"Dearly Beloved Brethren: "The writer of this letter begs leave to acknowledge his indebtedness in part to a work written by R. B. C. Howell; in part to another by Dr. Sharp, of Boston; but chiefly to a circular letter written by Spencer H. Cone, not only for the subject matter, but for most of the language used in the letter.
"Between Baptists and the members of all the surrounding evangelical denominations, the most free and perfect Christian communion exists, and will be sedulously cultivated. We cherish for them as the people of God the sincerest affection. We preach, pray and labor together, consult and co-operate for the spread of the gospel, and take pleasure in being associated with them in 'every good word and work.'
"Nothing would be more pleasing to us than to go with them to the Lord's table, but we are repelled by the fact that a preliminary duty is essential, and with this duty they have not complied. Let us, then, in defence and explanation of our course in this particular proceed to consider the laws of the Lord's Supper. What prerequisites of admission to the Lord's Supper are marked out in the New Testament, for the observances of the churches of Christ to the end of the world? To this inquiry we reply, regeneration and baptism, and in proof of the correctness of this reply, we appeal to 'the law and the testimony.' The primitive churches, constituted under the immediate direction of the inspired apostles, were composed of self-condemned sinners, who were by nature children of wrath, even as others; but being quickened by the Spirit of God, fled for refuge to the hope set before them in the gospel. They believed the testimony given of God's dear Son, and having gladly received the truth, were baptized, both men and women. To the first gospel church in Jerusalem it is said the Lord added daily such as should be saved, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
"The church at Corinth consisted of those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, and who called upon the name of the Lord. The members of the church at Colosse had put off the old man with his deeds and put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him; and the brethren of Rome were the called of Jesus Christ, beloved of God, called to be saints. Now if these apostolic churches were erected upon correct principles, they are certainly, to us, an infallible guide, and present us with perfect pattern. If they received only such as professed to be born of God and gave evidence that they were begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, we should imitate their example. It is, therefore, an established principle in our churches to require of allcandidates for admission a declaration of what God has done for their souls, and when satisfactory evidence of a change of heart is exhibited, the first scriptural term of communion is elicited by the church. That baptism is a term of communion is manifest from the design and order of that ordinance, as well as from the uniform practice of the apostles. It is the design of baptism, among other important particulars, to exhibit the existence of a new relationship and to declare to all around the interesting fact that the individual baptized has come out from the world and enlisted under the banner of Christ. As it is evident that a man must enter into the kingdom before he can be entitled to the immunities of a subject - that he must be received into the fellowship of a particular church before he can enjoy the privileges of that church - even so it is equally plain that baptism upon profession of faith in the Messiah must remain an indispensable term of communion until it can be proven that unbaptized persons were added to the churches planted by the apostles in different parts of the world, and this will appear yet more abundantly if we consider the order which is uniformly observed in the New Testament in reference to baptism and the Lord's Supper. 'Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' This language of the great commission is lucid and definite. He directed them first to teach, or as elsewhere expressed, to preach the gospel to every creature. When the word preached was accompanied by an unction from the Holy One, men were made wise unto salvation. They were effectually taught, they were made disciples; and then, and not till then, were the apostles commanded to baptize them. After this they were to instruct them to observe all things enjoined upon them by the Saviour, and among the 'all things' who dare deny the Lord's Supper a place? But it is plain that baptism must precede the communion, not only because the Lord Jesus Christ has so decreed, but because this order is necessary in the very nature of things, if there be an acceptation of the sign to the things signified. We must first be made alive before we need bread to sustain life, and in like manner the ordinance which shadows forth the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost must of necessity go before that which holds out to us in a figure the bread which came down from heaven, whereof if a man eat he shall live forever. That this statement is correct, we must,abundantly gather from the unwavering practice of the apostles themselves. On hearing the preaching of Peter, thousands cried out, 'Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?' The preacher promptly replied: 'Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.' What followed? 'They that gladly received the word were baptized.' After baptism they were added to the Church of Jerusalem, and then participated in the communion of the breaking of bread.
"The conduct of Paul was precisely similar to that of his brother, Peter. He came to Corinth and taught the Word of God among its inhabitants. Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. These baptized believers were then constituted into a gospel church, and kept the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. If, therefore, the uniform practice of the apostles justly challenges our imitation, we must invariably adhere to the order which they have established. Upon this point the views of all the evangelical denominations are perfectly concurrent. Dr. Wall avers: 'No church ever gave the communion to any person before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities ever held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before baptism.' Dr. Doddridge says: 'It is certain, as far as our knowledge of antiquity extends, that no unbaptized persons received the Lord's Supper.' To these decisive testimonies we need only add that of Dr. Dwight, who thus expresses his opinion: 'It is an indispensable qualification of this ordinance that the candidate for the communion be a member of the visible church of Christ in full standing. By this I intend that he should be a person of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized.' Perfectly conformable to these views of the subject are the catechisms and confessions of faith that have been published at any time, or by any denominations of Christians.
"Holding, then, as we do, that the immersion of the believer in the name of the Holy Trinity is the only scriptural baptism, how can we either conscientiously or consistently participate in the communion with those who, in our belief, have not complied with this prerequisite; and how can our Pedo-Baptist brethren, with any degree of justice, complain of us when they are governed by precisely the same principles? They admit to the communion table only those whom they believe to have been baptized. We admit to the communion table only those whom we believe to have been baptized. Where is the difference, if there be any difference between us? It consists simply in this, that we admit all the members of our church, while they practice an arbitrary, close communion against a large proportion of their own members, for all sprinkled babes are considered in their books as church members, or at least with a portion of them.
