"Doctor Vincent," said Dorothy on her return to the room, "you were saying that the baptism of an infant is always preceded by faith. How can that be? Can an infant exercise faith?"
"Not the infant, but the father or mother."
"Oh, you mean it is the parent that has faith! And do you baptize an infant because the parent has faith?"
"Yes. Either the parent or the god-parent must have faith."
"The god-parent!" exclaimed Dorothy in a puzzled tone. "What is a god-parent?"
"If the child has not a parent, then some Christian man or woman believes for the child and is thus called its god-father or god-mother."
"And so the infant, in order to have baptism, must have some person to believe for it?"
"Yes, my daughter, you catch the idea exactly."
"I thought you said just now that infants ought to be baptized because of their heavenly nature, and now you say they cannot be baptized unless they can get some Christian man or woman to believe for them."
The Doctor for a moment was startled as he saw where his arguments had brought him. He saw in aflash that both of the statements could not be true.
"Doctor, which fact must I accept?" she asked. "Must we baptize infants because of what they are in themselves with their heavenly natures, or must we baptize only those infants who can come and have somebody believe for them?"
"I see your point, and it has a show of logic in it."
"Oh, Doctor," she said, almost impatiently, "why do you say a show of logic? Can both of these positions be true? If the child's nature entitles it to baptism, then all children are entitled to baptism; but if it is the faith of some parent or some god-parent that entitles the child to baptism, then it is only a certain class of infants that can be baptized and the baptism is put on the basis of the faith of another."
"That sounds a little strange to me," said the father. "I did not know that one person could be religious for another. I thought that every tub had to stand on its own bottom in religion. This thing of one person believing for another person so that the other person, especially a little infant, is entitled to baptism—well, that sounds very new and strange. How can the parent make the child fit for baptism? Do you mean to tell me that if I had a little infant and I should believe in Christianity that that would be a reason why not only I should be baptized, but my little infant also?"
"Is it thought, Doctor," asked Dorothy, "that the baptism does the infant any good?"
"Oh, no," said the Doctor, "the baptism has no power in itself."
"I think the baptism does the infant a wrong,"said Dorothy. "Baptism is a religious ceremony which everyone ought to obey of his own will and accord. In the Bible it comes after believing and is a sign of what has taken place in the person's heart. Now, when you baptize an infant you force on him a religious ceremony. Suppose he grows up and is converted and desires to obey Christ in baptism and then learns that baptism was forced on him in infancy. Instead of believing and then being baptized he is first baptized and then many years afterwards he believes."
"And suppose, Doctor," said the father, "he never believes; then what have you got? You have a person walking around baptized who ought never to have been baptized, though he is not to be blamed for it. If the baptism does no good, why do you baptize him? Why not follow the regular course and get him first to believe and then to be baptized?"
"I have an idea," said the brother, "that infant baptism started with parents with dying infants who they thought would be lost if they were not baptized."
"Oh, never," said the Doctor.
"Well, I remember in a house where I was boarding while at college that a mother thought her little infant was about to die and she sent off immediately for the preacher to baptize her child, for she said she was afraid it would be lost if it died without baptism. Now, if that mother had that idea about baptism, why may not many others have the same idea about baptism?"
"Since I come to think of it," admitted the Doctor, "I myself have had quite a number of excited mothers to ask me to baptize their sick infants because theywere afraid for them to die without baptism; but they are the exceptions and of course their fears were entirely groundless. This is a Catholic doctrine. The Catholics teach, that baptism saves the infant, but we teach no such doctrine."
"But is it not natural for the mother to get such an idea about baptism?" asked Dorothy. "They come to think that it keeps the child from being lost and the child, as it grows up, would get the idea from the mother that it was saved because of its baptism in infancy. If the mother thought the baptism saved her child, why would she not be apt to tell this to the child, and how awful it would be for a child when grown to think that it was saved when actually it was lost. Doctor Vincent, this doctrine seems to me to be a frightful one. It looks as if it might do a world of harm, and I cannot see where it does a particle of good; and besides, it is so different from that principle which father said just now was one of the characteristics of religion, and that is that religion must be a personal matter. Each soul must be accountable to God, and it is what I do and not what somebody else does for me for which I shall be held responsible."
"My daughter," said the Doctor, "I have let the discussion run along for awhile in this fashion without mentioning the main feature and benefit of infant baptism. It is a dedicatory ceremony. The parent brings the child and offers or dedicates it in baptism to God; and not only that, never forget that the baptism does not stop with that."
"With what?" asked Dorothy.
"With the sprinkling of the water."
"You say the baptism does not stop with the sprinkling of the water? What else, then, Doctor, is added?"
"Why, the parent not only dedicates the child to God, but solemnly promises to watch over the child and to seek to train it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
"Ought not every parent to do that?" asked Dorothy.
"Exactly; that is what I am contending for, that every parent—I mean every believing parent; we could hardly expect an unbelieving parent to do so—every believing parent ought to dedicate in baptism his infant and to make the promise for its religious training."
"Is it necessary to baptize the infant in order for the parent to make the promise?" asked Dorothy.
"Miss Dorothy," said the Doctor, with a faint smile, "you amuse me; you almost astonish me. What grudge have you against the simple baptismal ceremony? Do you think there is anything wrong when the parent brings its little one to dedicate it to the Lord to have a few drops of water sprinkled upon the little one?"
"Certainly not. Sprinkle as many drops upon the infant as you please; sometimes the more the better. But why call it baptism? I think the wrong consists In calling it Bible baptism."
"Oh, you object to the sprinkling. Do you think we ought to plunge the infant in water?"
