p. 102 | BUT WHY NOT? by J. H. W.

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 3, 1881

"BUT WHY NOT?"

By J. H. W.

THE "theological world" is in a ferment on many points, and it is interesting to notice the various ways in which the truth is made to appear, against the will of those who would fain "make the worse appear the better reason." The N. Y. Independent, though determinedly opposing immersion as the only baptism, is liberal in the use of its columns. Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost recently wrote an article under the head, "But Why Not Immerse?" addressing it to the editor of the Independent, as follows:—

"Your editorial comment of December 30, 1880, upon the communication of 'one N. S. B. in The Journal and Messenger' has just fallen under my eye, and suggests a query which I shall presently propound. I have been much interested in your articles from time to time relating to the history of immersion as an exclusive practice among Baptists, as also with your whole treatment for several past years of those questions which distinguish the Baptists as a sect from other Christian denominations. As is usual when The Independent discusses any question, there has been exhibited breadth of view, fairness, and kindness. These, like all matters of doctrine and church order, are always open for such discussion, and he who sincerely desires to know the exact truth will rejoice in every smallest particle of light that can be thrown upon them. Up to the present time, all known facts confirm me in the belief that our Lord and the apostles desired confessors to be immersed upon profession of faith in Christ, and that submitting to the ordinance of immersion is a simple act of obedience, of very considerable importance, ranking with such commands as to the assembling of the saints for public worship, the doing of all things with decency and order, the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and those of like quality — commands which, if they are not as important as those to believe or to continue in prayer, are, notwithstanding, injunctions from Christ which lose none of their force by relative comparisons. Nevertheless, I can understand how others are not led to the same conclusion. I clearly apprehend the argument by which one who believes that Christ and the early church were immersed justifies himself and considers himself obedient in choosing another mode of applying water in the rite of baptism. Now, the question which I wish to propound this, and I wish you would be good enough to answer it with the candor of a large man, who is ashamed to be dominated in the least by prejudice; or, if you please, of a little child, who speaks out what lies in the mind, without considering to what it stands related or what might be its logical outcome."

"Here is the question: Supposing that a man believes Christ, the apostles, and the early church to have been immersed; supposing that he might also believe 'that the essential part of baptism is the profession of repentance and discipleship, and that the method of doing it is incidental,' what good reason has he for departing from the original method? Why should he want to do so? Why is not the mode which Christ found and submitted to good enough for the disciple? Admitting, for a moment, that he has the liberty to change the primitive mode, how comes it that Christ's way is not the most pleasing and delightful to the disciple who really desires to follow him? I repeat, admitting that he has liberty to change the mode, why should he want to? I have heard that Mr. Spurgeon said he would drink a glass of liquor once a year, just to demonstrate his liberty. But I presume he would not feel justified in using it habitually, upon the same ground. If liberty must be demonstrated in this matter of baptism, why not baptize by affusion one candidate each year in every church? Why make a practice of that which is confessedly (to a great extent among non-immersionists) a permitted mode, unauthorized by precept or example in the early church? Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience, when he could just as well do exactly as Christ did, and be sure he was right, not having to justify himself even on so good ground as Christian liberty?"

"It has always seemed to me that it ought to be the delight of the Lord's people to do as he did in the matter of baptism, as in all things else, instead of resorting to so many ingenuities of argument to justify themselves in departing from his way."

We do not see how any can find fault with the position of Mr. Pentecost. He is right, as far as he goes. But it did not rest there. Soon appeared another letter with an introduction by the editor of the Independent, under the head, "But why not?" as follows:—

"We knew perfectly well what to expect when we published, three weeks ago, the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost's article 'But why not Immerse?' without a word of comment. We knew we should have reply after reply sent to us, and that we should not be able to publish them. One communication received, however, is not meant as a reply, but is really so good a reply that we are forced to publish it. The very clever writer is the Rev. W. C. Titsworth, pastor of the Seventh-day Baptist church in Farina, Ill. He changes the question asked by Mr. Pentecost to the following: 'But why not keep the seventh day as the Sabbath?', and proceeds:—"

