{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32577/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32577","id":"gutenberg_32577","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32577","summary":null,"tags":["Category: American Literature","Category: Novels","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian fiction"],"text":"Produced by David Garcia, Joseph R. Hauser and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                         Dorothy Page\n\n\n\n\n                              BY\n                     ELDRIDGE B. HATCHER\n\n\n                          AUTHOR OF\n                     THE YOUNG PROFESSOR\n                             AND\n                         THE HITTITES\n\n\n\n\n                             1912\n                 BAPTIST WORLD PUBLISHING CO.\n                         INCORPORATED\n                       LOUISVILLE, KY.\n\n\n\n\n                       Copyright, 1912,\n                              by\n                 BAPTIST WORLD PUBLISHING CO.\n\n\n\n\n                          CONTENTS.\n\n\n             I. DOROTHY ARRIVES                     5\n\n            II. DOROTHY'S CONVERSION                9\n\n           III. STERLING STATES HIS CASE           19\n\n            IV. GETTING INTO DEEP WATER            29\n\n             V. HANDLING THE THREE THOUSAND        37\n\n            VI. ONE POINT GAINED                   55\n\n           VII. THE CALL FOR REINFORCEMENTS        63\n\n          VIII. WRONGING THE LITTLE ONES           75\n\n            IX. CIRCUMCISION TO THE RESCUE         83\n\n             X. THE DISCIPLE PREACHER              95\n\n            XI. A BAPTIST ON THE WITNESS STAND    119\n\n           XII. DISCOVERY                         139\n\n          XIII. BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ON THE MARCH   153\n\n           XIV. STERLING BRINGS IN HIS RESERVES   169\n\n            XV. CROSSING THE RUBICON              179\n\n           XVI. STERLING SCORES                   189\n\n\n\n\n                         TO THOSE WHO\n                SEEK THE TRUTH AND PURSUE IT.\n                           E. B. H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nDOROTHY ARRIVES.\n\n\n\"You may see her tonight,\" said Mrs. Sterling to her son Gilbert.\n\n\"When does she arrive?\"\n\n\"At six-twenty this afternoon. They say, son, she is beautiful.\"\n\n\"From what point of the compass does the lovely paragon come?\" asked\nSterling with a smile.\n\n\"She has just graduated from some college in the North. Her father and\nmother went to be with her in the closing exercises and will bring her\nhome today.\"\n\nThe subject of this conversation was Dorothy Page, whose palatial home\nwas next door to the home of the Sterlings. The two families had become\nfriends as well as neighbors.\n\n\"Come over this evening, Sterling, and help me to celebrate the arrival\nof the family,\" called out Roland Page from his porch.\n\nSterling agreed.\n\nAt half past eight o'clock, as he entered the library of the Page home,\nhe looked upon what seemed to him the most beautiful girl his\nimagination had ever pictured. He knew in a moment that he was a\ncaptive. As he walked down the front steps after his visit he felt sure\nthat an epoch in his life had occurred.\n\n\"A splendid young fellow!\" remarked Mr. Page after Sterling had left.\n\"Although he is only twenty-nine years of age, he has in his own right a\ncool two million-dollar fortune. He inherited it from his father and he\nhimself is one of the most progressive business men in the state and\nseems bent on using his fortune for the good of society.\"\n\n\"He was very quiet,\" remarked Dorothy.\n\nMr. Page's statements concerning Sterling were very true. He might have\nadded that Sterling was an elder in the Presbyterian church and was one\nof its most devoted members.\n\nSterling found his mother in the sitting-room on his return home that\nnight.\n\n\"Well, son,\" she said, \"how do you like your new neighbor?\"\n\n\"Mother, don't ask me to describe her,\" he replied; and then for half an\nhour he continued talking about her. Before retiring he said:\n\n\"Mother, how is it that I have never been told about Miss Page before?\"\n\n\"Well, son, I have known very little myself. The Pages, you know, have\nlived here less than a year and Dorothy has never been here before. A\nfew days before Mrs. Page left to bring Dorothy home she told me a good\nmany things about her.