THE ELK HORN ASSOCIATION
TO THE CHURCHES IN HER CONNECTION
DEAR BRETHREN, - Through the goodness of God we have been allowed once more the privilege of assembling together in an associate capacity. For the particulars of our proceedings, we refer you to the minutes and your messengers. Our primary object in this letter will be, to bring your minds to bear upon the subject of "Free Communion," which was investigated in this Association in 1824. On the 4th page of the minutes of that year, you will find the following statement made, and question proposed, by the First Baptist Church of Lexington in their letter to the Association:"The minds of a number of the members of this church, and we believe of other churches, have been exorcised on the subject of Free Communion, which has been urged upon them by Paedo-Baptist friends. We think it proper to invite the attention of the Association to this subject with a view to her making a public expression of her sentiments upon it, either in her Circular Letter or in any other manner that may be deemed most expedient.
"We propose the subject for the consideration of the Association in the form of the following question: 'Can or can there not be terms of free communion so stipulated that Baptists in communing with real Christians of other denominations, when invited, will nol violate their duty according to the gospel?' We have never seen the expression of the sentiments of the Elkhorn Association on this subject, and we hope to see it made in such a way, if practicable, as will afford a satisfactory defence of Baptists against the imputation of sectarian bigotry, ignorance, illiberality and want of Christian charity in their practice."
You will at once see from the statement and query above quoted, that the object of that church was, to obtain from the Association a "satisfactory defence of Baptists" in their practice upon this subject "against the imputation of sectarian bigotry," &c. &c. Accordingly the Association in responding to the question propounded by the first Baptist church at Lexington, proceeds:
"Our Paedo-Baptist brethren, in their invitation to us to a free communion, find us in the practice of close communion, which has
[p. 5]
been the" custom of the Baptists and those who have held Baptist sentiments, more or less for upwards of fifteen hundred years. This has arisen from their views of what constitutes a gospel church, or the church of Christ, of the covenant on which that church is built, of the requisites of membership, and of the absolute authority of the gospel in establishing and regulating the ceremonies, ordinances and government of the kingdom of Christ, in which they have in many instances differed from Paedo-Baptists. In our practice, we have been influenced by a desire to have always a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men. And we suppose that it is not the design of our Paedo-Baptist brethren to involve us in a violation of our consciences by accepting of their invitation, as in that case we should forfeit all claim to the character of honest, conscientious Christians, and would cease to deserve their friendship, and above all would lose what we believed to be the approbation of our God. To preserve what they believed to be a good conscience, the Baptists have suffered persecution in various degress ever since they had a separate communion. Stipulations in their behalf would therefore seem To be necessary to secure them against the violation of what they hold to be the truth, in bringing about free communion; and if they cannot be made it is expected that the Paedo-Baptist brethren will withdraw their invitation to us to commune with them."We here see that for upwards of 1500 years it has been the custom and practice of the Baptists and those who hold Baptist sentiments, to adhere to close communion. A statement of the Baptists' views upon this subject, the character of the church, the covenant on which it is founded, and the character of those who alone can be admitted under that covenant into the church, then follows in the 6th, 7th, 8th. 9th &. 10th pages of the minutes of 1824; from which the following conclusions are drawn, as the legitimate result of the argument: "Agreeably to these views we find, in every part of the New Testament where the uncorrupted church ofChrist is described, it is composed of those, who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ - who are called of Christ - who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints - who are justified by faith - who are children of light, and Abraham's seed by having Abraham's faith; and who, being the children of God by faith, have put on Christ by Baptism, having been buried with him in Baptism. Romans, vi, 2-4; Galatians iii. 26-29; Colossians, ii, 11, 12."According to these views, those who are born after the flesh only, whether they be the immediate descendants of Abraham, or born of believing parents, cannot be admitted to the ordinances of the New Testament - and those only who give a credible evidence of a change of heart by a profession of their faith and outward conduct, ought to bo immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Mark, xvi, 15-16, Acts, ii, 38-41, ch. viii, 37-38. And that infant
[p. 6]
sprinkling is not an ordinance of the New Testament, and cannot be administered in faith, because unauthorised by the word of God."These are some of the peculiar views of Baptists, which they hold as fundamental truths in relation to the gospel. They moreover consider it to be the imperative duty of their preachers, to baptize all who believe, upon a credible profession of their faith, notwithstanding they may have been sprinkled in their infancy; and further, that were they to commune with soundly converted Paedo-Baptists,who had been baptized in their infancy, that they would commune with unbaptized Christians. A system then of free communion, that would secure to Baptists consciences void of offence towards God and towards man, must yield to them these points by actual stipulation, as they cannot compromise them away. If the Paedo-Baptist brethren are unwilling to make these concessions, then we suppose they will withdraw their invitation to us to commune with them, for we cannot suppose that they would, willingly, involve us in a violation of what we conscientiously believe to be our allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ."
It may perhaps have suggested itself to your minds, dear brethren, Why this reference to things long gone by? It is an unpleasant, but not the less imperious necessity that calls this subject before you. From the character of the query we have seen that a defence of the practice of the Baptists was called for by it. That practice we see defended, first on the ground of its antiquity, but more particularly on account of the views the Baptists have always held of the Church of Christ. It is for reasons there given, that we cannot commune with those who solicit us to do so, without forfeiting the approbation of our God, unless certain concessions are made to us by actual stipulation; and finally we see those stipulations in very word and character yield to us, all that on that subject, we hold to be fundamental truths in the gospel. And yet that very letter of 1824, has lately been quoted by its author, Dr. James Fishback, as authority for open communion, when none of those concessions contended for have ever been made, and on ground that very charitably yields to the concience the observance or negligence of those "fundamental truths;" and the sanction of this Association to that letter has been used by its author, as authorizing his late practice of open communion. To this inference we oppose a positive denial from the query itself. From the response, and from the recollection of all those present, the letter of 1824 was intended to be, and was considered; what the applicants desired, a "satisfactory defence," &c. of close communion. And even if that letter should have been so artfully and sophistically drawn, as to have deceived the Association, yet, that is no ground upon which this Association can be charged with favoring that system of things, now practised by its author.
But, brethren, we have seen that it cannot be so construed. We have extracted part of the result of the able argument there given
[p. 7]
to the letter itself, however, we refer you for the detail. It will there be seen, that when those stipulations required have been made, that all the deciples will indeed have a "Free Communion," being united in "one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism;" that then they will commune free from, and untrammelled by the traditions of men.Brethren, according to the late suggestions of a brother, ought we not to pray more than we have done for the arrival of such a state of things. Let us send up our petitions to heaven that the policy and worldly wisdom, and traditions of men upon religious subjects, may be driven before the word of God as the chaff off the summer threshing-floor before the wind; that the day may come when all shall bow to its authority, till the earth shall be full of the knowledge of God. Brethren, may the God of peace rest with, and guide you here, till we meet in an Association above, is our prayer, for Jesus' sake - Amen.
======= [From Elkhorn Bapitst Association Minutes, 1828. The document is from SBHL&A, Nashville, TN and was provided by Stephen duBarry. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Elkhorn Association Circular Letters
Baptist History Homepage