"Not at all, Doctor. It is true I do not believe sprinkling is baptism, and in that respect I do not think you have even baptized the little one when you sprinkle it; but admitting that sprinkling is scriptural baptism, I think it is wrong to call the ceremony baptism. It is all right for a parent to dedicate its child and to use water with it in any shape, but do not let the parent call it baptism. Baptism is something that the person receives of his own accord, and that comes after believing and as a sign that the person has had a change, that the person has died to his old life, as we read the other night, and has risen to a new life; but don't call the sprinkling of water on an infant baptism and thus deprive that child ever afterwards of having a regular Bible baptism, performed on himself by his own choice. I find myself all confused, Doctor, as I try to understand your reasons for infant baptism. You must let me tell you frankly how it appeals to me. At first you said the child deserved baptism because of its own heavenly nature, and next you said it deserved baptism not because of its own condition, but because of the faith of its parent, and now you mention this other idea of dedication and pledging on the part of the parent. This last characteristic seems to have more reference to the parent than to the child, and seems to make the baptism something that is used for binding the parent to do his duty to the child. In that case you make the baptism a matter of the parent doing his duty, and if there is any religion in the ordinance it seems to be on the part of the parent insteadof the child. If you call that Bible baptism, I think you put baptism in the wrong place."
Sterling presented a picture. He had hung his hopes high on the Doctor's arguments. In fact, he came to the house with a feeling of triumph and wondered why he had not thought of bringing the Doctor into the discussion earlier. But as he had tried to follow the Doctor in his different arguments, he had found himself lost in a wilderness. He kept up his courage, however, believing that ultimately victory would come.
"Doctor," said Dorothy after she had remained thoughtful for awhile, "is there not great danger in infant baptism that people will get the idea that salvation comes through a ceremony rather than from Christ? You spoke of the mothers thinking baptism would save their infants. If those mothers think so, then do you not see that the practice of infant baptism in a community helps to spread abroad in that community the idea that salvation comes by some outward magical performance?"
At this point Dorothy was called to the door by a party of young people, who were returning from a walk, and who, seeing a light in the Page home, had run in for a few minutes.
"Father," said Dorothy, "you must listen to the Doctor for me and give me the points when I return."
"Let me say," continued the Doctor, "that I have not yet mentioned the strongest reason for infant baptism."
The remark waked new hope in Sterling.
"What is that reason, Doctor?" asked the father.
"It is the argument of circumcision. In the Old Testament times the command was that every male child of Jewish parents should be circumcised. This circumcision made the child a member of the Jewish church and of the covenant of grace. Now in the Christian dispensation, after Christ came, circumcision was done away with and baptism was put in its place, and it is now baptism instead of circumcision that admits one into the church."
"You are getting into deep water for me, but let me make the effort to catch your point. You say that in the olden times—"
"Yes, in the days of the Old Testament."
"Well, you say that in those days every male child of Jewish parents was circumcised and thereby admitted into the Jewish church, and so in the Christian church every male child—"
"No, not simply every male child, but every child,both male and female, who was baptized was admitted into the Christian church."
"Well, why this difference? If they circumcised only the males in the old church, why do you not baptize simply the males in the Christian church if baptism is put in the place of circumcision?"
"There is no reason why the females, as well as the males, should not be baptized, but there was a difference in the matter of circumcision."
"This is surely a new kind of argument for infant baptism."
"I think it is a very natural one. God does not change his plans of dealing with his people. In the first covenant all Jewish children were admitted into the covenant simply because their parents were members of the commonwealth or church, and the condition of their admission was their circumcision. Now if God would admit the children in the old dispensation, would he not admit them also in the new? And what is the sign under the new dispensation? Is it circumcision? Oh, no; it is baptism. That seems plain and unanswerable."
"So then it is not the inherent heavenly nature of the child, but the fact that one of the parents is a Christian that makes you baptize his little ones."
"Yes, that is the reason. The parent must of course promise to train the child aright. Circumcision was the door to the Old Testament church, while baptism is the door to the New Testament church."
"Here is a foot note in this family Bible on this passage," said the father. "It says that 'in the old dispensation all the natural children of Abraham were by circumcision admitted into the Jewish church; so now all who are the spiritual children of Abraham are by baptism admitted into the Christian church'."
"Exactly so," exclaimed the brother. "The contrast is between the natural and the spiritual children of Abraham. The natural descendants of Abraham, who were of course Jews, were admitted by circumcision. I think if you wish to run the parallel you must follow that line. In the Old Testament it was a natural relationship and in the New Testament it is a spiritual relationship."
"Son, you are surely on the right track. This foot note here says 'all believers are the spiritual children of Abraham'. Christ said he could raise up children unto Abraham, who was the father of the faithful. Every such believer is entitled to baptism and church membership. Why, that is plain. It runs this way: In the old dispensation all natural children of Abraham were admitted by circumcision. In the new dispensation all spiritual children of Abraham—that is, all believers—are admitted by baptism; but you will notice, Doctor, if the spiritual children are believers there can be no infants among them."
The brother was busy looking in the subject index of the Bible for passages about circumcision in the New Testament, and he soon remarked: "Here is an account of a discussion in a council concerning circumcision. It is found in the book of Acts, the fifteenth chapter."
"Read it," said the father. "We want light on this subject."
"That council met in Jerusalem and was made up of the apostles and other disciples to consider certain doctrinal matters," said the Doctor.
Roland began to read the account of the council: "'And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.'"
"Now you are getting at the core," said the father. "You see they are discussing whether they have to be circumcised. I guess the apostles will say they need not be circumcised because baptism has been put in its place. Read along and see if it does not say that."
He ran his eye down every verse, but could find no such statement.
