A BAPTIST ON THE WITNESS STAND.
At eight o'clock that evening Mr. Sterling and Rev. Mr. Walton were ushered into the library of the Page mansion. Mr. Walton was fifty-three years of age, a man of native gifts, a certain degree of culture and also with college and seminary training. He could not exactly explain it, but he had not been put entirely at his ease by the bearing of Mr. Sterling on that morning in their first conversation. He had determined, however, to make the visit and meet the issue as it came. The family soon appeared and a battery of curious glances were opened upon the preacher in his plain but neat garb. Mr. Page thought that Dorothy's first view of the brother would settle the question for her. There was a self-containment and a lack of self-consciousness on the part of the preacher that was not unnoticed by Sterling. Soon after the arrival of Mr. Walton, Rev. Mr. Garland, the Disciple preacher, also appeared. On the previous evening he had been invited by Dorothy to return and join the circle on the next evening, when Mr. Walton was to tell about his denomination. After some preliminary chatting the conversation was turned into the main channel.
"Mr. Walton," said Mr. Sterling, "in our discussion last evening I stated that the Baptists believe that immersion is the only form of Scriptural baptism. Did I state your position correctly?"
"You did," quietly replied the visitor.
"I also stated that your denomination teaches that infant baptism is wrong. Is that a fact?"
"It is."
"Next as to communion. Your denomination believes, does it not, that none but Baptists will be saved and that therefore only Baptists can come to the communion table?"
"Mr. Sterling, I am sure you do not intend it, but your statement woefully misrepresents my denomination. We hold no such theory. I am aware that we are often charged with having a lofty opinion of ourselves and a contemptuous opinion of other denominations. Such a statement does us great injustice. We do not think ourselves better than others; in fact, they may reach higher standards of piety than we do. Certainly we have no words of praise for ourselves. We love all our brethren in Christ and are happy to join with them in different forms of activity."
"What about the communion?" asked Mr. Sterling. "Are you willing to let other denominations commune with you?"
"That is a matter they must decide for themselves."
"Would you permit a member of another denomination to come to your communion table?"
"If the person considered himself qualified to come I would not seek to put him out."
"Why, that is startling, Mr. Walton," said Mr. Sterling. "I understood that Baptists thought the other denominations were not qualified to come to the table."
"Very true," said Mr. Walton. "But you asked me first if I would permit such a person to come to the table, and I said I would not seek to keep such a person out. We keep no policeman to guard the Lord's table, but if you ask me whether I think such a person is qualified to come and ought to come, that is another question and I answer, no."
"Why not?"
"My reason is this. The Bible teaches that all who partook of the Lord's Supper in the days of the apostles first believed in Christ and next were baptized upon a profession of faith. In other words, the New Testament seems to lay down these steps—first faith in Christ, next baptism and then the partaking of the communion and the other duties of the Christian life."
"We invite to our table all who love the Lord," said Mr. Garland. "We care not what church a person belongs to if only he is a consistent church member."
"Would you invite me to your table in your church, Mr. Walton?" asked Sterling.
"You speak of my inviting you to my table as if it were a table in my dining room. But remember, it is not my table at all. It is the Lord's Supper spread in my church. The members of my church anxious to carry out the command of Christ that we observe this supper in memory of him come together at regular intervals for that purpose. I have never felt called upon to look out over the entire community to decide whom I would invite to this table."
"But is it not your duty as a Christian minister to invite the people to come?"
"It is my duty to explain the nature of the supper and also to state the qualifications that ought to be possessed by those who come to the table. I am always willing to try to make it plain who I think are entitled to come to the table, but I hardly think I am commanded to pick out a list of people to be invited to the table. I state the conditions and each one must decide whether he ought to come."
"Well," said Mr. Sterling, "I will put my question in another form. Do you think I am entitled to come to the Lord's table in your church and commune?"
"In reply I would say that, while I have respect for your Christian profession, yet I think you are not entitled to come to the communion because I do not think you have been baptized."
"Yes, I know you think that, but why do you not leave the communion matter to me? If it is the Lord's table, and if I am satisfied with my baptism and am baptized in the manner in which the Bible seems to me to teach, why should I not commune?"
