The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1901-07-19


there can be only two kinds of com
munion, one open, the other close
! Will Bro. Tyler tell us what other kind
there is, or can be2 1t seems TO me,
that If no scripture is in favor Of open
communion, then all scripture which
bears upon the communion question
must of necessity, be in favor Of close
communion. | don't see how we
can escape this conclusion.
But let us look at this matter lit
tie further What is open communionY
1t is inter. communion between mem
beers of bodies which hold different
creeds and different practices be
tween members of different denomina
tons Therefore, there could be no
open communion until different de-
nominations came into existence. If
there was only one denomination to-
/ day, open communion would be impos-
sible. But, in the days of Christ and
the Apostles-in those days when the
Greek Testament was being written -
the Lord 8 people were not divided up
into different denominations, with
different creeds and practices. They
were one in creed and practice. There
r, it is certain they did not practice
open communion. Then what kind of
communion did they practices Was
it not close communion? Therefore |
give my brother Matt. 26 49, Acts
? Al, AZ, as plain examples of close
communion In the first passage we
have an account Of the institution Of
the supper. The context tells us who
were present-"the twelve and the
Lord. Did they hold different creeds
and practices? We're some Of them
Cumberland Presbyterians, some Meth
odists and some Episcopalians, etc?
In the second passage we are plainly
told that they continued steadfastly
in the Apostles doctrine and fellow
ship and breaking of bread y Their
doctrine was one A plain case OF
close communion.
1t Bro. Tyler had heard my sermon
last Sunday night he would have es'
capped some mistakes into which he
has fallen. He would have learned
that l do not accept as true his state
ment that close communion was the
: logical sequenter Of exclusive INNER
sion that they stand or fall together
They sustain the same relation as that
cause and the effect ceases.
/ | have shown that close communion
is scriptural, and that, too, without
any reference to immersion. | can
grant you that scriptural baptism is
by affusion, and yet prove that close
communion is taught in the word of
God. Therefore / have regarded a
great part of Bro. Tyler's article as
having no essential connection with
, what proposed to be discussion OF
, communion.
, But my worthy brother introduced
Dr. ". H. Whitsitt and pays him a
very high compliment, calling him
lone of the leading-if not the leading
scholar in the South. " Now Dr.
Whitsitt is firm believer in close
communion. Bro. Tyler can not gel
much comfort from him on the com
munion question. But Bro. Tyler
wishes to use Whitsitt as witness
against exclusive Immersion. - Well,
y my good brother is not fortunate il
selecting witness DR.. Whitsitt, this
. leading scholar, is a firm believer
. in exclusive immersion. | will LEI
: him speak for himself and explain the
t extract introduced by Bro. Tyler. In
the introduction to his book, "a
Question in Baptist History, Dr.
: Whitsitt says;
THE question does not relate to the
origin of immersion. Immersion as :
+ religious rite was practiced by John
a the BAPTIST about the year 30 of ON
\ era, and was solemnly enjoined by oul
. Savior upon all his ministers to the
Of No nthap M
was in use for baptism in Greek Testa
ment times. AS | understand
the scriptures immersion is essentia
to Christian baptism. The question
as to the origin and essential character
4 of immersion is, therefore, not IL
: issue. That is closed question; i
does not admit of being opened among
Baptist people.
q 1.-The issue before us is far different
q namely: whether the immersion o.
aduit.believers was practiced in Eng
- land by the Anabaptists before the yea,
e 1911. Whether these English people
r first adopted immersion for Baptism
Y and thus became Raptists i'll or abou
q the year 164l.
f This is purely a question of moderl
historical research. 1t does not atfec
= any items OF Baptist principle or prac
+ tice These are all established upol
+ the Bible. "
7 Isn't it strange that this man should
r be cited as a witness against "exclu
r sive Immersion Bro. Tyler ISSUED
subpoena for the wrong man. Baptis
Y authors are not more favorable to hi
: cause than the scritures are Bro
n Tyler, or any other man, will find i
Il impossible to prove open communion
+, by the scriptures. Bro, Tyler being al
e intelligent gentleman, frankly admit
5 it. But if he can't prove it by tn
$ Bible, why should he try or desire t.
n prove it by DR.. Whitsitt or by an.
. other uninspired man? If it is un
It scriptural why defend it?
+ Fraternally,
q A. S. PETITE.