"Do I understand that they came together in that council to discuss whether circumcision was necessary for salvation, and that nothing was said about baptism having been put in its place?" asked Mr. Page.
"It certainly looks that way," said Roland.
"What did that council decide?" asked the father.
"The council decided that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised," answered Mr. Sterling.
"Who were the Gentiles?" asked the father.
"They were all the people who were not Jews."
"You mean that they were discussing whether it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised, and that it was decided that it was not necessary, and now do you say that nothing in this discussion was saidabout baptism having taken the place of circumcision?"
"Oh, this may have been said in the discussion, but there is no record of it."
"They would hardly have left it out of the record if there had been any mention of it in the discussion. I notice here in this chapter they give the different reasons for their views; but the word baptism is not mentioned. If baptism had taken the place of circumcision, would it not have been natural for one of the apostles to have said something like this: 'Why, of course it is not necessary to be circumcised, because baptism has taken the place of circumcision.' That would have settled the question."
"I have another point," said Doctor Vincent, "but let's wait a few moments for Miss Dorothy's return."
In a few minutes Dorothy rejoined the party and the Doctor remarked:
"I can show you that the Bible teaches plainly that God will take the faith of the Christian parent for that of the child."
"Do show it to us," said Dorothy, eagerly.
"Paul declares that the faith of a parent makes the child holy and sanctifies the child."
"I don't know what you mean by sanctifying the child, but show us that passage, Doctor."
"Let me see if I understand your point, Doctor Vincent," said Mr. Page. "You assert that the Bible declares that the faith of a parent will make the child holy?"
"Yes."
"I want to see that passage."
The Doctor turned to 1 Cor. 7:14 and read: "'For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean but now are they holy.'"
"Hello," said Mr. Page, "that sounds like it."
"It is very plain," said the Doctor. "The apostle has said that a believer must not marry an unbeliever; but then someone may say: 'Suppose a believer has already married an unbeliever, must the believing wife leave her unbelieving husband?' 'No,' says Paul. 'The believing wife sanctifies the husband and thus the marriage is not unclean, but a proper one.' The fact that one of the parties is an unbeliever does not make the union an unclean one, but he says the child of such a union is holy. Note that. What does he mean by that word 'holy'? The Jews, according to the old covenant, regarded all who were not Jews as unclean or unholy; that is, as not partakers of the holy covenant. But all of Abraham's descendants were holy; that is, were partakers of the covenant, and Paul here states that the children of Christian parents, even though only one of the parents was a believer, were holy."
"But, Doctor," said Dorothy, "I do not see anything about infant baptism in all that."
"This is related to infant baptism. The point before us now is as to whether the faith or belief of a parent makes the child holy, and Paul says it does. The question was asked where the Bible taught thatthe faith of the parent was taken for the faith of the infant, and I mentioned this passage."
"But does this passage teach that?"
"It undoubtedly does. It declares that one believing parent sanctifies the child; that is, makes the child holy, and that is the same thing."
"I am not much on Scripture," broke in the father, "and I guess I had better keep my hands off of this part of the argument, and yet that passage sounded to me as if the writer was trying to keep married couples from separating simply because one of them might be an unbeliever."
"That is correct," said the Doctor.
"Exactly," continued Mr. Page. "The writer wanted the Christians who were married to those who were not Christians to understand that their marriage was O. K., and that their children were also O. K. Otherwise a Christian wife might feel that her marriage and her children were unclean. Is that right, Doctor?"
"Yes, but do not lose sight of the main point, which is that the faith or holiness of the parent makes the child holy."
"But look here!" exclaimed Dorothy, as if she had made a discovery. "It says that the believing wife sanctifies not only the child, but also the unbelieving husband. Do you believe that a believing wife sanctifies an unbelieving husband?"
"Of course not the husband. A believing wife cannot make an unbelieving husband holy and a member of the covenant of grace."
"But it says here that the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband," insisted Dorothy.
"That means that in the case under consideration the marriage must not be considered an unclean relation so as to make the wife leave the husband or consider herself involved in an unclean relation."
"When it says the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, does his sanctification mean becoming a member of the covenant?" asked Dorothy.
"No, not at all."
"Why, then, do you say that the child who is made holy by the parent is made a partaker of the covenant? Do the words 'holy' and 'sanctified' mean the same thing?"
"Yes, they are practically the same."
"It seems clear as a sunbeam to me from that passage," broke in the father, "that whatever was done to the child by the faith of the believing parent was also done to the unbelieving husband, for it plainly says so. Let us have that passage again, daughter."
She read: "'For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife—'"
"There you have it plain," said the father. "And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband, else were your children unclean but now they are holy."
"And look here!" exclaimed Dorothy, examining the passage closely. "In a verse or two below it says: 'For how knowest thou, Oh wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?'"
"There, now," said the father, "'save thy husband'.He evidently was not saved by his believing wife. It shows that, even though he was sanctified by the faith of his wife, yet he was not saved. Sanctification did not mean much for him, and maybe it did not mean much either for the children. The writer was trying, I think, to keep those marriages intact, and I guess he had a hard time of it sometimes. Even though that husband was sanctified, yet he needed saving. That looks mightily as if the sanctifying part had reference to the marriage relation of that husband and wife and not to any spiritual or religious condition of the husband, and therefore not to anything spiritual as regards the child."
"Look here," said the Doctor with a smile, "I think Mr. Page will have to start a commentary."
"I see you have a twinkle in your eye," retorted Mr. Page, "and consequently I will not extract any compliment from your remark."
The conversation ended at this point. The Doctor stated that an engagement compelled him to hurry from what to him had been a very interesting discussion, and that he would be glad to renew it. He bowed himself out and Dorothy remarked:
"Father, I cannot tell you how strange I feel. I appreciate Doctor Vincent's efforts to help me to know my duty, but this conversation tonight has made one thing clear to me, and that is that I can never join a church that teaches and practices sprinkling and infant baptism."