\"\n\n\"How long was Miss Page at the college?\"\n\n\"Three years. The Pages were born in Virginia, but when Dorothy was six\nyears old the father, because of failing health, purchased a large\nranch in the West and he moved his family there and became very\nprosperous.\"\n\n\"She is a child, therefore, of the South and West,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"Yes, she has Southern blood and Western experience. Mrs. Page said\ntheir home was ten miles from the nearest store and the nearest neighbor\nwas seven miles distant.\"\n\n\"That must have been a dismal life for Dorothy. You say she lived on the\nplains from six years of age until three years ago, when she went to the\ncollege? Did she have no other schooling?\"\n\n\"Oh, yes. Her education was directed at home by a governess of unusual\nculture and refinement. I learned also from Mrs. Page that none of the\nfamily make any pretensions to religion, and that the governess was as\nirreligious as they.\"\n\n\"What a home!\"\n\n\"She said that there was no church near them in the West and that\nDorothy had never been in a church up to the time she went off to the\ncollege, and that she doubted if she had ever attended church while\nthere.\"\n\n\"You make her out a wild girl of the plains,\" remarked Sterling with a\nsmile. \"I could easily see the traces of it tonight in her open, eager,\nalmost wild manner, and yet through it all there was a culture, a\nsweetness, a loveliness that is indescribable.\"\n\nMrs. Sterling continued: \"Mrs. Page said that Dorothy, perfectly at home\non the wildest horse, roamed untrammeled over the ranch, and reveled in\nits beauty and its freedom. But let me continue the story. At seventeen\nshe went to Carrollton College and at the end of three years she won her\ndiploma.\"\n\n\"I'll venture she came out at the head of the list, mother; she is as\nbright and sparkling as a diamond.\"\n\n\"You are right, for she took the honors of her class. A year ago Mr.\nPage sold his ranch and came here to Kentucky to live, but this is\nDorothy's first sight of her Kentucky home.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nDOROTHY'S CONVERSION.\n\n\n\"Oh, a tennis court! How glorious!\" exclaimed Dorothy next morning as\nshe stepped out on the porch and caught her first glimpse of the side\nlawn.\n\nSterling considered it a special providence that no intervening fence\nseparated the two residences, and nearly every afternoon found him on\nthe tennis grounds, an eager contestant in the game with Dorothy.\n\n\"Good-bye, Mr. Sterling,\" she said to him one afternoon at the close of\nthe game. \"I must hurry in and do some packing. I shall turn traveler\ntomorrow.\"\n\n\"What--going away?\" he asked with a startled expression.\n\n\"Yes, I am going to Chicago for a few weeks to visit a girl friend.\"\n\nThe light fled from the sky for Sterling. For the next three weeks not\nonly Dorothy, but the center of the universe seemed to him to be located\nin Chicago.\n\nDuring Dorothy's visit a crisis occurred in her life. While attending a\nchurch service with her girl friend she heard a strange sermon. How new\nand startling it sounded. The preacher's theme was \"Salvation Through\nChrist\", and she heard things she had never dreamed of before. Wild\nquestionings set her heart aflame and there was no rest for her that\nnight. Her soul's destiny was a subject to which she had never given\nserious reflection.\n\nShe felt that the man whose sermon had thrown her into this dark\nconfusion was the only one who might give her light. She sought him out.\nA father in Israel he was--Rev. Dr. Moreland, one of the most eminent\nministers in that city. He saw that as a little child she was eagerly\ngroping in the dark, and with the Bible as a lamp he led her step by\nstep into the light. She saw herself in God's sight a sinner, guilty and\ncondemned, and how helpless and hopeless to her seemed her condition.\n\nThe story of the Gospel sounded to her like music from Heaven. The love\nof Christ for sinners melted her heart and she yielded herself in\nchild-like trust to him. In her own room at night the surrender was made\nand it was complete.\n\n\"Son, I could easily tell that Dorothy is coming tomorrow,\" said Mrs.\nSterling.\n\n\"How do you know, mother?