Part III - FIRST EVENING
On Monday evening, after an early supper, William and Dora hastened to the parsonage. Dora preferred to remain at home, but at her husband’s earnest solicitation she accompanied him.
They found Mr. C. in readiness to receive them. After mutual greetings, William, impatient for the discussion, said:
“I have come, according to promise, to have that conversation on the subject of baptism. And I tell you candidly, I am so thoroughly convinced that immersion is the only true mode of baptism, that I do not believe it possible for you to convince me that your mode will at all meet the requirements of the Saviour’s command. But as I am so anxious to unite with your church, that I may be with my wife, and as you so positively refuse to immerse me, I thought I would beg an interview, to see if you have anything new to advance on this oft-disputed question. But first, let me ask you why you refuse to immerse me.”
PASTOR.— “I am glad you have come. A free conversation on the subject can result in no harm, though, as you think probable, I fail to convince you that we have any warrant from the Word of God for our mode of administering the rite of baptism. I am glad of the opportunity of answering the question you put so pointedly, especially as some are inclined to think we are not as consistent as we might be in some of our practices concerning baptism. I am glad you assumed that, as I refused to immerse you, I have a reason for such refusal. I have a reason, and I am very happy to give it. It is because I do not believe that immersion is the scriptural mode of baptism.”
W.— “I certainly do not understand you. I thought you held to the view that immersion is not essential, but that it is a scriptural mode.”
P.— “If this were my view, I would, most cheerfully, comply with your request. I refused because, as I said, I do not believe that immersion is a scriptural mode of administering baptism. It fails in essential points to meet the requirements of baptism, as instituted and appointed by Christ.”
W.— “Well, this is certainly something new. On last Sabbath I heard Mr. R. give, as, to my mind, a strong argument in favor of immersion, that all denominations regard it as valid. But how will you reconcile such a theory with your practice? You offered to receive me on immersion, and suggested to me that I should get Mr. R. to immerse me, and then come to you with a certificate of membership, on which you would receive me.”
P.— “Yes, sir, it is our custom to receive any one from an evangelical church applying for membership, on his immersion, if he is entirely satisfied with that as baptism.”
W.— “Well I confess this seems to me irreconcilable. Valid, yet not scriptural; not scriptural, yet valid. If you can succeed in reconciling these contradictories to my satisfaction, I will think it possible you may force me to modify my views on the question of mode.”
W.— “I mean that which may be received as meeting the requirements of the gospel and the commands of Christ.”
P.— “Very good. But perhaps we can understand each other better by considering validity as it relates to some other things. Allow me to inquire what you regard as the scriptural mode of administering and celebrating the Lord’s supper?”
W.— “I believe the mode practiced in your church is according to Christ’s appointment.”
P.— “Then it is scriptural?”
W.— “Yes, sir, I believe it is.”
P.— “As instituted by Christ and celebrated by the apostles, is it probable that they kneeled in partaking of the elements?”
W.— “No, sir. It is certain they did not; and I confess I always regarded that mode of celebrating the ordinance as of questionable propriety, and as having no warrant from the Word of God.”
P.— “As unscriptural?”
W.— “Yes, sir, as unscriptural.”
P.— “And did it strike you that this destroyed its character as the Lord’s supper, and should not be regarded as such by those who agree with you?”
W.— “Well, no; not exactly that; but it is a departure from the simplicity of the ordinance as instituted by Christ, and has no warrant in the Scriptures.”
P.— “I think I understand you. Though it be unscriptural, yet it may be valid.”
W.— “I confess it is so in this case. But in giving and receiving the bread and wine, they retain the essentials of the supper.”
P.— “Very true; and so do immersionists, in using water in baptism, retain the essential element, but are without any scriptural warrant in their mode of using it. But this does not necessarily render their baptism invalid. But though I may regard it as valid, yet it would be wicked in me to do deliberately what I regard as unscriptural.”
W.— “I confess your argument seems conclusive; but can you give another illustration as much to the point?”
P.— “Any number you desire, limited only by the number of externals in religious service. In externals God looks upon the heart, and considers the spirit in which the service is rendered. Let me ask what you regard as the scriptural Sabbath?”