"Under this view of the subject, how are we justly liable to the imputation of being close communionists? On the contrary, are we not in fact the only free communionists? Besides, we are prepared to commune with all Christians, in the noblest and most scriptural import of that expression. It is greatly to be lamented that the controversy concerning the prerequisite for suitably communing at the Lord's table, has given rise to incorrect views. The attention of Christians has been diverted from the chief design of the institution - that of discerning the Lord's body - and fixed almost exclusively upon it as the divinely instituted medium of manifesting their love for each other, thus weakening its legitimate effects upon the heart, by considering that as its leading object, when it is only of minor importance. Having thus shown our course to be perfectly consistent with Scripture and enlightened reason, let us proceed briefly to consider some of the most plausible objections which are alleged against it.
"In the first place, it is said we lay too much stress on baptism by making it an indispensable prerequisite to communion. To this we reply that we pay no greater regard to it, nor do we give it a higher place in our system, than the Lord Christ enjoined, or the apostles and primitive Christians, by their examples, have warranted. And here we may ask, why should more stress be laid upon the Lord's Supper than upon baptism, and why should some professing Christians so earnestly advocate the observance of the former, while they pervert or neglect the latter? And we cannot but say that this objection comes with a very ill grace from those who, how much soever they may affect to gloss it over, do, nevertheless, attach, a saving efficacy to baptism, for maintaining which a member would be excluded from any orthodox Baptist church.
"'By baptism,' says the Roman Catholic, 'our sins are remitted and pardoned, and we are joined and knit to Christ as members to the head.' (See 'Catechisms and Canons of the Council of Trent')
"'By baptism,' says the Episcopalian, 'we are made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.' (See 'Book of Common Prayer, Catechism,' page 135.)
"'Baptism,' says the Presbyterian, 'is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, or regeneration and of remission of sins.' ('Confession of Faith,' Chapter 28.)
"'By baptism,' says the Methodist, 'we who are by nature the children of wrath, are made children of God; are regenerated and born again.' (The precise words of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism.)
"'By baptism,' says the Campbellite, 'we are regenerated, pardoned, justified, conciliated, adopted and saved.' ('Millennial Harbinger, Extra No. 1')
"And yet they all raise a universal voice of clamor against us for laying too much stress upon baptism.
"A second objection charges us with causing a separation between the children of the same heavenly Father. Suppose we grant that baptism is an insuperable barrier in the way of our communing in church capacity, with unbaptized persons, does it necessarily result from this concession that the blame righteously attaches itself to the skirts of our garments? We do consider baptism as a separating line, but it is one of the Lord's own making, and, besides, if our Pedo-Baptist brethren greatly desire communion with us they can obtain it without doing any violence to their conscience, for all admit the validity of our baptism. 'They propose to commune with us,' but it is on such terms that they advance not one step towards us, make no sacrifice whatever, but call on us to go over to them at the sacrifice of the peculiar, distinguishing doctrine of our church. Let the candid and unprejudiced determine whether the Baptists are chargeable with the separation.
"A third objection states that it is the Lord's table, and therefore we have no right to hinder those who wish to approach it. That it is the Lord's table is the appropriate and sufficient answer to this objection. Were it ours, we might cheerfully admit to it the objector and his friends; but since it is confessedly the Lord's table, we dare to welcome to it only such as He invites. As the sacred Oracles uniformly teach that Christians, in the Apostles' days, were baptized before they came together for the breaking of bread, we are confirmed in the sentiment that the only guests invited to partake of this feast are such as have been upon profession of faith buried with Christ in baptism; nor can we approach the table with the unbaptized without acting in direct opposition to the precept and example of Him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
"A fourth objection is presented in this shape: 'We conscientiously believe ourselves to be baptized. You are not the judge. To our own Master we stand or fall.' This would be equivalent to saying that an individual ought to be admitted to church fellowship because he thinks himself entitled to that privilege, without reference to the opinion the church may entertain upon the subject. It requires no argument to prove the absurdity of this position. To adopt it would speedily ultimate in the dissolution of society. That there must be an agreement in sentiment between a church and a candidate for admission to its privileges, and that the church must necessarily judge of the candidate's qualifications, are both self-evident and scriptural truths. Since Christ has commanded us to hold fast till He comes, and to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, we are under the most sacred obligations to exhort one another daily, to warn the unruly, to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, and to be very careful not only to venerate His institutions ourselves, but also that they be observed in their purity by all such as solicit communion with us at the table of the Lord.
"Lastly, it has often been significantly remarked: 'You will not commune with us now, but we shall commune together in Heaven.' We rejoice in the blissful anticipation, but we are not willing to wait until that period. We would enjoy here an earnest of that sublime and blissful intercourse. We plead for communion here on earth with Christians of every sect, which shall bear a resemblance to that of Heaven. We do not suppose the communion of the just made perfect consists in partaking of the symbols of the Saviour's death, but in high spiritual intercourse; in mutual expression of admiration and gratitude while viewing the dispensations of Providence and grace towards them in this world; in mingled songs of praise to Him that hath washed them from their sins in His own blood, and an exalted converse concerning the glorious scenes which the revelations of eternity will be continually unfolding to their delighted gaze. In such communion as this, although of a more humble character, we would gladly participate with all good men.
"Finally, brethren, farewell! Adhere steadfastly to the doctrines and ordinances of Christ, as He hath delivered them to us; and as 'there is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,' so we beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord be with you all. Amen! "HENRY L. GRAVES." ======================= [From J. M. Carroll, A.M., D.D., A History of Texas Baptists, Comprising a Detailed Account of Their Activities, Their Progress and Their Achievements, Edited by J. B. Cranfill, LL.D., 1923, pp. 301-306. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
MoreTexas Circular Letters
Baptist History Homepage