"That is for you to decide, Mr. Sterling, but I think you have left out one of the steps that, according to the Bible, ought to precede the supper, and that is baptism. I am bound to think you have left out that step, and therefore I think the thing for you to be interested in is not the taking of the communion, but the being properly baptized. For me to invite you to the table would be wrong. If I felt called on to invite you to anything it would be to the proper Scriptural baptism. If you come to my table I will not put you out. You are responsible for your actions, but if my opinion is asked about your action I can only say I think you would be communing without having taken the previous step of baptism which the Bible requires."
"But according to my best judgment, I have taken the step of baptism. I have chosen the form of baptism which I believe the Bible teaches. Would you ask more of me than that?"
"I endorse your sincerity, Mr. Sterling, but you surely would not expect me to say I believe that you have followed the Scriptural baptism. I am bound to believe that you have not met the Scriptural requirements for coming to the table. I do not try to force my opinion on you. I simply have my opinion, which of course I am ready at any proper time to state. People who have not been immersed know that we have this opinion regarding their baptism, and they seem to take offense because we hold such a view regarding their baptism. Because we think they have omitted one of the preliminary steps to the table they call us close in our communion."
"It looks as if you are close in your baptism rather than in your communion," said Dorothy. "And is that what is meant by the close communion of the Baptists?"
"I do not know what our critics always mean when they speak of our close communion," said Mr. Walton, "but that is our position. I know that here and there in our own denomination there are those who are open in their communion—that is, they will invite Christians of all denominations."
"What, whether they have been immersed or not?" asked Dorothy.
"Yes."
"Oh, I can't see any consistency in that. If I were a Baptist I would certainly be a close communion Baptist in the sense that Mr. Walton has explained it; that is, I think that people ought to be Scripturally baptized before coming to the communion table, and I certainly don't see anything so terrible in holding such an opinion."
"It is a very ugly doctrine in the eyes of many," said Mr. Walton, "but I take this view of it. If the Bible had given us the two ordinances, baptism and communion, and had said nothing at all about the order in which they were to be observed and we were left free to choose their order, then we would not be able to speak so positively; but when we find in the Bible that baptism is always put immediately after believing, and that the Lord's Supper is never put in this order, then I think it is clear that baptism is expected always to come first. And if it came first in Bible times, why should anyone now wish to reverse the order?"
"Let me ask you a question," said Sterling. "You say a person ought to be immersed before coming to the table. Suppose a person has believed in Christ and been immersed and joins a Methodist church. You would then have a Scripturally baptized Christian. Would you permit such a person to commune with you?"
"You speak of my permitting such a person to commune with me. In the first place, I doubt whether such a person would want to commune with me. I never find such people coming to our church asking to commune with us. We do not have guards before our table. We simply have our views as to those who are properly qualified and the people know it."
"Would you think that this immersed Methodist ought to commune with you?"
"Why do you say 'commune with me'?"
"I will change the question, then. Do you think that an immersed Methodist ought to partake of the communion anywhere?"
"I think not, as long as he occupies that position. But of course he can follow his own convictions. If, however, he should ask my opinion, I would tell him I think he is living in disorderly fashion. He believes that immersion only is the Scriptural baptism, otherwise he would not have sought immersion when the prevailing mode in the Methodist church is sprinkling. Believing thus about baptism he yet throws his membership with a church that seeks to put another form of baptism in the place of the Scriptural baptism. I think that is wrong. He is a Baptist by conviction, and yet for social or other reasons he joins a church of a different faith. Why does he not join the church of his own faith? Besides, in joining that church he is linking himself with an organization that teaches and practices not only sprinkling in the place of immersion, but also infant baptism. I would have to say to such a person, if he should ask my opinion, 'Sir, I think your first duty is not to go to the communion, but to get the matter of your church relationship straightened out'."
"But suppose he should say he believed in infant baptism and therefore could not join the Baptist church? Suppose he should say he believed in all the other doctrines of the Methodist church except their view of sprinkling, and that even on the point of baptism the Methodists believed in immersion as one form of baptism, else they would not have immersed him. What would you say to him then? There you would have a person Scripturally baptized and joining the church that came nearest to his convictions, and now do you say that such a person ought to keep away from the communion?"
