"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."