"IT IS A POOR RULE," ETC.
By H. B. Maurer
A BROTHER in the ministry has a landlord who is a Methodist. As was his custom, on the first of each month he called upon his ministerial tenant for his rent. Sometimes the conversation turned on the difference in belief, and so, on this particular morning, the discussion concerning baptism having gone against the landlord, he remarked: "Well, anyhow, it is a matter of little importance how much water is used in baptism so long as there be water. It is merely a form." "Very well," replied the Baptist, "the transaction between us this morning is a matter of form merely. The quantity of money used is a matter of indifference, so long as there be money paid. I will, therefore, give you dimes instead of dollars." "That will not do," replied the other, "dollars and not dimes will meet the terms of the contract." "Equally true is it in regard to baptism, since a body of water, and not drops or jets only, can meet the requirements of Scripture; for, according to its teachings, baptism is primarily designed to symbolize a burial and a resurrection." When baptism is under consideration, Baptists are quick to resent the charge of too much literalism, and are ready, with forcible arguments, to overcome the objection that the form is of little importance. They know that adherence to the form is essential, not only to baptism, but to obedience to the Master, since anything else than immersion is no baptism. Anything which God has commanded should be unconditionally obeyed. "To obey is better than sacrifice," is a favorite text with Baptists, and, as proof that God must be in the smallest things, the sin of Uzzah, who did such a thing with good motives, as to reach forward to steady the ark, and was punished by death, furnishes another striking proof that, however insignificant the deed may be, the sin that is committed is disobedience. So with Saul, when the prophet reproved him with the words, "To obey is better than sacrifice." Now we would suppose that Baptists, who thus, in dealing with the commands of God, appreciate that there is no such thing as a matter of indifference, or small sins, would not come down from their high and ideal ground, and yet the objection almost invariably made, when it is maintained that the seventh day must be the Sabbath, is that the day is a matter of no importance, that it is contending for trifles. Only quite recently a pastor of one of our Baptist Churches in New York City expressed to me his surprise that I should have fallen into such literalism as to believe that the seventh day is the Sabbath. Whether or not the change is a matter of little importance, let one of the foremost Baptists of the land testify:— "Dr. George Dana Boardman, of Philadelphia, in his late book on the commandments, calls the change from the seventh to the first day of the week, 'a great revolution.' A change which displaces a day which God has sanctified by one he has said should be kept secular, which secularizes a day he has made holy, which displaces a God-given set of reasons by another set of doubtful origin and which have nothing more than a fancied connection with the Sabbath,—such a change may well be called 'a great revolution.'" The matter is surely not one of little importance, when Baptists, who boast that they are the only and original anti-Romanists, and have imbibed none of Rome's errors, are not able to take up the gauntlet thrown down in the following:— "Cardinal James Gibbons, of Baltimore, says, 'Read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.'"—Faith of Our Fathers, p. 108. Father Enright, a Catholic priest, in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, said: "Sunday is not the Sabbath-day; no man dare assert that it is. . . . I will give $1,000 to the man who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep. . . . The observance of Sunday is solely a law of the Catholic Church. . . . The church changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and all the world bows down and worships upon that day in silent obedience to the mandates of the Catholic Church."—Hartford Weekly Call, February 22, 1884. The change from the Sabbath to Sunday observance is not a trifle, when the Baptists, claiming to discard tradition and modifications of God's commandments, cannot reconcile such a claim with the following bit of history:— "In 1595 Dr. Bound, a Puritan, invented the theory which, based on a fancied relation between the work of creation and redemption, and bringing in the resurrection of our Lord, sought to apply the fourth commandment to the first instead of the seventh day. Thus, from pagan origin, the result of a Romish compromise, absorbed by Protestantism, Sunday observance found its way into the Baptist Churches."100No, indeed, the change is not a matter of little importance, since, like the substitution of sprinkling for immersion, it does not meet the terms of the command. We are commanded to abstain from secular labor, because God rested on the Sabbath-day and sanctified it. The inferential teachings of Pedobaptists concerning their baptismal notions pale in the presence of the inferences drawn from a few New Testament texts, which have nothing whatever to do with Sabbath observance anyhow, upon which the observance of Sunday is based. No wonder that this "institution," having no Bible to rest on, needs the civil law to enable it to gasp a few years longer. The change may be of little importance to most Baptists, but now and then someone, like Dr. Boardman, will deem it of enough importance to regard it as a great revolution. For great revolutions great causes should be shown and great reasons should be easily given. How easy a matter it is to show such causes and give such reasons can more easily be seen from several facts, that there is altogether too much confusion on this matter to be of divine origin, since God is not the author of confusion; the Baptists have a too great variety of views on the Sabbath question to be good for their reputation for unanimity of beliefs. Those whose religious belief and practice conform with the Roman Catholics and most Protestants, so that they have an overwhelming majority on their side, may look upon the change as of little importance; but how about that small minority which, when, as has always been the case, leads truth and right? who, like Elijah's 7,000, that small remnant who would not bow to Baal, and who had in their day a majority against them, as the Sabbatarians have in this,—how about those people who cling to God's law, while Christendom follows the tradition of men,—is the change a matter of no importance to them? Many of them who have conscience toward God cannot avail themselves of business opportunities, because business is everywhere done, in violation of God's law, on the Sabbath, some even going against conscience, and forsaking the Sabbath, thus keeping this small body small. Is the change a matter of little importance to them? That it is to many Baptists a matter of small importance is clear from the fact that for those who have dared to oppose public opinion and declare for the truth, there is the smile of commiseration, and often the unfeeling joke. Whether or not it is to side with God and the truth in embracing the Sabbath, does not seem to enter their minds. As long as desire for preferment and position is the all-determining motive, the setting aside of God's law, and the observance of a human institution, will continue a matter of indifference to many Baptists, and ministers even. What a shame it is for any Baptist to say, as did a prominent Baptist minister recently, while speaking of the Sabbatarians, "They have the Bible on their side, while we have the practice." How can these men make others feel that any part of God's word is to be reverenced, when they set aside, as indifferent, those portions obedience to which might cause inconvenience or loss? How can preachers enforce God's law, when, as has been the case with several, they declare that they would keep the Sabbath if their churches did? When obedience to God depends upon such conditions, where is the line to be drawn? How can the ministry and the church command the respect of men? It is hard to stand by truth with the prospect of losing bread and butter, but how about the sparrow that falleth to the ground, and the hairs of our heads that are numbered? Are such assurances null and void? or can God still be trusted in the interest of truth?