"Mr. Sterling, I think that is an impossible case. In the first place, how could that person believe in infant baptism if he believed in immersion? Infant baptism is only by sprinkling. Could that person endorse the sprinkling of infants? I doubt whether you will find a person believing that only immersion is baptism and yet believing that infant baptism is Scriptural. But granting this, you ask if that person ought to keep away from the table. I answer that if that person thinks his position is correct, and he desires to commune, let him take the responsibility. I think he is violating the Scripture. I do not believe the apostles would have advised such a person going to the communion. I think they would have instructed him on the subject of infant baptism and any other important Bible doctrines that the person was neglecting, and they would have sought to set him right on these things before advising him to go to the communion, and if he had refused to follow the Scripture, even though he was sincere in his action, I do not believe the apostles would have countenanced his partaking of the communion. That is simply my view of it. The responsibility rests with him, and he must follow his conscience; only let him be sure that he studied the Bible teaching on the point as thoroughly as possible. I certainly would not invite such a person to our table, because if such a person were a member of my church and should accept and practice the infant baptism and give his influence to propagating that and the other doctrines of the Methodists, he would have to be excluded from our membership; and if such a person would have to be excluded from our membership he surely could not be invited to our communion table. There would be no consistency in that."
"That seems plain," said Mr. Page, who had been a silent, interested listener.
"This is what we believe on the subject, but, as I said a moment ago, we do not force our views on others. They are generally brought up against us. They attack us about our close communion and thus compel us to state our views as to the communion. People know that we have positive convictions about the relation between baptism and the Lord's Supper, and yet they seem horrified if we stand by these convictions and follow them to their logical conclusion."
"Well, well," said Dorothy, "I think this abuse of the Baptists is much ado about nothing. I do not see how the Baptists could occupy any other position than they do about the communion as long as they believe as they do about baptism."
"Mr. Walton, what about myself?" asked Mr. Garland. "Would you permit me to commune at your table?"
"Permit you? Mr. Garland, I have stated that we do not turn anybody away."
"Exactly. But you make it plain whom you want and it amounts to a prohibition. Nobody wants to go where he is not wanted. But tell me, do you think I have taken the necessary steps before communion? I have accepted Christ as my Savior, I have been immersed and am a member of a church that believes in immersion as the only baptism and that does not believe in infant baptism. These are the same doctrines as those held by the Baptists. Would you therefore say that I am qualified to come to the table?"
"I have always understood, Mr. Garland, that your view of baptism was not the same as ours; that you regard baptism as a necessary part of conversion, and in that respect we think you have made a mistake regarding baptism. Scriptural baptism is one of the steps laid down to be taken before the communion, and consequently I think you have not taken that particular step. Those who partook of the communion in Christ's day were baptized because they had believed and were already saved, but you have been baptized in order to be saved. Yours is a different kind of baptism from the Bible baptism."
"I thought immersion constituted baptism?"
"Ah, that is a mistake very frequently made. There is something else in baptism besides the form. There must be the right motive as well as the right mode. I think that when you go down into the water, not that you may typify your death to your old life and your rising to a new life—a change that has already taken place within you—but in order that in some way your baptism may complete your salvation, you rob baptism of its chief glory. It is not the same baptism that Christ commanded. He did not go down into the water in order to be saved nor in order that it might work any change in him, but simply to show forth certain truths and to fulfill all righteousness."
"I don't believe you have answered my question," said Mr. Garland. "Do you think I am entitled to partake of the communion?"
"I am not your judge, but if you ask my opinion I am bound to say that I do not think your baptism was after the Scriptural order—that is, if in your baptism you regarded it as completing your salvation."
"But do you think I have a right to commune?"
"You must follow your conscience on that point."
"Would you yourself commune with the Disciples, Mr. Walton?" asked Sterling.
"Why ask such a question, Mr. Sterling? Why should I go to their church to commune with them? I have my own church in which to commune."
"I know, but suppose that while visiting in a community you attended service at a Disciple church, and they had the communion and the elements were passed around. Would you partake of the supper there?"
"I have never been placed in such a position."
"What would you do, Mr. Walton?"
"There are many who claim that my communing with you would endorse not only your act in communing, but also your baptism as you teach and practice it. If my act would be a practical endorsement of your communion and your baptism, then I certainly ought not and would not join with you."
