“Studying History to Some Purpose.”
[I TAKE the following from the Examiner and Chronicle, a Baptist paper. The teaching of the Congregationalist college professor is a good testimony to the ancient practice of immersion.
D. M. CANRIGHT.] “The Professor of Church History in the Bangor (Me.) Theological Seminary (Congregationalist) must be a man who is more thoroughly imbued with the historic spirit than many who teach in theological seminaries. He has the sense to see that his function is to report, not to make, history, and he has the candor to report what he finds. And it appears that his finding is to the effect that ‘the apostles and all the church until four or five hundred years ago understood by baptism immersion, and never sprinkled anybody except the sick.’ Such, at least, was the substance of what was recited by students at the last annual examination, and was not called in question by Professor Paine. But the Rev. A. L. Park, of Gardiner, was stirred up to write as follows to the Christian Mirror: “‘At the anniversary of our Theological Seminary at Bangor, a few days since, the class under examination in church history gave some answers which struck me as extremely remarkable. The questions of the professor and replies of the students were substantially as follows:— “‘Q. What was the apostolic and primitive mode of baptism? “‘Q. Under what circumstances only was sprinkling allowed? “‘A. In cases of sickness. “‘Q. When was the practice of sprinkling or pouring generally introduced? “‘A. Not until the fourteenth century. “‘Q. For what reason was the change adopted? “‘A. As Christianity advanced and spread in colder latitudes, the severity of the climate made it impracticable to immerse. “‘The professor of church history approved the answers, which faithfully represented his teachings, and none of the clergymen present seemed to call these statements in question. Yet if such are the facts, the Baptists are historically correct, and we as a denomination are wrong, both in our literature and our practice. Our publishing society has issued a good deal of chaff about the broad interpretation of baptizo, and the impossibility of immersing thousands of people in a single day in Jerusalem, and all other familiar arguments in favor of sprinkling or pouring as the primitive and scriptural method of baptism. If it be true that the apostles and all the church until four or five hundred years ago understood by baptism immersion, and never sprinkled anybody except the sick, our usages need reforming; for nearly all our ministers have a decided preference for the unscriptural and unhistorical method of affusion, even in the summer months, when immersion in any river or pond is attended with no pains or perils. The vast orthodox church of the East, which has over sixty millions of communicants in the rigorous climate of Russia, contrives to immerse all its men, women, and children, and that thrice, and no doubt our ministers can find means to bestow the rite properly upon the few persons who are received into our churches during the winter months.” “‘If the Baptists are historically right, and we wrong, let us discontinue our disputes with them as to the meaning of Greek verbs, and give due honor to the original mode of baptism both by our preaching and practice. Let us administer by immersion as the rule, and use easier methods only in cases of necessity. If not, will some one tell us why not?’” “‘If Professor Paine teaches that the apostles sprinkled sick persons as a mode of baptizing them, he has need to examine still more critically into the evidence. But, apart from doubt on that point, he must be reckoned to have done a valuable service to so much of the rising Congregationalist ministry as it falls to his lot to instruct during their novitiate. And it may be safely assumed that others besides his critic in the Mirror will ask further questions, and draw inferences.’”