shown to "pay tithe of mint, and anise and cummin," and to "omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith." Matt. 25, 23.

We take our position on this broad ground. The table is the Lord's, it should be laid for his people, and we have no right to repel any Christian person therefrom.

It is asked, "would you admit the unbaptized to communion?" We answer, we could neither invite all the baptized or exclude all the unbaptized, because the Lord has directed us to do neither. We have no right to consider baptism as a pre-requisite, for the Lord has not so directed. The Lord's people are all obedient but many are mistaken, and some of them have been deceived, particularly in regard to baptism. In the eyes of the Lord they are doubtless regarded as just as obedient as we are who have been favored with clearer light in regard to the administration of the rite. Hear what the apostle Paul taught in regard to circumcision: "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." Romans 2. 28, 29. The Jews gloried in circumcision, the Pharisee was proud of the external sign of his church. But without internal purification they were valueless. The words of the apostle may be correctly applied to baptism. If persons claim to be Christians because they have been immersed, they are like the Pharisees who were very scrupulous in regard to outward purification. He that relies or rests upon the external rite, more than upon internal cleansing and sanctification, is much more a Pharisee than he is a Christian.

The assertion which is made that because the ordinance of baptism has not been properly submitted to, the person can not be classed among the obedient, is one that is far from being truthful. The water-baptism is important, no one has a right to neglect it, but the Christian who has been misled in regard to its rightful mode of administration is not disobedient, he is obedient for he acts according to his faith, and if he lives in love to the Lord and to his people, if he uses aright his one talent, he is accepted. The Lord manifests his acceptance of the obedience, mistaken though it may be, because the spirit and the love of obedience was in the heart, and the Lord most graciously signifies his approval by shedding abroad

in that believer's heart the sweet influences of his spirit; he cleanses him from his sins and blesses him with intimate and hourly communion here, and will doubtless glorify every, such an one hereafter.

"In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything or uncircumcision, but a New Creature." Galat. 6, 16. How much more important is thej internal purification than the external, how much better the thing signified than the sign, how much more serviceable and truly useful is pure Christian life in brotherly love than pharisaic respect for external rites and ceremonies. The one is transient, the other permanent, one for time, the other for eternity.

We are not to be understood as teaching that baptism is insignificant; far very far otherwise. It is of vast importance, and true scriptural baptism, when rightly attended to, is an indispensable aid to the Christian. We go to the extent of declaring that baptism or non- baptism, the same as circumcision or uncircumcision, is valueless in the absence of a corresponding internal state of purification; and that honest mistakes in regard to the administration of baptism do not prevent the Lord from such a positive recognition of the Christian, that we can not doubt the acceptance of such ones by the Lord; wherefore, they are entitled to acceptance, recognition and Christian communion. Received of the Lord, dare we reject them?

There is no permission given to exclude from the table of the Lord any disciple who loves his master and follows him, according to the light he has received. The humble Christian may be unlearned, he may not know that the word which our translators have rendered baptize means immersion, and that this is the only proper Christian baptism, his attention may never have been so directed to, this point that he can comprehend it; he may be "weak in the faith"-what then? Reject him?-No, receive him! The Lord has welcomed him, he lives Christlike, and doing this the Lord has been with him without doubt. If he lives the true life, he must have eaten of the bread of life and drank of the water of life. Ought such an one to be refused the bread and wine memorials of the Saviors's dying love?

He that hath received Christ Jesus in the spirit, is he not entitled to receive the same Lord in symbol ?

What temerity for a church to set up its fallible judgment

as superior to that of the Infallible God. The Lord works in and by his people of every name, but they are afraid of contamination if they do the same thing. The close communionists say: "We can have no communion with the sects." "We must not cast the children's bread to the dogs. We cannot commune with the unbaptized." A leading close communionist makes this reply to the question: "May all come to the Lord's supper?" "No, it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs." Matt. 5, 16 (Beddome's Baptist Catechism, p. 242). The apostle Paul directs the Corinthians to exclude fornicators, idolaters, railers, drunkards, &c. He tells us unequivocally who are to be excluded, but what right have we to treat our Christian brethren, because of a mere mistake in regard to the rightful administration of an external ordinance, in the same manner as we treat the unclean, the covetous, the idolatrous, the drunken, and the extortionate. Is the same rule to apply to the most abandoned despisers of his word, and those who love and revere him, should they happen to be mistaken in a matter not essential to salvation? Are loving Christian disciples, receivers of the spirit of Christ, promoters of his cause, fellow-workers with him in the regeneration of the human race, to be excluded alike with the vilest of the vile? Is it not insulting to them, and despising the Lord to make such a rule. The close-communionist will say, 66 we did not make the law, we are merely administrators of the law as we find it," but they cannot thus evade the responsibility because no one can point out a single scripture text which authorizes an exclusion from the table of the Lord of any person who loves the Master and follows him, according to the knowledge he has received. If the Lord had said, "You shall not permit any you deem unbaptized to come to my table," then we should have authority for debarring them from the privilege; in the complete absence of any such command what right have we to prohibit them? If the Lord in his wisdom has left us without any such power to forbid any of his servants or followers from approaching his table, shall we not be acting falsely by establishing rules for which we cannot find either a "Thus saith the Lord," or even an implied permission? *** In Exodus 12 ch. and 48 verse, you will find these words, "No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof" (the Passover). If our close-communion friends will point to a similar injunction in regard to baptism and the Lord's supper, then they will have