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT: 'Will you permit me, Sir, to take a little liberty with the article of the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost, in your last issue — viz., that of substituting words and phrases enough to make it apply to the day of the Sabbath, instead of to baptism? 'I wish to say, however, that I was especially pleased to find so well put my own opinion on the question, the discussion of which I too have interestedly followed in the columns of The Independent. I have no difficulty in understanding how a Christian not a Baptist should differ with me as to the Sabbath; but I confess that I never read a Baptist defense of immersion which might not be used, without much change, as an argument against Sunday observance, and I can not see why Mr. Pentecost's argument, in the paper before me, doesn't apply with as much force against such observance as against sprinkling or affusion. 'Therefore, by your leave, I will make changes in the article which will make it an argument for remembering the Sabbath as Christ and the apostles did:— 'Up to the present time all known facts confirm me in the belief that our Lord and the apostles kept the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and that submitting to this order of things is a simple act of obedience, of very considerable importance, ranking with such commands as to the assembling of the saints for public worship, the doing of all things with decency and order, the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and those of like quality — commands which, if they are not as important as those to believe or to continue in prayer, are, notwithstanding, injunctions from Christ which lose none of their force by relative comparisons.' I clearly apprehend the argument by which one who believes that Christ and the early church kept the seventh day justifies himself and considers himself obedient in choosing another day on which to keep the Sabbath. 'Here is the question: Suppose a man believes Christ, the apostles, and the early church to have kept the seventh day; suppose he also believes that the essential thing in Sabbath observance is keeping a day in religious rest, and that the day kept is incidental. What good reason has he for departing from the original observance of the seventh day? Why should he wish to do so? Why is not the day which Christ found observed as a Sabbath and himself observed as a Sabbath good enough for the disciple? Admitting for the moment that he has the liberty to change the primitive day of the Sabbath, how comes it that the Master's way is not the most pleasing and delightful to the disciple who really desires to follow him? I repeat, admitting that he has liberty to change the day; why should he wish to? If liberty must be demonstrated in this matter of keeping the Sabbath, why not each church keep one Sunday in the year? Why make a practice of that which is confessedly but a permitted mode, unauthorized by precept or example in the early church? Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience, when he might just as well do exactly as Christ did, and be sure he is right, not having to justify himself on so good ground as Christian liberty even? 'It has always seemed to me that it ought to be the delight of the Lord's people to do as he did in the matter of keeping the Sabbath, as in all things else, instead of resorting to so many ingenuities of argument to justify themselves in departing from his way.'"

On this the editor makes the following remarks:— 'Mr. Titsworth is correct. Mr. Pentecost's argument is just as good for the seventh-day Sabbath as for immersion, and we daily expect an article from some Dunkard minister, seriously applying the argument to feet-washing, and asking: Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience by neglecting the washing of feet, whether as a church or a social custom, when he could just as well do as Christ did and be sure he was right? And others will continue: Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience in neglecting the command so often repeated to apostolic churches to 'salute one another with an holy kiss,' when he could just as well obey this command and be sure he was right? Ought a disciple to neglect the command to anoint the sick with oil, when he could just as well obey it and be sure he was right? Mr. Pentecost will, perhaps, affirm that these were customs and commands peculiar to the apostolic age, and, hence, they are not binding upon us. But that is just what many say about immersion. Where, then, is the difference? It is not a difference in principle; but it is a simple question of less or greater adhesion to ancient usages. The Baptists boast about their obedience to the divine commands; but they make their choice as to which of the divine commands they will obey to the letter. If others are moved to exercise the same choice and liberty as they do, why should they blame those that imitate the very example they have set?'

Yes; "Mr. Titsworth is correct." But that does not make Mr. Pentecost wrong. The Independent is too easily self-satisfied when it passes over the whole list of specified duties because somebody else is placed in a dilemma. But this is a very common method of settling questions of religious duty. The editor has traced a consistent course only in one direction. He has shown that the consistent course for Mr. Titsworth and Mr. Pentecost is to accept all the requirements of the New Testament. He does not seem to apprehend that consistency in his position will lead him to reject every precept in the New Testament. This is evident. For, if he rejects those presented by Mr. Pentecost and Mr. Titsworth, and those specified by himself, by what rule will he enforce any gospel duty? If baptizein means to immerse, and if the early church immersed in obedience to the precept to baptize, neither of which is denied by the Independent, and if it yet claims that immersion was for the early church alone, how will it prove that baptism by any method was for any since the days of the apostles?

To all things enjoined by Christ and his apostles, we hereby give our assent. And to all dissenters we ask, "Why not?"