"Miss Dorothy," said Mr. Sterling, "I think youcould join my church, and I think you ought to do so, even though you do not believe these two doctrines."
"Daughter, if you won't join the Presbyterian church, I don't know which way you will look."
"But why, Miss Dorothy, can you not join my church?"
"Because I feel it would be wrong for me to join your church believing as I do about these matters."
"Wrong for you to join that church, daughter? I can't see where any wrong would be involved in your joining any decent church."
"Don't you think, father, that it would be wrong for me to join a church that teaches that infants ought to be baptized and that sprinkling is baptism, when the Bible seems so clearly to me to teach that infants ought not to be baptized and that only immersion is baptism? What about my baptism? I would have to be sprinkled if I joined your church, would I not, Mr. Sterling?"
"I think you ought to be sprinkled," he replied.
"Do you think I ought to be sprinkled when I think the New Testament teaches so clearly that immersion is baptism?"
"But, Miss Dorothy, will you set your judgment up against the judgment of the learned divines and scholars of the churches?"
"I do not set myself up against them, but Dr. Moreland said that each one of us must study our Bible and go where it led us; and besides, Mr. Sterling, I have considered all your arguments for sprinkling and all Dr. Vincent's arguments for infant baptism, and Itake for granted that you have brought out the strongest passages on that side, and yet in the face of them it seems to me that none of the passages point to sprinkling and infant baptism, while many passages point clearly to the baptism only of believers and to immersion as the only baptism. I must not put away my judgment and go directly against that to follow the judgment of another, must I? Suppose I should join your church, believing that your church was doing wrong in putting something else in the place of Bible baptism; think how uncomfortable I would feel. I would either have to keep silent about what I believed or else I would be constantly engaged in argument with the members."
"Maybe that would be a good thing. You might convert some of us to your way of thinking."
"But is that the right basis on which to select a church? Do you choose a church without reference to what they or you believe, or do those who believe other things go together in another denomination?"
"You will never find a church where everybody in it believes exactly the same thing about Bible teaching."
"Of course not; but I thought you were mentioning the principal doctrines of your church about which all your members are agreed."
"You are correct about that."
"I cannot get away from the belief that I ought to join that church that seems to come nearest to holding those truths that I hold."
"Maybe there is no such church, daughter," saidthe father. "What other churches are there, Mr. Sterling? I know of a few—the Methodist, the Episcopal, the Catholic—"
"I am sorry I must leave this charming circle, but let us take up the other denominations tomorrow evening."
"Good," said the father. "We shall expect you, then, tomorrow evening."
The next morning was spent by Dorothy at the library searching through encyclopedias and making full notes. On the next evening the discussion was resumed.
"Well, here we are," said the father, coming into the library a short while after supper. He had heard Mr. Sterling's voice. "Now let us take up the subject of the other churches."
Sterling was anxious to get into that subject, for he felt confident that the result would be that Dorothy would find it as easy to decide for the Presbyterians as for any of the others, and probably more so. He began with the remark:
"The other denominations—the Methodist, the Episcopal and the Catholic—which you mentioned last night believe just as we do about sprinkling, and infant baptism."
"There now," said the father, "you are shut out of four denominations at the start."
"That may be true," said Dorothy, with a troubled look on her face, "and yet what else can I do? Is there no church, Mr. Sterling, that believes that onlyimmersion is baptism and that only believers ought to be baptized?"
"Yes, there is one denomination—the Campbellites, or rather the Disciples—for they do not like the first name. The Disciples believe only in immersion and the immersion of believers. They are the only denomination that teach this except, I believe, the Baptists; but of course you would not join them."
"It looks, daughter, as if you are shut up to the Disciples."
"But think, Miss Dorothy, these Disciples have just started up not a great many years ago. They are a small denomination and with few churches."
"That does not make any difference. Believing as I do about the Bible, I would certainly feel more comfortable with them, than with some other denominations whose doctrines I could not accept. It seems to me I would have to cry out and not keep quiet."
"But how do you know that you would believe the other doctrines of the Disciples? You seem to have fallen suddenly in love with them."
"What do they believe?"
"They believe in baptismal regeneration."
"My, those are words!" said Dorothy with a smile.
"What do you mean by that, Mr. Sterling?" asked Mr. Page.
"They believe that a person's sins are washed away in baptism."
"Washed away in baptism?" asked Dorothy with amazement. "Are you sure they believe such a strange doctrine?"
"I know it. I have heard their ministers say that a person was not saved until he was baptized."
"What, even though the person had believed in Christ?"
"They say that such a person is only partly saved and not completely saved until he is baptized."
"I can't understand, Mr. Sterling, what you mean by being partly saved. Don't you reckon you have been misinformed about these people?"
"I have been told that there is a Disciple preacher that lives here in town," said the father, "and that he has two churches out in the county, but makes his home here. Suppose you capture him, Sterling, and march him up here to speak for himself, and tell him you have a prospective member for him." The last remark was accompanied with a smile at Sterling and a wink towards the daughter.
"No, indeed, you must not tell him that," spoke up Dorothy. "And yet I should like to hear about the doctrines of his church. I want to know my duty and I desire all the light I can get."
Sterling felt sure that Dorothy would recoil from the doctrines of the Disciple church.
