Results of Open Communion.
By Editor
THE Baptist Union makes the statement that close communion has hindered the growth of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination. How it comes by its information on this subject we do not know. That it speaks what it supposes to be true we do not doubt, but we think it has been misinformed. The question as stated is one purely of fact and not of hypothesis. We can see how an ardent, open communionist might suppose that the practice of close communion might retard the growth of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, but that is a different thing from saying that it does. But suppose the statement to be true, does that prove the practice of restricted communion contrary to Scripture? We think such a method of reasoning not only fallacious, but dangerous. A sound, though slow growth, is to be preferred to a rapid, unhealthy one, when the choice lies between these two. We know something of the power of the fascinating idea of a rapid growth; but when this comes to be stronger than our love of truth, it is more than unsafe, it is ruinous. Under these circumstances, we are liable to be overpowered with the temptation to “mix water with our wine,” and so to weaken our testimony against error, and in the same proportion, to weaken our testimony for the truth. According to our idea, the Freewill Baptists have, by adopting the practice of open communion, weakened their testimony against Pedobaptism. They are Baptists, but Baptists somewhat shorn of their strength. We think this the inevitable result of their position. That the great Pedobaptist world should largely be open communionists, is no wonder to us. The wonder is rather that they are not all of that way of thinking. So far as the question of commandments and ordinances is concerned, their practice is nearly the same. They differ somewhat in their doctrines and in their forms of church government, and this covers essentially the whole ground. Why, then, should they not hold common views on the communion question? There is no reason why they should not, and it seems to us that all this talk about the exercise of great charity, in their case, is a great boasting about a rather small matter. Why should not those who agree, or so nearly agree, commune together? But when we consider the case of Baptists and Seventh-day Baptists, entirely another view presents itself. These denominations are separated from others on the broad line of Scripture teachings concerning commandments and ordinances. They protest that the charge that they are separatists, through self-righteousness or want of charity, is false. They may indeed be mistaken in their views of duty, or in their views of themselves, but in so far as they see this question, they are compelled, on the ground of fidelity to their convictions of Bible teachings, to take the course they do. But our views differ from those held by the Baptist Union on the results of the practice of restricted communion by Seventh-day Baptists. In the past, several notable instances have occurred in which good brethren, believers in the Sabbath, but open communionists, have organized upon that plan; but in every instance these organizations, from the necessary workings of their incongruous combinations, came to an untimely end. Elements were brought together which could not harmonize in their work, although they heartily agreed in the practice of open communion. These organizations looked well on paper, and for a time they prospered, and their communion seasons afforded them special emotional relish, but they could not endure. Let Seventh-day Baptists adopt the practice of open communion, and their testimony for the fourth commandment would at once become weakened, and the duty of Sabbath observance, instead of occupying a front seat in the organization, would be compelled to go to the rear, and in the end would disappear, or would at least occupy the position of one tabooed. Such is the teaching of history, whose lessons we think should be heeded.—Sabbath Recorder.