WHERE IT LEADS TO by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 16, 1881

WHERE IT LEADS TO.

By Editor

THAT a church has the right in any way to modify the ordinances committed to its keeping by our Lord, has always been strenuously denied by Baptists. Many pedobaptists hold to this same position, though they differ widely from us on the question of fact as to what are the ordinances of the church. But there has been a growing tendency among pedobaptists towards the theory that a church has the right to use its discretion as to obeying Christ, and when it sees fit to do so, may substitute something entirely different for what he has commanded.

For a time this tendency was confined to the ordinance of baptism. Certain pedobaptist scholars have not scrupled to declare that while the Scriptures command immersion, any church may substitute affusion if that appear a more convenient and seemly ceremony. But it has become evident that if this principle is valid at all, its application cannot be restricted to baptism, and it has been reserved for the Christian Union to take the last step, which it does in these words: "Any church has a right to substitute unfermented grape juice or milk or water, or whatever it will, in the place of wine. In our belief it has the right to dispense with the Lord's Supper altogether, if in its Christian judgment exigencies arise in which that ordinance becomes a means of danger, not a means of grace."

It is scarcely necessary to point out the fact that this declaration amounts to a complete surrender of the whole theory of Protestant Christianity. If the "Christian judgment" is to be the umpire in all cases, there is no valid defense against the claims of the Romish church on the one hand, and a bald rationalism on the other. The Romish church has always embraced the larger part of Christendom, and for many ages was substantially the whole of Christendom. If "Christian judgment" is to decide questions of doctrine and practice contrary to the New Testament, the judgment of the great majority of Christians must be assumed to be sounder than that of the minority. If Scripture can be set aside by any human power, no man can refuse to become a Romanist, except on the ground that his judgment is more likely to be right than that of the great majority of Christian men, which is not a valid reason. It is strange that men cannot see this, that they can continue to be blind to the logical issues of such a declaration as that above quoted. The rejection of the absolute authority of the word of God compels a man to seek authority either in the church or in his own reason. The one is Romanism, the other is rationalism; both are anti-Christian.

We are glad of the opportunity to give the above our cheerful indorsement. It is from the Examiner and Chronicle, which is a thoroughly Baptist paper; and the doctrine of the article is genuine Baptist doctrine. It was by just such utterances as these, that we were induced to sacrifice the association of the church of our parents, and all of that way of teaching, and to unite with the Baptist church, in our youth. That this is correct as a theory of Christian duty, we do not see how any one can deny, who has even a moderate degree of reverence for the authority of the word of God.

But we have for years insisted that this is Baptist doctrine only, and not strictly Baptist practice. We think the Examiner is correct in its judgment that the pedobaptist doctrine cannot consistently be restricted in its application to baptism. It may apply to the Lord's Supper just as well. And we think the position laid down by the Examiner holds good in regard to all matters of duty enjoined in the word of God. It was because the Baptists took pedobaptist ground on the fourth commandment that we separated from them. They openly and freely acknowledged the binding obligation of the decalogue, fourth commandment not excepted, but claimed the right as a "Christian privilege" to disregard the strict letter of the commandment, and to substitute as obedience something not embraced in the commandment. If they are right in their manner of observing the Sabbath, then the pedobaptists are right in their treating the subject of baptism in like manner. Or if not, why not? But if the principle is wrong, why not reject it in its application to every precept in the divine word?

When we pointed out this inconsistency in the practice of the Baptists, to a brother in the church of which we were a member—and who was, also, a most rigid and strenuous Baptist—he justified their course on the ground of long-continued practice in the churches, and used the following language:—

"If I had as good traditionary evidence for infant baptism as I have for Sunday, I would be willing to be a pedobaptist."

This, in effect, is the present position of the Baptists as a denomination; but it is subversive of every principle of action held sacred by them. It is not a rejection of tradition as such, but a rejection of tradition on some points because they have not enough of it to

satisfy the demand. But let no one who keeps Sunday without "an express warrant of Scripture," plead longer for "the Bible and the Bible alone," to the exclusion of tradition, as "a sufficient rule of faith and practice."

At the time of the conversation referred to above, we were not sufficiently informed on the subject to judge correctly as to whether infant baptism or Sunday has the best claim on the weight of tradition. But we have examined that ground; and we have been surprised that infant baptism was so well fortified by tradition. Surprised because we had supposed, as the Baptist brother with whom we conversed, that even tradition itself, in favor of infant baptism, was somewhat meager. But tradition entrenches infant baptism as early as the days of Tertullian and Cyprian. This does not add one whit to its authority in our mind; we believe it is unscriptural and antiscriptural. No amount of tradition—not all the testimony of all "the Fathers"—can elevate it in our estimation, to a level with "the law and the testimony" of divine record. But consistency demands that it shall have some weight with those who accept "the venerable day of the sun" as a substitute for "the Sabbath of the Lord;" who virtually make void the commandment of God by tradition, and justify the innovation. The Lord by Isaiah says, when they speak not according to the law and the testimony it is because there is no light in them. Isa. 8:19, 20; and by Paul, that the Scriptures thoroughly furnish us unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. Where is the law for keeping Sunday? What scripture "thoroughly furnishes" us with evidence for Sunday as a sacred day, to be sacredly observed? We earnestly wish that our brethren of the Baptist church would wisely consider this matter.

But, allowing that they are wrong, that their practice is inconsistent, this does not prove that the pedobaptists are right. No one can be right and rest on tradition as a ground of duty.