On the next evening at eight o'clock Mr. Sterling arrived, bringing the Rev. Mr. Garland, the Disciple minister. He was a striking figure. Young, tall and with classic face and fluent speech, he commanded attention at his first word. Sterling saw that he was captured immediately by Dorothy's beauty, and he thought that he also noticed that the handsome young preacher was not entirely unobserved by Dorothy.But the shadowy suspicion flitted out of his mind as rapidly as it had slipped in. Not a great many words were spent in preliminaries. Mr. Sterling soon remarked:
"Miss Dorothy, I have told Mr. Garland about the earnest study you are making of the different churches. The question came up, Mr. Garland, as to the doctrines of your church. I told them your church believed in immersion as baptism and also in the immersion of none but believers."
Mr. Garland with a bow indicated that Sterling had stated the case correctly.
"I also said that your church believed in baptismal regeneration."
"Oh, never!" replied Mr. Garland.
"I thought you believed that a person was not saved until he was baptized."
"Yes, but that is a very different statement from your first one."
"What is the difference? If he is not saved until he is baptized, then I should think his baptism must have something to do with his salvation."
"Here is my position: 'The Bible declares that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'. Note that not he that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That shows that it takes both believing and baptism to save a person."
"How about the thief on the cross? He was saved without baptism, don't you think so?"
"Baptism was impossible for him, and God doesnot require impossibilities. Besides, that was an unusual case and Christ made an exception in his conversion and salvation."
"But does the Bible say it was an exceptional case? If he could be saved without baptism, why not others? But let me remind you that you did not read to the end of that passage that you quoted just now. You read a part—'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'—but read the remainder of the verse."
Mr. Garland repeated the other part of the verse as follows: "He that believeth not shall be damned."
"Exactly," said Sterling. "That seems to teach that believing is the important thing. He does not say that a person is lost if he leaves out both believing and baptism, but simply if he leaves out believing, as if believing was the necessary thing for salvation. If baptism had been a necessary part of salvation, Christ would have said 'he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned'."
"Not at all. There are two things necessary to salvation, believing and baptism, and leaving out either one of them is sufficient to cause a person to be lost. You have to mention both of them in stating what is necessary for salvation, but you need mention only one of them which, if neglected, will cause a person to be lost."
"You think, then, Christ could also have said 'he that is not baptized shall be damned'? Would a believer in Christ be lost if he were not baptized?"
"If he could be baptized and would not be, then I think he would be lost."
"Mr. Garland," said Dorothy, "really I cannot understand what you mean. Mr. Sterling said that he thought your denomination believed that in baptism the water washed away a person's sins. You say you do not believe that. Do you think the water has any magic about it? If Mr. Sterling should immerse a person, would that water help to make him a saved person?"
"No, not that. I do not believe the water has any spiritual cleansing or saving efficacy, and I don't think it does anybody any good whatever unless the person first believes in Christ. I think believing is one part and that baptism is the second part."
"You don't think, then," asked Mr. Sterling, "that a person is saved simply by believing?"
At this point a message came for Mr. Sterling that he was wanted at his home on an important matter. "Too bad," he said, "for this discussion is getting mighty interesting. I hate to miss any of it."
"We will hold it until your return," said Dorothy. "I will try to keep Mr. Garland contented during your absence."
Sterling could not understand why she should be so contented to have him leave and should so happily accept Mr. Garland's company. The thought that he might not be able to return that night irritated him. Fortunately, he was successful in attending in a few minutes to the matter that called him home, and in less than twenty minutes he was hurrying back across the lawn to the Page library.
"Hello," said the father, "you must have charteredthe lightning express. But we held up the proceedings until your return and are now ready to get down to business again. Where were we when you left?"
"I had just asked Mr. Garland if he believed a person was saved simply by believing, and he remarked that he did not. I would like to ask Mr. Garland this question: What about the inquiry that the Philippian jailer put to Paul and Silas? You remember that when the jailer was converted he came in trembling before Paul and Silas and said: 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And what did they answer? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.' Not one word, you see, about baptism."
"You would think," said Dorothy, "that they would have said 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and thou shalt be saved', would you not, Mr. Garland?"
"Yes, but you notice that just a little while afterwards that very night the jailer was baptized. You see the baptism had to come. In fact, baptism always came immediately after believing. It was a necessary part, and the work was not complete until the baptism had taken place."
"But does that prove that the baptism was a part of the man's conversion or salvation?" asked Sterling. "Suppose the person had fallen dead just after he had believed and before any baptism was performed on him, would he not have been saved? If so, I think it proves that he was saved simply by believing, and that baptism is simply a matter of obedience."
"By the way, Mr. Sterling," said Dorothy, "you remember that passage in Romans where it speaks of being buried by baptism. We found that baptism was a picture of something that had already taken place in the person's heart and life—that he had been buried to his old life and risen to a new life. It is not baptism, therefore, that helps to make the change in a person, but it simply pictures the change that has already taken place."
"What is the use of a person being baptized?" asked Mr. Garland, "if he can be saved without being baptized?"
"Mr. Garland, I trust that I have already been saved by believing in Christ. I want to be baptized, however, not to help me to be saved, for if I am not saved now I certainly do not think my going down into the water will make me any more saved. I simply want to be baptized because Christ was baptized and because he commands all who believe in him to be baptized, and because all those who claimed to believe in him in the days of the apostles were baptized. I reckon I will find from the Bible that there are a great many other things besides baptism that I must do, but that does not mean that the doing of all these things is a part of my conversion or salvation."
"I guess you take up these duties because you are already a Christian and already saved. If you were not already a Christian I guess you would not feel like doing them," said the father.
"I do not exactly agree to that," remarked Mr. Garland, "and yet I do not think we are very far apart. There are some people of our denomination who goto an extreme and declare that the water does wash away sins, and they seem to put more stress on the baptism than on the believing. My doctrine is that every believer must be baptized, and that unless he does become baptized he has no right to consider himself saved."
