R. F. COTTRELL by Roswell F. Cottrell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 9, 1869

R. F. COTTRELL

By Roswell F. Cottrell

SACRED NOTIONS. No. 2.

Another pious notion of my early Christian education was what that denomination and some others call open communion. A leading idea and object was the reunion of divided Christians—a true idea and laudable object—but the means adopted were not the means which God had provided in his prophetic word—the last merciful warning to mankind—but merely human. It was thought that by throwing away human creeds and party names, all denominations might be united in one communion. And so they might; but a union in error, a union not having the truth of God for its basis, would be of no value.

The Christian denomination anticipated the message concerning the fall of Babylon. They thought the Protestant churches were a part, at least, of that great city. They had the come-out spirit, and anticipated the come-out cry, and it amounted to about this: Come out of Babylon, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and unite in free communion with “Babylon, Egypt, and Sodom.” But another free-communion church, the Methodist, would not commune with them, because (as they said) the Christians denied the divinity of Christ. So we see that every one's free communion extends just as far as his own creed extends, and no further.

But of the beauties of free communion I saw a practical illustration all around me in my youth. My father and an uncle of mine, a brother of my mother, seceded from the S. D. Baptist church and planted themselves upon the open-communion platform of the Christians. The doctrines also of destruction instead of eternal conscious misery for the wicked, the pre-millennial advent, the personal reign of Christ on earth, since denominated “Age to come,” and the anticipated cry against Babylon, together with open communion, were the chief things that led to the separation. These men led out as preachers, and began to gather, what I may call, a seventh-day Christian church. But some would join with them, if they might do so and break the Sabbath and keep Sunday in its stead. My father opposed their reception on such terms, but my uncle favored it, and prevailed. And why should they not be received? If they could invite Sabbath-breakers to the communion table, why not receive them right into the church, if they would come in?

What was the result? Quite a numerous church was gathered in the towns of Brookfield, Madison Co., and Plainfield, Otsego Co., N. Y., known in that region as Cottrellites, composed of about half and half, perhaps, of Sabbath-keepers and Sabbath-breakers. And years afterward, when my uncle was dead and my father had removed to another place, Christian ministers who preached to that church were engaged to preach both Sabbath and Sunday. In times when work was not driving, both Sabbath-keepers and Sabbath-breakers would meet together in one congregation; but in haying time one part of the church would meet on the seventh day and the other on the first day, and on their way to meeting they would pass their brethren swinging the scythe or wielding the pitchfork in their fields in good earnest; and this on both Sabbath and Sunday. In their effort to get out of Babylon they had got into “confusion worse confounded.” And Paul

says, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.”

I am not intending to go into the discussion of the question of free or restricted communion; but if Bro. White or some other brother will undertake it, I can help to illustrate the subject. I venture the opinion, however, that S. D. Baptists, who have stood one commandment in advance of others, have erred less in restricting their communion to Sabbath-keepers, than they have in their ministers' taking the pastoral charge of Sabbath-breaking churches, where their lips were sealed, year in and year out, to the preaching of the claims of God's moral law.

Some who are convicted of the truth, are making this notion of free communion a hobby, and will perhaps reject the truth and be lost as the consequence. If they could correct the Heaven-sent message, and bring it to their received notions, they might possibly accept it. Would it not be better to part with these notions, esteemed sacred, for the truth?