"I think you would endorse them," said Dorothy, "if you should sit with them and commune with them."
"I think not," said Mr. Garland. "Each one would be acting for himself and your act would not be misunderstood."
"Why should he commune with them?" asked Dorothy. "Must not a person always have a reason for communing? Must he commune every time he may see the table spread before him in any church? If Mr. Walton should retire from the communion in the Disciple church, or simply should not take the supper, the people would understand that he differed from them as to the Scriptural steps required before communion, and it is a person's duty to let his beliefs about Bible teaching be known."
"No, the people generally would not understand Mr. Walton's act in that way," said Sterling, "but would simply think Mr. Walton thought himself too good to commune with them, and this would have a bad effect, and this is the harm of close communion. None of us are perfect, Mr. Walton. We Presbyterians may fall short in some particulars; the Baptists also may not hit the mark at every point. Why not recognize this, and with charity for each other come together around the table of the Lord and avoid making such unbrotherly distinctions?"
"Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy, "that does not appeal to me at all. If a thing is right it is right, and I do not believe we will gain anything by putting that aside just to come together. If I believe that the Disciples' baptism is not the Bible baptism I do not know of any better way I could say that to them than by not joining with them in their communion. I should think that such loyalty to conviction would do no harm and ofttimes might do good."
"Is it not a fact, Mr. Garland, that the different denominations very rarely commune with each other?" asked Mr. Walton.
"You are correct," said Mr. Garland. "Although we practice open communion, it is the rarest thing in the world for a member of another denomination to commune with us or for any of our members to commune in the church of any other denomination."
"I can respect a person who differs from me," said Dorothy, "but a person who seems to be so anxious to appear on good terms with me as to be willing to smooth over or minimize his convictions—oh, I want none of that. If we differ in our views and think the other is not keeping the Scripture requirement, then let us differ and not pretend that we are together or that our differences do not amount to anything."
"I think that their doctrine of close communion has greatly hurt the Baptists and kept from them many who would otherwise have joined them," said Mr. Garland.
"I must differ with you," said Mr. Walton. "If the Baptists abandon their position on the communion question they could not hold their position on immersion. You know that in England, where the Baptists are not gaining, many of the open communion Baptist churches also have open church membership, thus admitting people to the church who have not been immersed. Do you know why the Baptists of the South have grown so much more rapidly than the Baptists in all other parts of the world?"
"No, I do not," answered Mr. Garland.
"It is because they are strict in their views and stand loyally by their denominational convictions."
"What is another doctrine of your denomination, Mr. Walton?" asked Dorothy.
"Another doctrine is the 'independence of the local church'."
"Independent of what?" asked Dorothy.
"I mean that no pope, priest, presbytery nor bishop, nor any ecclesiastical power has any authority over any local church, but that the church in the conduct of its affairs is entirely independent."
"That sounds like pretty good democracy," said Mr. Page.
"It is democracy, pure and simple," said Mr. Walton. "The Baptist doctrine is that every individual has equal religious rights with every other individual, that all members are on a level, that the local members are capable of managing their own affairs. And, by the way, Mr. Page, did you know that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, got his ideas of democracy largely from a little Baptist church?"
"What is that?" asked Mr. Page, leaning forward in his chair. "You say that a Baptist church gave to Mr. Jefferson his ideas of democracy? If you will prove that, Mr. Walton, you will be giving us the livest bit of sensation that I have gotten hold of for many a day."
"I have the newspaper here in my pocket that proves what I say. The writer is Rev. Dr. Fishback, of Lexington, Ky., and he writes for the Christian Watchman, and he tells of a conversation he had with Elder Andrew Tribble, who was a Baptist preacher and whose church was near the residence of Thomas Jefferson, and it was this Baptist church of Mr. Tribble that gave to Mr. Jefferson his ideas of democracy."
"Do you have in that paper a letter from Mr. Tribble about it?" asked Mr. Page.
"No, but I have a letter from Mr. Fishback telling of the conversation he himself had with this Mr. Tribble about the matter."
"All right, let us have it."
Mr. Walton opened the paper (The Christian Watchman, a paper that bore the marks of age) and said: "Here is Dr. Fishback's letter:
"'Mr. Editor: The following circumstances, which occurred in the state of Virginia relative to Mr. Jefferson, was detailed to me by Elder Andrew Tribble about six years ago, who since died about ninety-two or ninety-three years old. The facts may interest some of your readers.