a proper warrant for their prohibition; in the absence of such they are teaching for doctrines, or for practice, merely, "the commandments of men,"

[When thus pressed for scripture authority the close communionist will tell you, if we have not the direct sanction of the scripture, we have of the Fathers of the Christian church. Theophylact says, "No unbaptized person communicates at the Lord's table." They will quote also Justin Martyr, Austin, &c. Let us see how reliable these Fathers were. In the year

416 at the council of Mela, of which St. Austin was a principal director, it was decreed that "Whosoever denieth that infants newly born of their mothers are to be baptized, let him be accursed." "Whosoever says Adam was created mortal, let him be accursed." It is not worth while to dwell on the authority of the Fathers, they are no more to be received as authority than the moderns.]

Conversions take place among Christians of all classes, true and genuine conversions. The Lord pours out his spirit upon these converts, imperfect as they may be, unbaptized as they are, and thus proves to us in the most positive manner that he passes over a mistake in regard to the external rite when the heart is turned to him. By conversion and sanctification these individuals become members of the Lord's church, and are entitled to all the provisions made for the spiritual sustenance of his children.

The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian brethren (1 Ep. 10 ch. 16 and 17 v.) says: "The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." Throughout the Epistles the church is spoken of as one, and that one the body of the Lord, the Lord's people are (Eph. 1, 23 Col. 1, 24) members of that one body, and all partakers of that one bread.

The close communionists are very strenous for order; they denounce free Christian communion as disorderly, and depose their ministers who commune with others, but in the uncharitable and unchristian lengths they go to in their peculiar rigid restrictiveness, THEY are the disorderly ones. What can be more disorderly than a rejection of those we are commanded to receive; of a confession of a persons sonship to the Lord

-and then an exclusion from the table of the common Father, of an acknowledgment that the communion of such a person with his own denominational brethren brethren would be honoring Christ, but a united communion with other Christians would be dishonoring to him. A union with other Christians in prayer meetings, sabbath schools, in missionary societies, and upon the platform and the practice of disunion in the administration of the rite which was evidently intended as a bond of union?

We are pointed to the example of our Savior, who they tell us sat at the table with the chosen twelve only, and that they were all baptized, wherefore we should also exclude unbaptized persons. (Baptist church directory, p. 219). We reply that none of the twelve disciples had received the baptism for which these brethren contend. Christian baptism was instituted by the Lord after his resurrection, and this particular kind of baptism had not therefore been received by any of the apostles at the time of the institution of the supper. True some of them at least had received a baptism, but what right have you to conclude from this that all unbaptized persons are now to be excluded? A loving disciple of the Lord Jesus, a preacher of the truth as noble as Luther, Melancthon, or Wesley, must be spurned away. No matter how his breast may heave with love to the master, how much he may resemble in disposition the John who leaned upon the master's bosom, he must not be communed with. But a baptized Judas may be received. Jesus did not exclude Judas; he was baptized, and the churches may have a Judas to each dozen, but unbaptized saints must not dare to sit down to his table. Is this the rule of the Lord's house?

Another close communionist says, "You ask too much. I esteem all Christians and love to work with them, but we can not invite them to the Lord's table. This is farther than I go." Well my friend, will you please tell us how far the Lord directs you to go. If these Christians are your brethren, to what extent shall you show forth your love to them, what is the measure which the Lord commands you to fill. Yes, commands. Read the gospel of John, 13th chapter, verse 34. "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Estimate the fulness, freeness, richness of Christ's love. Calculate its height, depth, length, breadth, then go and love your brethren to the same