"But that is different," said Dorothy. "Of course, if a person refuses to be baptized, although he believes that Christ commands it, why, such a person has no right to claim to be converted. I can't imagine a converted person flatly refusing to do what he believes Christ commands. I cannot understand, Mr. Garland, just what your doctrine about baptism is."
"We have another doctrine which I am sure you will like," said Mr. Garland.
"What is that?" asked Dorothy, who was eager to learn everything possible about the denomination.
"We believe in what is called open communion rather than in what is called close communion."
"I don't understand what you mean."
"I mean this. The Lord gave two ordinances to the church, baptism and the Lord's Supper."
"Yes, that is what Mr. Sterling told us."
"Now as to communion, one of the questions of the day about which Christians are divided is the question as to who ought to be admitted to the communion."
"Let me understand clearly about the Lord's Supper. I have read about it in the New Testament, but I wish you would explain it to me fully."
"Christ, on the last night that he spent with his apostles, instituted this supper of bread and wine."
"Yes, I have read that."
"He told them that the bread typified his body that was that night to be broken for them, and that the wine poured out typified his blood that was that night to be poured out for them, and that when he was gone they must repeat that ceremony, and they must do that in remembrance of him; and that as often as they did that they would show forth his death until he should come again."
"What a beautiful thought! And so that is why the people in the church have the communion? I see it clearly now. What, then, do you mean by open communion?"
"I mean that we throw the door to the communion table open. We do not say that nobody but members of our denomination should come to our communion table, but that anybody who loves the Lord may come."
"You mean anybody who is a Christian?"
"Yes."
"Well, that would certainly seem proper. Does the Bible specify who ought to come to the communion?"
"We simply have to take the practice of the apostles and early Christians. It looks as if all people who loved the Lord were welcome to the table."
"Don't all people believe alike on that point?" asked Dorothy.
"Yes, all except the Baptists. They believe that none but Baptist people have any right to the communion."
"Oh, how selfish!"
"They believe that unless you have been immersed you must not come to the table," said Mr. Sterling, "and they will not let anybody come to the table when they have it in their church unless he has been baptized in their way."
"Why not?"
"I don't know, unless it be because they are so ignorant and narrow."
"Maybe they believe," ventured Dorothy, "that a person ought to be baptized before he takes the communion."
"Of course," said Sterling, "that is just what they do believe; and since I come to think of it, our church holds the same position as to baptism. Our church believes that a person must first be baptized."
"You mean," said Dorothy, "that your church and the Baptists believe alike on the communion question?"
"Not exactly. We both believe that baptism must come before the communion, but we differ as to what constitutes baptism."
"Does the Bible teach that a person must be baptized before he can commune?"
"The Bible teaches that all who believed were immediately baptized. That always seemed to be the first thing they did."
"It seems the natural thing to me," said the father, "for baptism to come first, and before the other duties of the Christian life. In the passages which we have studied baptism seemed to follow on the heels of believing. The question is, however, does the Biblehave anything to say on that subject? Does it teach that baptism must come before the communion?"
"I think it would look strange for a person to be going to the communion table before he was baptized," said Dorothy.
"Excuse me, Miss Page," said Mr. Garland. "Is it a question as to what you or I might think ought to be done, or is it a question as to what the Bible teaches? I affirm that the Bible does not state that baptism is a prerequisite to the communion."
"That is a somewhat new question to me," said Dorothy, looking at Mr. Sterling, as if he were the proper one to give the answer.
"We do not have from the lips of Christ the actual words," said Mr. Sterling, "'ye must be baptized before partaking of the communion', but I think it is definitely implied in Scripture. In the first place, take the command of Christ: 'Go ye into all the world and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' There you have first baptism, and next observing all things that Christ has commanded, and the Lord's Supper is one of these things."
"Very true," said Mr. Garland, "but you exclude the great body of Christians from the table simply on your interpretation of that one verse."
"Isn't this the proof?" asked Dorothy. "In nearly all the passages about baptism we have read we found that baptism always came immediately after the believing; and father, I feel that I must not delay mybaptism. What shall I do, and whom shall I ask to baptize me? I think, Mr. Garland, that I ought not to go to the communion table until I have been baptized. That seemed to be the custom in the days of the apostles."
"Suppose people in the days of the apostles did become baptized quickly after conversion," said Mr. Garland, "would that prove that no one has a right to commune before he has been baptized?"
"I think it does, if we find that in every case the first thing people did after believing was to be baptized. It must mean that they were instructed by the apostles that baptism came first."
"Do you mean that it would have been wrong for them to have done anything whatever before baptism?"
"Of course they could not cease all activity."
"Why, then, do you pick out the Lord's Supper as something they must not engage in until they were baptized?"
"Because," said Sterling, "there are two ordinances, and if the ordinance of baptism always came first, then the other ordinance must not come first, and so I think it is clear that only baptized persons had the right to the table. Don't you remember about the people converted on the day of Pentecost? It reads 'then they that gladly received his words were baptized', and then in the next verse we read that 'they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrines and prayer and in breaking of bread'. Notice 'breaking of bread' came after baptism."
"Does the Bible say anything about who ought to commune or who did commune in those days?" asked Dorothy.
"Get your concordance, daughter," said the father.
Dorothy did so and soon turned to a passage about the Lord's Supper. "In First Corinthians, chapter nine, the writer is writing to some people about celebrating the Lord's Supper."
"Is that so!" exclaimed the father. "Find out then whom he is writing to and who are taking part in that supper, and that will answer your question."
"It was the Corinthian church," said Mr. Sterling.