"'Andrew Tribble was the parson of a small Baptist church which held monthly meetings at a short distance from the Jefferson home nine or ten years before the American revolution. Mr. Jefferson attended the meetings of the church several months in succession, and after one of them asked Elder Tribble to go home and dine with him, with which he complied. Mr. Tribble asked Mr. Jefferson how he was pleased with their church government. Mr. Jefferson replied that it had struck him with great force and had interested him much, that he considered it the only form of pure democracy that then existed in the world, and had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the American colonies. This was several years before the Declaration of Independence.'"
"Well, well," exclaimed Mr. Page, "that is mighty interesting. That surely is a big tribute to the Baptists, and that does seem the natural form of government for a church."
"But does the Bible say that a church ought to be governed that way?" asked Dorothy.
"I think the Presbyterian form of government is taught in the Scriptures," said Mr. Sterling; "in other words, that a church ought to be governed by a body known as the presbytery."
"That means that a larger body should be governed by a smaller body, does it not?" asked Mr. Page.
"Yes," answered Mr. Walton.
"That may be Scripture," said Mr. Page, "but I don't like it."
"I think it is wise as well as Scriptural," said Sterling. "You know that today in all great bodies it is a few leaders that do the thinking and planning and directing. Even in the Baptist church, that claims to be a democracy, I'll venture that a few men in each church hold the reins. How much better to have a body of wise men to whom all important questions shall be submitted and who shall have general oversight over and direction of the affairs of the church."
"I must differ with Mr. Sterling as to the Scriptural plan of church government," said Mr. Walton. "I think the Bible clearly teaches that each local church in the days of the apostles managed its own affairs. Where have you any record in the Bible, Mr. Sterling, of any presbytery or smaller body of men controlling the affairs of any local church?"
"I can cite you a case."
"Good," said Mr. Page. "Let us have it."
"The council at Jerusalem drew up a list of requirements that were to be binding on the churches. That looks very much like a body of men legislating for local churches."
"Of course the apostles in their day gave direction for the churches," said Mr. Walton. "They were inspired to give directions to the churches. In fact, they were the founders of the churches. Christ gave through them the rules for the churches not only of that day, but of all succeeding days."
"It looks as if the apostles directed the churches, and why do you say the churches managed their own affairs?" asked Sterling.
"No, I do not think the apostles managed the churches. The apostles at the first had to give rules for the founding and starting of the churches, but even in the first days the apostles threw upon the churches the responsibilities of their own government. You remember that when an apostle was to be chosen to take the place of Judas he was not chosen by the other apostles, but by all the disciples just as if they were all, disciples and apostles, on a level when it came to voting for anything. They cast lots, and I have seen it stated that this casting of lots was simply a voting by ballot, and that is the democratic, Baptist way. You remember that Christ said that a person having a grievance against another person must, as a final step, tell it to the church, and if the offender would not hear the church then he must be as a heathen and a publican. There you see the ultimate authority was lodged in the church to deal with the offender and not in some presbytery or in some ecclesiastical council. How were the deacons elected? They were told to look out seven men of good report. This was said to the multitude of disciples, and this multitude was to look out from among them the seven men who should be appointed for the purpose. Notice it was not the apostles that picked out the men, but they made the selection the work of the people. In fact, in every church mentioned in the New Testament it is plain that there was no ecclesiastical interference in the affairs of the church. Even Paul, the founder of the churches, in his letters, throws upon the churches the responsibility of dealing with their problems. In the case of the incestuous man he said 'when your church is come together' cast out this man; that is, 'get your church together and let them act on it'."
"I think you make out a good case, Mr. Walton, and this principle of democracy is the best thing about the Baptists that I have yet heard," said Mr. Page.
"There are other interesting facts about the Baptists," said Mr. Walton, "but I find I must leave at this point. If you should care to learn more about our denomination I should be glad some time to give you further information."
"Can't you come again tomorrow night?" asked Dorothy in an eager manner.
"An engagement will prevent this, but I could come on some other night."
It was so agreed, though the Pages did not suspect the surprises that were in store for them.