\"\n\n\"By your face. You would have passed for an undertaker during the past\nthree weeks, and I have tried by every art, but in vain, to chase away\nyour funereal countenance.\"\n\nSterling broke into a hearty laugh.\n\n\"Mother, your imagination is out on a frolic. You will have to put a\nbridle on it.\"\n\nMrs. Sterling was right. Gilbert had learned that Dorothy would arrive\non the morrow.\n\nDorothy had written her parents about her new-found joy, but they\nunderstood it not. They thought that it was some girlish emotion that\nher home life would quickly dissipate.\n\nThe news of her conversion came to Sterling as a burst of sunlight. In\nspeaking of it to his mother he said:\n\n\"Of one thing I am sure, and that is that she will make a glorious\nChristian. What a light she will be in her home. And, mother, how fine\nto have her in my church!\"\n\nDorothy had shortened her visit that she might hurry home and tell her\nloved ones of the change in her life. She could not explain the change,\nbut she knew that for her old things had passed away and all things had\nbecome new.\n\nShe was anxious to tell her parents the simple story of Christ's love\nand sacrifice for sinners. She recited it almost immediately after her\nreturn, but their eyes seemed holden that they could not see. Possibly\nthey did not want to see. At any rate, Dorothy received her first biting\ndisappointment in the reception that her parents gave to her report\nabout her new-found Savior.\n\nWith Mr. Sterling it was different, and in him she found a sympathetic\nlistener to her story. Not that she impulsively bared her secrets to\nhim; he was eager to know it all, and his keen interest in contrast to\nthe utter lack of responsiveness on the part of the parents encouraged\nher to confide in him, and to Dorothy, with her new and trembling\nfaith, Sterling was a friend in need.\n\nA week had passed after her return, and one afternoon Sterling said to\nher at the close of a tennis game that her coming into his church would\nmake their membership exactly 300.\n\n\"Mr. Sterling,\" she replied, \"I am anxious to talk with your pastor, Dr.\nVincent, about which church I ought to join.\"\n\nHer words smote him. The possibility of her uniting with any other\nchurch than his own had not occurred to him, and the bare thought of it\nput a load on his heart. He asked her what she meant by her remark\nregarding Dr. Vincent.\n\n\"Dear old Dr. Moreland,\" she said, \"whose church I attended in Chicago,\nand who so kindly led me into the light, told me that I must be sure to\njoin some church, and when I asked him what church it should be he told\nme that I must study my New Testament and let that guide me. I have\ncarefully read it through twice, and I cannot see that it has helped me\nat all to decide about my church membership. I really do not know what\nhe meant.\"\n\nSterling was relieved and the load rolled off his heart, for he felt\nsure that with her New Testament as her guide she would turn her steps\ntowards the Presbyterian church.\n\nBy this time they had reached the front porch, where the rest of the\nfamily were seated, and when Dorothy made her last remark the brother,\nwho was sitting nearby, heard and said:\n\n\"What's the need, sister, of your joining any church? You don't think\nthe church will take you to Heaven, do you?\"\n\n\"Hold on, son,\" spoke up the father, \"I am not an expert on religious\nmatters, but it is a plain proposition to me that if Dorothy has\naccepted Christianity and become a Christian, the place for her is the\nchurch.\"\n\n\"But what good will it do, father?\"\n\n\"I believe in a person being one thing or the other,\" said Mr. Page. \"If\nyou are not a Christian, then of course keep out of the church; if you\nset up to be a Christian, then take your medicine; if you claim to be a\nsoldier, then march up and put on the uniform and join the army.\"\n\n\"Oh, I never thought of not joining a church,\" said Dorothy.\n\n\"But I still hang to my point,\" said the brother. \"Why does Dorothy have\nto join the church? Do you think, sister, joining the church will save\nyou?\"\n\n\"What a question, brother! Of course not. I hope I am saved already. I\nhave faith in Christ and I am looking to him for my salvation. Simply\nhaving my name entered as a church member will not save me; I am very\nignorant about these matters, but Dr. Moreland told me that Christ\nfounded the church as the place in which he wished all who believed in\nhim to be gathered. If he formed the church for his believers, then is\nit not the place for me?