. . I have opposed open feasting thus strong- 190 CLOSE COMMUNION. ly because I feel that it sets aside every relation, removes every guard, is without Temedy a hot-bed of selfishness, and throws at once every doctrine, whether true or false, into one confused heap. It is the Babel of religions, the mass of creeds. 'Reflections might very properly be pre- sented, but I leave for the reader to do that 'part, trusting that the word of God will receive its full share; but the writer asks no indulgence for his thoughts any further than where the truth has been given. But that far he does ask the reader to indulge him. Truth will injure no one. I wish, however, to offer one suggestion to our brotherhood in addition to what I have al- ready said. It is this : We, as a body, favor close communion, and we, as a body, also think that we have the truth. This, -when we do have it, is safe in our hands so long as our body does not make one of two -changes, to wit : does not adopt an open