Labor and capital

less there is yet more blood to be shed. have many accounts to settle. But the field is wide, and the struggle fares differently at different points. Both masters and men are learning, at least some of them, that there is a better way. In some parts of the field there is an armistice. The combatants have halted. Experiments are going forward, and under a flag of truce they are watching the result. Whether it be arbitration, co-operation, profit-sharing, or whatever other special form of mediation, it is an acknowledgment of fraternity. The spirit of brotherhood has entered, if only in minute atoms; capital half-ready to concede to labor a larger share of the common product-labor clamoring for its dues, but more willing to get them by peaceable means. And when the time comes, as it surely will, when that spirit is at work among men fairly, freely, and universally, there will be no further conflict between capital and labor. Men will work for and with one another under the mutual covenant of the Golden Rule. The sunshine of Christianity will melt away the inhuman conditions of society, and we shall again hear on this planet the angels' song, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace toward men of good will."

ARTICLE V.

RESTRICTED COMMUNION.

BY THE REV. JAMES W. WILLMARTH, D. D., LL. D.

BAPTISTS, as is well known, do not think themselves at liberty to invite members of other denominations to unite with them in the Communion, or to accept such invitations when given in churches of other denominations. This is restricted or strict communion; popularly called "close communion," with a latent suggestion in that term of narrowness and bigotry. Sometimes the latent suggestion develops into open and bitter reproach.

It is the object of this article to present the facts and principles which furnish the reasons for restricted communion. It is commonly supposed, I think, that there is a radical difference between Baptists and evangelical pedobaptists in regard to the principles which underlie this question. This arises, of course, from an obvious difference in practice. In contrast with the practice of Baptists, evangelical pedobaptists invite all members of " orthodox and evangelical churches,” intending to include Baptists. It is natural, therefore, for those who judge by appearances, to conclude that Baptist opinions as to the qualifications for communion must be altogether peculiar to themselves, and that the other denominations have a great superiority in respect of liberality and breadth of view. But I think that one who has not carefully examined the subject will be surprised in discovering how far Baptists and evangelical pedobaptists are in substantial agreement as to the principles which determine questions of intercommunion; and how far the actual difference in practice arises from a differ

ence of views as to certain other and important matters, which, from their nature, must control in the practical application of the principles held in common.

In this discussion I shall assume that each denomination is properly represented by its own authentic statements of belief and by its general practice. There are instances of individual aberration. There are ministers and churches. among pedobaptists, tinctured with prevailing looseness and lawlessness, who invite "all that love the Lord" or leave every one to judge of his own fitness. So there are a few nominal Baptists who advocate "open communion," openly or covertly; and, possibly, a few Baptist churches which encourage "open communion," without publicly avowing it. But we must look for denominational beliefs in authorized standards. or statements and in the practice of the great mass of ministers and churches who are consistent and loyal to their denominational position. Let us then, first of all, look at certain

PRINCIPLES COMMON TO ALL,

i. e., accepted by both evangelical pedobaptists and Baptists. I. The communion is an ordinance of Christ, established by him to be observed "till he come." The "Evangelical Alliance" voices the universal belief in recognizing baptism, the communion, and the ministry as divine institutions of permanent and binding authority.

There is one important corollary to this principle. An ordinance of Christ must be administered in all respects according to his revealed will. It is, primarily, his table that is spread, not ours; ours only because we are his; and if any error of administration occurs from a mistaken understanding of his will, the case calls for enlightenment, not reproach. Considerations of "liberality and courtesy" are ruled out, except in strict subordination to his authority. To cast reproach on those who are conscientiously carrying out the

Lord's will, as they understand it, is the very quintessence of narrowness and bigotry.

2. The communion is a church ordinance, i. e., an ordinance for the church, and to be administered by it and in it. That here and there loose practices prevail, and that a few persons regard the communion as a social Christian observance, proper whenever two or more Christian friends happen to meet, is doubtless true. But that all the religious bodies concerned in this discussion, by their standards and their practice, proclaim the communion to be strictly a church ordinance, is too well known to require quotations and proofs.

It is evident, however, that any serious divergence of views as to the nature, constitution, and membership of the church may seriously affect not only the matter of intercommunion, but other matters of practice as well. Thus Presbyterians can consistently administer the communion at meetings of presbyteries and general assemblies, for they consider the whole body as one great church, and this is done within and by the authority of the Presbyterian Church. Baptists have no such service at their associations and general anniversaries, because their idea of the church as a present and visible organization terminates with the local church. Episcopal clergymen carry the eucharist to the sick and dying, but they do it as ministers of the Protestant Episcopal Church and by its express direction. Baptist ministers do no such thing, because they consider their denomination to be only a community of individual churches, of like faith and practice, "distinct as the billows, but one as the sea.” The way in which the end in view is occasionally reached is by the appointment of a special communion season, at an unusual time and place, by a local Baptist church. But evangelical pedobaptists and Baptists are agreed in the principle that the communion is a church ordinance, though other considerations may vary the application of the principle.

3. The qualifications for occasional communion are the

same as for constant communion, i. e., for membership in the local church.-Perhaps we may not find this principle commonly laid down in these exact words; but it is evident that the denominations concerned in this discussion are substantially agreed in holding it.

In each denomination-whether its theory be that of one corporate body or that of a union of many similar bodies-it is evident that the members of each local church are understood. to possess all the qualifications for membership in any other local church, and could be received into it simply by letter or certificate. As Baptists go no farther in intercommunion than this, it is indisputable that they hold the principle now under consideration and act upon it strictly. But evangelical pedobaptists, in inviting members of all "orthodox and evangelical churches," do not, from their own point of view, violate it. For it is well known that among them persons can pass from one denomination to another without the imposition of any essentially new requirement. Some private inquiries may be made, or public questions asked, in order to a reasonable assurance that the new member is willing to conform to the usages of the church he joins and will not be a disturber of the peace. Baptists have sometimes been known to unite with pedobaptist churches; and whatever may be thought of their consistency (unless their views have undergone a radical change), they are readily received. The Presbyterian Church avowedly acts on the policy of receiving members from other "evangelical churches" by letter, and in no pedobaptist denomination, so far as I know, is any one, not even a Baptist, required formally to repudiate his beliefs, or to acknowledge that his former church relationship involved a serious error. Evangelical pedobaptists do not intend, by "open communion," as they practise it, to violate the principle that the terms of communion and of membership are, in essence, precisely the same. This principle is obviously correct; a church, in its invitations, ought not to