"If it was the members of the church who were taking communion, then they must all have been baptized, don't you think so, Mr. Garland?" asked Dorothy.
"I guess the members of that church at Corinth which was founded by Paul were all baptized."
"It does look plain, then," said Dorothy, "that all those early Christians were first baptized and then took the communion and then performed the duties that came up."
"Yes," spoke up Mr. Sterling, glad to join the forces with Dorothy against Garland, "baptism was a duty to be performed once and for all time and in the beginning, but the communion is something that is to be observed right along through the Christian life at regular times."
"Mr. Garland," said Dorothy, "I can't understand why anyone should want to come to the communion table before he is baptized. Why does he not do the first duty first?"
"I don't see the point in all this," said the father. "I think it is a clear proposition that baptism always comes first after believing and before communion. But all the churches baptize—Presbyterians, Disciples, Methodists and the rest. Why, then, cannot they all commune together?"
"Ah!" said Mr. Garland with a smile, "there is the point. These other denominations have been sprinkled, but according to the Bible they have not been baptized. Now if I believed that baptism had to come before communion, I would not commune with the Presbyterians, Methodists and others who sprinkle, because I do not believe they have been scripturally baptized; but even though I think them unbaptized, yet I would invite them to the communion, because I do not think baptism is necessary to the communion."
"That certainly sounds strange," said Dorothy. "Why, I thought you considered baptism so important that a person could not be saved unless he was baptized; and now you say baptism is not necessary for the communion. That seems contradictory. I should think if baptism is essential to salvation it surely would be essential to taking the communion. Do you think a person ought to take the communion who has not been converted?"
"Of course not."
"This is what puzzles me," said Dorothy. "You say a person can't be converted without baptism. If an unbaptized person should come to your communion table claiming to be converted, would you not have to deny his conversion because he had not been baptized?You say you do not require baptism before communion, and yet when you require conversion before communion you thereby require baptism before communion, because you say there can be no conversion without baptism. In other words, you must hold that an unbaptized person cannot come to your table."
"That does look like a clear proposition, daughter," said Mr. Page.
"Let me ask you this question, Mr. Garland," said Dorothy: "Why do you admit members of other denominations to your table?"
"Because it is not my table, but the Lord's table, and I have no right to shut any of his people out."
"You think the members of other denominations are Christians, then, do you?"
"Certainly they are; probably as good Christians as we are. We do not set ourselves up as being better than others."
"How can you think they are Christians? You do not think with their sprinkling and pouring they have been scripturally baptized, do you?"
"No, I do not."
"How, then, can you think them converted? I understood you to say that none are perfectly converted and saved until after baptism, and you say that sprinkling and pouring are not Scriptural baptism. Therefore you must think they are not Scripturally converted and saved."
"But such people think they have been scripturally baptized, and they do what they consider right."
"But do you think it is right?"
"It is right for them."
"Do you think anybody will be saved if he will only do what he thinks is right for him? Suppose a person should come up and say that he believed that touching the tip of the little finger in the water was baptism, would you say that baptism would be all right for him?"
"Well, hardly," he said with a laugh.
"I declare, Mr. Garland," said Dorothy, "you confuse me. I really don't understand what you believe. It may be my stupidity. I wish I did understand. One thing, however, seems clear to me, and that is that in the Bible teaching the first thing that comes after conversion is baptism. I certainly do not think that I ought to go to the communion table in a church before I have been baptized."
"You don't seem to be able to accept the views of Mr. Garland's denomination," said Sterling.
"I want to say," said Mr. Garland, "that there are variations within our own ranks. In some sections of the country our denomination is more radical in its views than in other sections. In the East our people are not so pronounced as we of the West are in regard to the relation of baptism to salvation."
In response to Sterling's remark to Dorothy about her accepting the doctrines of the Disciples, she replied:
"No, I cannot accept the views of Mr. Garland. I am not sure that I understand clearly what his doctrines are, and yet from what he has said about free or open communion and baptism I must say they do notseem to me to be in accordance with the Bible teaching. I am speaking frankly, Mr. Garland. I have been interested in your statement of the doctrines of your church, and I thank you for telling me about them."
"I am sorry that you have not had an abler champion of our doctrines to present them to you," said Garland with a smile. "If you can't join us you can't join the Methodists, nor the Presbyterians, nor the Episcopalians. You are therefore shut up to the Baptists."
"Oh, I do not think I could join them, either. What do you mean, Mr. Sterling, exactly by their close communion?"
"I mean that they think they are better than anybody else, and that nobody but Baptists have any right to partake of the Lord's Supper. They are an ignorant, bigoted set and think that nobody can be saved who is not put under the water."
"Well, the Disciples believe that, don't they, Mr. Garland?"
"Ah, but not in the way the Baptists believe it," spoke up Sterling. "Miss Dorothy, there is a little Baptist mission here in the eastern part of town. I will take you over there that you may take a look at their base of operations, and I think a sight of it will set at rest any further inquiries as to the Baptists."
The members of the little Baptist mission to which Sterling referred worshiped in a plain, unsightly frame chapel. The city had raised the street that ran in front of the building so that the lot on which thechapel stood was left several feet below the level of the pavement and could be reached only by a rough board stairway from the street to the door of the building. Here a Baptist minister had been ministering to a small and struggling flock in connection with two other churches out in the county. The members were poor and many of them unlearned, and the pastor with such a poor building equipment found his task a difficult one.
"Daughter, I think you want to keep away from that Baptist crowd," said Mr. Page. "They are very small fry and I would hate to see you tied up with such folks."
"I have no intention of joining them, and yet I am much bewildered over this matter of church membership. What must I do? I cannot unite with any of these denominations that I have heard about without doing wrong to my conscience."