\"\n\n\"Daughter, you are right there to a dot. If Christ organized the church\nfor his followers and you have given yourself to him, then if you\nshould refuse to enter the church I should doubt whether you had given\nyourself to him; but I think you are wrong on one point. You spoke just\nnow about studying the Bible to learn what church you ought to join.\nThat's one on me. I never knew the Bible told a person what church he\nought to join; in fact, I did not think it made any difference what\nchurch or denomination a person selected. I thought it was just pay your\nmoney and take your choice.\"\n\n\"I thought,\" said the mother, \"that all the churches were aiming in the\nsame direction and that all claimed to be founded on the Bible. Do you\nthink, daughter, that the Bible will tell you to join one particular\nchurch or denomination rather than some other?\"\n\n\"Mother, you are right there, as you generally are,\" said the father.\n\"Here is the Presbyterian church, the only strong church in town, and it\nseems to be a mighty good one from all that I can hear of it. Do you\nimagine, daughter, that you must study the Bible to learn whether it\nwill tell you to join this church or some other church that may be off\nsomewhere nobody knows where?\"\n\nDorothy seemed lost in reflection.\n\n\"I wonder what Dr. Moreland could have meant?\" she said. \"I notice there\nare different names by which the churches are known: for example, the\nPresbyterians, the Methodists, etc. They call them, I believe,\ndenominations. Are these denominations the same? Why do they have the\ndifferent names, and why do some people join one denomination and some\nanother?\"\n\n\"That is not strange, daughter,\" spoke up the father. \"There are\ndifferent kinds of dresses, and one woman prefers one kind and another\nanother. Some people like the Presbyterian church, some the Methodist\nchurch and so on. It is not a Bible question, simply a question of\ntaste.\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy, the denominations differ in matters of doctrine,\" said\nMr. Sterling.\n\n\"You mean, then,\" said Dorothy, a light coming into her eye, \"that the\npeople who believe that the Bible teaches certain doctrines go into one\nchurch, and the people who believe that it teaches another set of\ndoctrines go into another church, and that each one joins the church of\nhis own beliefs?\"\n\n\"You are entirely correct,\" said Sterling, confident that when she\ncompared the denominations his church would win the day. \"The\nPresbyterian church is founded on the bed rock of Scripture and draws\nits life blood from its sacred pages.\"\n\n\"Do you not see, father,\" said Dorothy, \"that in order for me to decide\nwhich church I ought to join I must study the Bible for myself and then\njoin the church that seems to come nearest to what the Bible seems to me\nto teach?\"\n\n\"I don't agree with you, sister,\" said Roland. \"You say you must join\nthe church that comes nearest to what the Bible seems to you to teach.\nBut you know very little about what the Bible teaches. Had you not\nbetter take what old Dr. Vincent, who has been a life-long student of\nthe Bible, says the Bible teaches than to take what you, after a few\nreadings, decide it teaches? Why, certainly. I'd rather a thousand times\ntrust him to tell me what that Book teaches than for me to decide\nmyself.\"\n\n\"But, brother, I think you miss the point. Dr. Vincent can tell me what\nhe thinks the Bible teaches, but some learned minister in another\ndenomination might tell me the Bible taught something different. Mr.\nSterling says each denomination has its own doctrines which it believes\nthe Bible teaches. If I am going to take what some learned Bible student\nsays, then which one must I follow? One will tell me that the Bible\nteaches the Presbyterian doctrines and another will tell me it teaches\nthe Methodist doctrines.\"\n\n\"Exactly; and no matter what you do you cannot be sure you are right. I\nthink one is about as apt to be right as the other. The only thing is to\ntake a man that you believe is an honest and wise student of the Book\nand ask him to tell you its teachings.