Elder J. T. Freeman was a Mississippi Baptist minister and had been editor of The Mississippi Baptist newspaper.
Baptist Church Communion
By Elder J. T. FreemanSo much has been said and written on this question that your essayist, appointed at your last anniversary meeting, feels inclined to the belief, and if it were not in deference to your body, and in respect for the honor intended, he would prefer to be silent. He might also add, in imitation of an ancient patriotism, that a proper respect for the opinions of mankind require us, from time to time, to give an expose of our reasons for differing in our practice, on this subject, from a large portion of Christendom. The writer thinks that our advocates have weakened our position on this question, by injudicious defences [sic], as much as we have been injured by attacks of our opponents. The question is of modern origin comparatively. A century ago, it was considered consistent and proper for every church to administer the ordinances to its own members only; and, for one, I admire the common sense and stern regard to Christian unity of action that characterized that age. It was only when a sickly sentimentality assumed the place of dignity and propriety, that this commingling of official duty with the emotional sense of a desire to appear generous for the sake of a worldly popularity, that this question assumed its present attitude, and we are left alone to defend it. Good men and true, may sometimes be carried away under such impulses but cool reflection and a stem regard for Christian principle, will regulate this feeling and bring it within the pale of steadiness and firmness. Kind courtesy is all that any intelligent Christian should demand of his fellow-christian, who differs from him on the subject of church organization and official action in the administration of the ordinances. When you are tempted to go beyond this, you are in danger of losing your own self-respect, and the respect of an intelligent public.
I have said that our advocates have damaged us by bringing into the discussion of this subject, matter that does not properly belong to it. It is strange what a monomania possesses some men even of the highest intelligence and most cultivated minds, imbued too with undoubted piety. Spring the question of communion and they at once fall into the wiles of our opponents, by raising the question of baptism, with the multifarious arguments and correlative issues, and before the world has read it through, it is doubtful whether the man is discussing a Christian doctrine or philological question, belonging only to the Greek lexicons. The reader is so lost midst the mazes and interlocking of the roots of Greek verbs, that he loses sight of the beauties of holiness and the fruits of righteousness, which consist in consistency of Christian deportment and a stern regard for principle of action. Without principle, and acting on sentimental emotion, Christianity loses its beauty and worth, and falls to the level of human philosophy, a fit subject for satire, and becomes subject to the buffetings of low witlings.
Close communion is a phrase that puts us in a wrong attitude, and for one, I will not fight on the ground chosen by my opponent, nor fall into the snares that he has set. Church communion is the question, and on that point let us concentrate all our argument. Nor does church communion necessarily involve the question of Christian communion, if by communion you mean that spiritual intercourse which mind may have with mind, through the media of words and thought. We, as a denomination, look upon the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper as we do upon that of baptism, or the exercise of church discipline. We have no right to offer to administer it to any, save those over whom we exercise disciplinary control. It is one of the highest and most decided acts of discipline that we or any other organized body of Christians inflict on a delinquent, in faith or practice, to debar him from church communion or the sacrament of the Lord's sapper; then, how inconsistent for us or any other body of Christians, who regard unity of principle and action, to invite to an official seat amongst us, one over whom we exercise no disciplinary control. As soon ought a Presbyterian invite an Episcopalian to an official seat in his synod or his assembly, or a Methodist invite a Baptist to a seat in his conference, to vote on questions of church polity, as to do this. Neither means to unchristianize his fellow for this momentary separation in official action. The man is thoughtless, to say the least of it, who would complain of this act of propriety and right, so manifest even to men of the world. We have only to ask such whether Christianity consist in principle or emotion. If emotion, then follow the impulses of feeling whithersoever they lead, but, if in principle, then act according to the principles of order and propriety laid down by our Great Law-giver.
Many tender-hearted men, and "noble women not a few," have been beguiled in this question by confounding the ideas of official church action, to which belong the ordinances and discipline, and the social Christian intercourse, to which belong interchange of spiritual feeling, such as religious conversation, singing and prayer. The fact is, a man may be a Christian without belonging to any organized body of believers. He may have all the spiritual element of the new life without the official position which the ordinance gives him, and with him we may have sweet spiritual intercourse, or Christian communion, if you prefer the word, and yet in all official acts you are separate from him. A due regard to the principle of order requires this, and if he be a man of sense, he will so appreciate it. So with Christians of other organizations. We believe there are many spiritual truths which they discern spiritually, and in the consideration of which we may, in a social way, have sweet Christian communion, yet, in all official action, we act separately. Justice and common sense approve the consistency - wisdom and sound discrimination would ask for no more. He that does it would make a sacrifice of principle to a mere sentiment or emotion, and would override all order in pandering to the weaker prejudices of our nature.
In conclusion, brethren, let me only iterate the sentiment running through this essay, that church communion and Christian communion are separate and distinct issues. The one is official, the other social. That admits of no emotional or sentimental consideration. This may be indulged at the discretion of the believer. I may and must have church communion with a man so long as our membership or official relation and status is the same, though he is a Judas, and I believe him to be so, till he is expelled by official action. With a man of pious heart, I can have special or spiritual communion wherever I find him, though he may have erred by traditions of the past, and may thereby have lost that official station to which he is entitled by the earnestness of his faith and sincerity of his desire to do right. Concerning such, the admonition of the apostle is applicable, and should be observed: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burden, and so fulfill the law of Christ." I might add here also, without presuming to teach, that having the vantage-ground, on the subject of the ordinances, of the remainder of the Christian world, let us not be presumptuous or arrogant in the defense of those principles which underlie all legitimate church organization; but in kindness let us, by a consistent Christian course, and a kindness of Christian bearing, win our fellows from those errors that have grown strong by age, and in their estimation, sacred by the great names associated with them. It is hard to overcome the prejudices of education, and we must not be weary in well-doing, but persuade them by the sweet tones of Christian love to abandon the traditions of men so artfully and skillfully interwoven with the principles of truth that the very elect are often beguiled and led to listen to Judaizing teaching, sanctioned as it has been by so many that, apart from these errors, are worthy of all Christian regard. But do not understand me in this remark that I advocate yielding one item of Christian principle or position. How can we ? if Christ be the only Lawgiver in our Israel. When he says "Thus" it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness, who shall dare say "so" it may be done without detriment to the principle of strict obedience to positive law yet we may be firm and kind at the same time. In the language of Holy Writ, we may be "sincere without offense," and we may add, that a preacher is commanded in the Old Testament to seek out acceptable words, and in the New he is commanded to be "an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
Let a radiance gather around our hosts of love, order, meekness, patience, faith, and all these other things shall be added unto us. If we were qualified by a sufficiency of spiritual graces, to which we might and ought to attain, God would give us in charge the Christian world. Fixed in positive commandments, let us shine in all Christian grace, till our opponents might be constrained to say of us, as the angry and erring prophet was constrained to say of ancient Israel - "Lo the people shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations; who can count the dust of Jacob and the number of the fourth part of Israel. Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his. How goodly thy tents, O, Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O, Israel!" - Numbers xxiii:9, 10 - xxiv:5.
========== [From The Baptist, Memphis, January 18, 1868, p.1. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall]
Baptist History Homepage