Dorothy Page Part 17

"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 ent.i.tled 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 ent.i.tled 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 ent.i.tled 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. n.o.body 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 const.i.tuted 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 ent.i.tled 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 pa.s.sed 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 endors.e.m.e.nt 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."