\"\n\n\"Oh, brother, that doesn't appeal to me at all. I dare not take another\nperson's word for what this Bible teaches. I can take his counsel and\nthe counsel of everybody else that I can secure, but I must give the\nfinal decision, I must study this Book for myself. Dr. Vincent is a good\nand wise man, of course, but I cannot look into his heart for all the\nthoughts that have led him to his decision. The question before me is\nnot what church does Mr. Vincent think comes nearest the Bible, but what\nchurch do I think comes the nearest.\"\n\n\"Daughter,\" said Mr. Page, \"you are on the right track. You can get all\nthe light possible from Dr. Vincent and anybody else you choose, but you\nare the judge that must bring in the verdict, and when you make the\ndecision there is no court of appeals. But you have a huge job on your\nhands. You must first study all the denominations and then you've got to\nmaster your Bible to see which one of all the denominations squares with\nthe Book.\"\n\n\"Oh,\" said Dorothy in a tone of despair, \"how can I ever decide such a\nbig question? Won't you help me, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\nSterling felt that he would like to spend several centuries, beginning\nwith that very second, in the single matter of helping her. He remarked\nwith a smile: \"Miss Dorothy, I think you need not be alarmed; you are\nnot as much in the wilderness as you imagine. Suppose on examination you\nfind that the doctrines of our church are in accord with the teachings\nof the Bible, then your duty is plain, is it not?\"\n\n\"Yes,\" she replied with a sigh of relief, \"and won't you tell me what\nare the doctrines of your church?\"\n\nHis eyes answered her request before his lips had an opportunity to\nrespond.\n\n\"Now you are getting out into the road,\" said the father. \"Tell it to\nher, Friend Sterling, and I guess she will find that your church plumbs\nthe track. In fact, I reckon most of them do.\"\n\n\"Dinner is ready,\" called the mother.\n\n\"There, now,\" said the father, \"that breaks up the meeting at the\ncritical point, but come in to dinner, Sterling, and we will open the\ncampaign again after dinner.\"\n\n\"Yes, please do come, Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy. \"I am so anxious to\nknow what are the doctrines of your church.\"\n\nSterling was compelled to decline, inasmuch as he had promised to be at\nhome for dinner to meet a business friend of his father's, but he\nassured them that he would be on hand for the discussion very soon after\ndinner.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSTERLING STATES HIS CASE.\n\n\nAt eight o'clock they gathered in the library.\n\n\"Now, Sterling,\" said Mr. Page, \"we are all attention. Open up your\nPresbyterian treasures, for you have our curiosity aroused.\"\n\nSterling was anxious to bring to Dorothy's attention the facts about his\ndenomination. He felt confident that the history and doctrines of\nPresbyterianism would prove very attractive to her and lead her into his\nchurch.\n\n\"I fear I cannot do my denomination justice,\" he said. \"It deserves an\nabler champion. It has had an illustrious history and on our honor roll\nare such notable names as John Calvin, John Knox, Thomas Chalmers and a\nhost of others.\"\n\n\"What are the doctrines of your church, Mr. Sterling?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"We believe in God as the creator and preserver of the world, in Christ\nas the Savior of sinners, and in the Bible as the Word of God.\"\n\n\"How about those doctrines, daughter?\" asked Mr. Page. \"Can you accept\nthem?\"\n\n\"Of course, father. The Bible teaches them plainly.\"\n\n\"Good! Give us some more, Sterling.\"\n\n\"We believe that Christ offered himself on the cross as a sacrifice for\nthe sins of men, that he was buried, rose from the dead and ascended to\nHeaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father. We believe in the\nHoly Spirit as being sent by the Father to convict men of sin and\nrighteousness and judgment to come.\"\n\n\"What about that, daughter?\"\n\n\"Father is pinning me down, Mr. Sterling, as we go along,\" she said with\na smile. \"I think I can accept those doctrines because the New Testament\nteaches them--at least that is my recollection from my reading of the\nNew Testament.