W.— “Sunday, by universal consent.”
P.— “Would it be proper or scriptural for you or the church to change it to any other day without a Divine warrant?”
W.— “On no account would it be admissible.”
P.— “The case is a possible one, and let us suppose it, that a pious man or family should lose the day of the week. He is a farmer in a thinly-settled region. The Sabbath comes, and they all engage in their usual work. According to their count, Monday is the Sabbath, and as such it is religiously observed. It is conceivable that such a state of things might continue for many weeks. In his ignorance he has actually changed the divinely appointed day of rest. It is, as all will admit, unscriptural to substitute Monday for the day appointed by Christ; yet will not his observance of Monday, under the circumstances, meet all the requirements of the gospel?”
W.— “It is very plain. You have reconciled what I deemed irreconcilable. I can now better understand the language of the Saviour when He said: ‘God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.’ I can see that in things purely external God will have regard to the intention and the spirit in which the duty is attended to.”
P.— “Another case, very analogous to our reception, from evangelical churches, of those who have been immersed, is where irregularities have occurred in the ordination of church officers. We believe that elders should be ordained ‘by the laying-on of hands.’ To set them apart to their work without this formality would be unscriptural. But suppose that, through inadvertence (the thing has occurred), the imposition of hands should be neglected, and the elder, as thus ordained, should enter upon his official duties. If, some time afterwards, attention should be called to the omission — the irregularity — should the ordination be declared invalid, and all his official acts null and void?”
W.—”By no means. The case is analogous. I see how you are justified in receiving those who have been immersed, and yet refusing to administer the rite by immersion, just as you would, very properly, receive as valid an ordination unscriptural in form, as you have indicated, yet it would be wicked in you knowingly to assist in an ordination of the same kind.”
P.— “Thus you see how I may receive one who has been immersed, yet it would be wicked in me to immerse him.”
W.— “I see it. But I cannot express my astonishment to learn that you regard immersion as an unscriptural mode of baptism. You will find but few who will agree with you in that extreme view.”
P.— “Immersionists are zealous in their labors to make such an impression, but it is very erroneous. The ministers of our Church, as a body, agree with me. A few, regarding it as a mere external, look upon it with such supreme indifference that they can scarcely be said to have an opinion on it; and such may sometimes make concessions which our opposers are very quick to catch up and use to their own advantage. I have known a few who would push this question of indifference to such an extreme that, while unhesitatingly declaring immersion unscriptural as a mode of baptism, would yet, on request, administer the rite in that way. The Presbytery of Lafayette, in answer to a memorial, declared by a unanimous vote that ‘it is inexpedient and improper for a Presbyterian minister to administer the rite of baptism by immersion.
W.— “Such facts are new to me. But are you not mistaken as to the number of those who make such concessions? I have heard many sermons on the subject by immersionists, and by their quotations and statements they succeeded in making the impression on me that all Paedo-baptists agree in concessions that would seem to render the further discussion of the question unnecessary.”
P.— “Such concessions form the burden of their books and sermons on the subject. Some years ago I put myself to some trouble to hear a Baptist minister, who proposed to discuss the subject purely from a Bible standpoint. I was anxious to know what a man could say in favor of immersion, in three sermons an hour each, who would confine himself to the Bible, and let Greek lexicons and Paedo-baptist concessions alone.
“A worthy Baptist minister introduced the services by an earnest prayer, the burden of which was praise to God for His word, for the clearness of its revelations, and its sufficiency in all things. I was delighted with the prayer; I regarded it as a prelude to a Bible discussion, and thought that a desire, long entertained, to hear such a discussion, was about to be gratified.
“A gospel song was sung, and the minister, with only the open Bible before him, began his task. For about fifteen minutes I was charmed with an eloquent eulogy on the Bible. It was in the spirit of the prayer that preceded it. The massive Book, with its pages opened, was held up to our gaze; and ‘here,’ said the speaker, ‘not in Creeds and Confessions of Faith, but here, in the Word of God, are we to look to find the mind of the Lord. To THE LAW and the TESTIMONY if they speak not according to this word, IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM.
“What more could I desire? A Bible discussion of baptism! what I had so longed to hear.