"Miss Dorothy, you do not have to endorse all the beliefs that every member of your church holds," said Sterling. "Where will you find such a church? Each person must interpret the Bible for himself and be accountable to God only. If a church is composed of Christian people, why is not that the essential thing, and why can you not join with them? You will have to live in Heaven with them, and why can you not live with them here?"
"I am living with them here. I mingle freely with them, but when Christians divide themselves up and group themselves according to their interpretations ofBible teaching, then I must join myself with those who interpret the Bible as I do."
"But suppose you cannot find any church group or denomination that interprets the Bible as you do; what will you do? You have not found such a people yet. Suppose you do not find such, will you stay out of all the churches?"
"That is a puzzling question. I am not sure just now what I ought to do if I find no denomination believing as I do. But really, I would rather stand alone, keeping loyal to my convictions regarding the Bible, than to compromise them in order to join some church. This is all very new to me, but I am determined to stand alone rather than go against my religious convictions. I know that each individual must interpret the Bible as best he can, and it must be his own conclusion, his own conviction, and I certainly shall not join a church whose doctrines I think are contrary to the Bible. Such a church is no place for me. I would be uncomfortable and I would be in constant controversy with the members."
"Well, there is no sin in controversy," said Sterling. "Our discussions, I hope, have not been very wicked. In fact, such discussions are often the best means for bringing people to see the truth. Why not come into our church simply on the ground that we are Christians like yourself, and then try to teach the other members the truths which you hold and which you think we ought to embrace? In other words, I should think you would have the best reason for coming in among us because we need the truth—according toyour view—and you could come and sow the good seed among us."
"Oh, Mr. Sterling, what a strange thing you are saying. You surely don't mean it. Do you say that your church will take in people no matter what they believe?"
Sterling saw in a flash that in his eagerness to save Dorothy from joining some obscure sect he was advocating an impossible procedure.
Dorothy continued: "Your church has its own special doctrines, does it not?"
"It does," said Sterling, seeing in advance the point to which she was aiming.
"Would your church accept a person who should apply for membership who should declare he could not accept the teachings of your church because he thought them unscriptural?"
"I surrender on that point, my fair antagonist," said Sterling with a smile. "But I will take down the church bars any fine morning for you and help you over the line into our ranks whenever you decide to come. I think I could swallow my Presbyterian doctrines or lay them on the shelf for a few days under those conditions, because I think in a short while after you had come in and gotten well acquainted with our denomination you would discover we are not far apart after all."
"Oh, Mr. Sterling, how can you talk in that fashion? I like a person who believes something, and though I may not agree with him, I can respect him for his convictions."
"That's a straight thrust you are giving me, and I guess I deserve it, but it was the thought of the fair recruit for our ranks that got my logic and my Presbyterianism into a mixup. So if I was guilty of inconsistency I must blame my accuser. But seriously, it looks as if you are shut up to joining the Baptists."
"No, Mr. Sterling, I do not have to join any denomination unless my convictions lead me to them. But why do you keep mentioning the Baptists? Are my beliefs nearer to theirs than to those of any other denomination?"
"Oh, no; I was joking that time. You do not believe as they do. Please consider them out of the question."
"Mr. Sterling, you make me curious to know what these Baptists do believe. Could we not get the pastor to explain their doctrines?"
"Miss Dorothy, that is not at all necessary," with a show of impatience. "I can give you their views. It is true they believe in immersion, but they have a horrible view about it. They believe that unless you are dipped you are doomed. They think infant baptism was born in the lower regions, and as for the communion they are as close as a clam, and in addition to this they have achieved brilliant success in the matter of ignorance and bigotry."
"Daughter," said Mr. Page with much earnestness, "keep on the other side of the road from that gang. There are some things that a father knows better than a daughter."
"Father, you would not object to my hearing a Baptist preacher tell what his denomination believes, would you?"
It occurred to the father that that would be the quickest plan for curing Dorothy of any curiosity she might have about the Baptists. He thought that a sight of that preacher would show her the impossibility of her linking herself with his people, and so he said:
"Yes, daughter, that will be all right. Hear the preacher. Let us all hear him and get his side of the question."
"Mr. Page," said Sterling, "I think it would be humiliating to you and your family to be entering into negotiations with that preacher about the views of his sect."
"Mercy, are they so very terrible?" asked Dorothy.
"They are not a wicked people, so far as I know," said Sterling. "They are a fairly good sort of people probably. In fact, our country is a fruitful soil for all manner of sects, with all sorts of peculiar doctrines."
"Are the Baptists a regular denomination like the other denominations?"
"In a sense I guess they are, and yet they are not in a class with the other prominent denominations."
"Sterling, suppose you get hold of that Baptist preacher and march him up for our investigation," said Mr. Page.
Mr. Walton was the pastor of the little Baptist church. He was also pastor of two country churches, each of them several miles from town, but as the townwas about midway between the two points, Mr. Walton chose the town as his home.
He was much surprised next morning to receive a visit from the rich young Presbyterian elder, and still more surprised when Mr. Sterling told him the object of his visit. He listened with interest as Mr. Sterling told of Miss Page's desire to know the beliefs of the different denominations, "and of course", continued Mr. Sterling, "she does not wish to leave out any denomination." He said this in a tone that seemed to hint that, while the Baptists were hardly worth considering, yet they called themselves a denomination and therefore could not be omitted. Mr. Walton stated that he held himself ready always to give a reason for the faith that was in him, and that if Miss Page desired to know the doctrines held by his people he would cheerfully explain them to her. He was unwilling, however, he said, to force his views upon the young lady. It was finally agreed that Mr. Walton would call at Mr. Sterling's house, and that together they would go next door to the Pages'.