(&) "The positions urged on the opposite side by Mr. J. G. FuUer are these : 1. That all the arguments which are used to destroy the identity of baptism as practiced by John and the aposUes before the death of Christ, with that practiced lUterwards, amount only to pioof of a drcmnetam^al, not an eeaential difference, uid cannot, therefore, warrant the infisrences of Mr. Hall in any one point 2. That the commission of our Lord (Matt, xxviii, 19, 20) furnishes the same evi- dence that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to external Church fellowship as that faith is an indis- pensable prerequisite to baptism. 8. That the uni- form examples of the aposties is an inspired explana^ tion of the commission under which they acted, and a pattern intended for the instruction of the Church in ^ succeeding ages. 4. That strict conformity to the commission of Christ, thus explained, is not mAwa, but the only possible mode of restoring and perpetua- ^g Chrigticm unton. 5. That the mutual forbearance enjoined on Christians in the New Testament related to matters of real indifference, not involving the sur- rander of any positive institution of Christ, and is there- fore inapplicable to the present case. 6. That to unite
with P»do-Baptist brethren in all such acts of worship and benevolent effort as do not imply an abindonment of the commission is not an inconsistency, but the dio- ti^ of Christian charity. And, lastly, that to what- ever imputations a strict adherence to the commission of Christ may sul^ect the Baptist churches, it is better to suffBr them than to sin ; and that a deviation in def- erence to modem error, however conscientiously main- tained, is neither charity nor Christian wisdom, since " whatever is right is wise." Christians may cordially unite in the evangelization of the world, but they do not, nor can they, without a change of sentiments, unite in the constitution of their churches {Conversa- Hone on Strict and Mixed Comrnunion, by J. G. Fuller)." It is said that most of the English Baptists favor f^ree communion ; those of the United States are most- ly close communionists, except the Free-will Baptists, who are, as a body, open communionists. See Curtis, Comnmmion, a Review of the Argmnmts of Hall and Noel (Phila. 1860, 12mo), for a full argument for close communion;^ also Christiai* Remew^ xvl, 210, and an able article 'by Dr. Hovey, Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan. 1862, art. v. See also the same Journal, July, 1864^ art i, and July, 1867, art. iii. See Baptists.
II. A similar controversy has been going on in the Lutheran Church, in which the High-Church party re- fuses the admission of members of the Reformed and all non-Lutheran churches to communion. See Ln-
THBKAKS.
III. The Reformed I^sbyterians (Covenanters) in Scothind and the United States, and the United I^res- byterians in the United States, are also believers in the doctrine of close communion; but in all these churches there is a party which strongly contends against this doctrine, and in favor of open communion. At the United Presbyterian General Assembly of 1867 the subject of close communion was the chief topic of discussion. The Rev. W. C. McCune, the author of a book against close communion, was censured by a large majority. See W. C. McCune, Close Communion, or Church Fellowship, hy Rev. J, T, Pretty, D.D., of the United Presbyterian Theological Seminary at A Ueghany, Penn. (Cincinnati, William Scott, 1866, p. 147); also W. Annan (O. S. Presbyterian), The Doctrine of Close Communion tested by Scripture and Reason (Pittsburg, 1867). Mr. Annan endeavors to establish that the views entertained and defended by the leading men at present in that Church are not those which were held by the fathers of the Associate Reformed Church. In discussing the subject, Mr. Annan presents the views of Drs. Mason, Smith, and Annan, father of the author, and others, down to 1867, in support of his positions.
COMMUNION IN BOTH KINDS. "The com-* munion was universally administered in both kinds (bread and wine), to both clergy and laity, until about the twelfth century, when the cup began to be gradual- ly withdrawn from the laity in the Western Church, on account (as was affirmed) of the disorders to which the use of it had given rise. Communion in one kind is intimately connected with the doctrine of transub- stantiation. Romanists profess to believe that Christ, whole and entire — soul, body, and divinity — is con- tained in either species, and in the smallest particle of each. Hence they infer that, whether the communi- cant receives the bread or the wine, he enjoys the full benefit of the sacrament. Thus, to support this absurd and monstrous dogma, a Christian ordinance is di- vided ; transubstantiation justifies communion in one kind, and communion in one kind proves the truth of transubstantiation. This is the principal reason assigned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. After alleging many frivolous reasons, such as that there is danger of spilling the wine in a crowded as- sembly, and thus inflicting an indignity on the blood of Christ ; that many cannot bear the smell or taste of wine ; that it may become vapid ; that it is ex- tremely scarce in some places, and would involve
COMMUNION OF SAINTS 444
COMMUNISM
great expense to procure it— it oljb, *A circamstance | which principally influenced the Church in establish- i ing this practice was, that means were to be devised to ! crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and j entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. This object was attained by communion under the species of bread alone, Which places, as it were sensibly before our eyes, the truth of the Catholic faith.' Protestants beUeve that with- out the cup there can be no sacrament at all, and there- fore the Eucharist is not celebrated in the Romish Church." For the history of this question, see Lord's SupPBB. — Bingham, Orig, Ecd, xv, 5 ; Farrar, Ecdet, Diet, s. V.