“As the sound of the speaker’s voice (in giving the quotation) was dying away, in a most reverent manner he gently closed the sacred volume, and with as much reverence as the case would admit of, he slowly pushed the source of light to his extreme left, taking one step to enable him to get it sufficiently far. The movement was inexplicable. But, in less time than it requires to tell you, the speaker was almost hidden behind books, large and small, which he piled before him and on his right and left.
“And now the Bible discussion!! For two hours we were treated to a learned dissertation — by one who knew nothing of the Greek language — on the meaning of ‘baptidzo.’ Greek lexicons and Paedo-baptist commentators and writers were the sole witnesses. The Bible was wholly ignored. It was not mentioned once. No text was quoted from it!!
“If it had been but a human production, I could but pity it on account of such treatment. Sacred volume, lifted so high to fall so low!
“My disappointment was great, but I went to hear the second and third discourses, ‘et ab uno, disce omnes.’ The discussion of the subject, in all, occupied more than five hours, and only at the close, and then only for about fifteen minutes, did the Bible receive any notice, and then all that was done was to quote a few favorite passages, taking it for granted that they were conclusive in favor of immersion, but making no attempt at proof.”
W.— “In all the books I have read on the subject, and in all the discussions to which I have listened, I have noticed that such was their method, and I think it proper. It served to establish me in my views. With such concessions, and the plain teachings of the Bible, I have come to regard the question as removed from debatable ground, and I cannot express to you my astonishment that you would intimate that a Paedo-baptist would undertake to uphold his views from the Bible alone! Am I correct in drawing the inference that any one would undertake such a task?”
P.— “Do you think any other method legitimate and satisfactory?”
W— “I certainly think such a method best; but 1 see no objection to other aids, especially to the ad hominem arguments to which you have referred.”
P.— “I think you have very properly characterized those arguments as ad hominem. But let me ask you if such arguments, based on the concessions of some, prove anything, or establish any truth?”
W.— “well, no. But they silence the opponents who make them.”
P. “Very true; but should not such discussions have, for their chief end, the establishment of the truth, and not the silencing of an opponent that may have been long dead?”
W—”It is even so; but such arguments are equally valid against those who receive their writings.”
P.— “But our reception of their writings in general does not imply that we accept of their concessions. Of what use, then, to thrust such concessions at us? They may please those already convinced, and make an impression on the unthinking, but are utterly valueless as a means of bringing to light the truth.”
W.— “There is force in what you say; but I suppose they regard the teachings of the Bible on the subject so plain as not to claim, at any length, their attention, and all these arguments are so much extra.”
P.— “Now I will answer a question you propounded some time ago, that is, whether you were to infer, from what I said, that any one, holding to my views on this subject, would undertake its discussion solely from the Bible standpoint?”
W.— “Yes, sir, if you please. I am curious to hear your answer to that question.”
P.— “My answer is an emphatic YES. In the language already quoted, ‘To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ “
W.— “My feelings are as you described your own, when you put yourself to the trouble of going to hear a Bible discussion on this subject. It will, I assure you, be a treat to me to hear one, confining himself to the Bible alone, attempt to meet and oppose the arguments in favor of immersion, and to give a ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ in favor of sprinkling.”
P.— “And I can assure you it will afford me much pleasure to gratify you. But I think it is better to postpone the farther consideration of the subject till it is convenient for you to call again.”
W.— “I hope you will permit me to call at an early period, for I can convey to you no idea of the extent to which my curiosity has been excited by what you have said, or rather by what you propose to say. Allow me the privilege of giving expression to my curiosity, and do not regard me as intending anything discourteous; but really, sir, it strikes me as so queer: — the river Jordan to be dried up, the whole theory of immersion to be overturned, and sprinkling to be established, and by the Bible only!”
P.— “No offence, I assure you, by such expressions of your emotions. Allow me, however, to correct one false impression. I do not propose to dry up the Jordan, but instead of a work so miraculous, I will show you how God’s people can be baptized on dry land, as the Israelites were in crossing the Red Sea. If it suits your convenience, you can return on Thursday evening. I shall await your return with interest, and hope to gratify your curiosity till it is satisfied.”