\"\n\n\"We believe that Christ in organizing the church gave two ordinances,\nbaptism and the Lord's Supper; that baptism is a sign and seal of God's\nregenerating grace and that the Lord's Supper is a memorial of his\ndeath--the bread typifying his broken body and the wine his shed blood.\nWe believe that Christ speaks of his church as his bride.\"\n\n\"Yes, I remember that.\"\n\n\"Sterling, you seem to be making good progress,\" said the father. \"Do\nyou accept the doctrines as he has announced them thus far, daughter?\"\n\n\"I think so. They seem to be in accord with what I have read. I have\nonly read the New Testament through twice.\"\n\n\"In mentioning our doctrines,\" he said, \"I am not attempting a logical\norder, nor am I confining myself to strict theological terminology. I am\ngiving our doctrines just as they come before my mind.\"\n\n\"Go ahead,\" said the father. \"I think Dorothy will soon find herself a\nPresbyterian.\"\n\n\"I ought to have stated,\" continued Mr. Sterling, \"that we believe that\nsalvation comes by faith in Christ. All of the redeemed in Christ will\nbe received by him when he shall come again and shall live with him in\neverlasting happiness, but the unbelievers will be banished into\neverlasting punishment.\"\n\n\"Hold on,\" said Mr. Page; \"you don't endorse that last awful doctrine,\ndo you, daughter?\"\n\n\"It is awful, father, but I have to endorse it, for I have read it in\nthe Bible with my own eyes and I remember it was declared by Christ\nhimself.\"\n\nSterling was delighted at the progress he was making. The thought of\nDorothy coming into his church filled him with joy.\n\n\"Another doctrine,\" he said: \"We believe in Christ's words concerning\nthe little children--'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven'--and that, as\nPeter said, God's promise is unto his people and to their children and\ntheir children's children, and as baptism is the door to the church--\"\n\n\"Oh, yes,\" exclaimed Dorothy, \"I saw a baptism once. Do I have to be\nbaptized, too, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\n\"Yes, indeed.\"\n\n\"That was a very interesting baptism I saw in Nebraska, where I was\nvisiting. It was in a river and they put the people under the water.\"\n\n\"Oh, Miss Dorothy, that was not baptism,\" exclaimed Sterling, apparently\nhorrified by her remark.\n\n\"It was not? What was it, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\n\"It was merely an odd practice observed by certain curious sects. I beg\nthat you will get that well fixed in your mind.\"\n\n\"Well, you know I have to learn about these things. What do you mean\nthen by baptism?\"\n\n\"Baptism is performed by having water sprinkled or poured gently upon\nthe head of the candidate. It is a very impressive ceremony.\"\n\n\"That is strange, for do you know I saw in the Bible just the kind of\nbaptism that I witnessed that day in Nebraska?\"\n\n\"Oh, never. Bible baptism is by sprinkling and sprinkling alone.\"\n\n\"Well, I read in one or two places about people being baptized by being\nput under the water; that is, unless I am very much mistaken.\"\n\n\"Hold on,\" said the father. \"I guess you had better clear up that point\nabout baptism before you go any further.\"\n\n\"Not at all,\" said Sterling very earnestly; \"there is nothing to clear\nup. It is a plain fact of history as well as of Bible teaching that\nbaptism was done by sprinkling.\"\n\n\"Do the denominations differ about baptism?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Not worth talking about; nearly all the denominations agree that the\nbaptism of the Bible is by sprinkling or pouring.\"\n\n\"Daughter, get your Bible and let's see that passage where you say the\npeople were put under the water.\"\n\n\"I must not be too sure,\" she replied. \"I know so little about the Book\nthat I may have been mistaken, but I don't think I can be.\"\n\nThe Bible was brought in, and as Dorothy opened it and began turning its\npages she said: \"One passage was the account of the baptism of Jesus.\"\n\n\"What!\" exclaimed Mr. Page. \"Was he baptized--Jesus Christ? Well, well,\nthat's one on me.\"\n\n\"Oh, father, how can you speak so?\"\n\n\"I beg your pardon, daughter. I surely did not mean to be irreverent.\nBut let us have that passage telling how he was baptized. That ought to\nbe mighty interesting.\"\n\n\"It is the third chapter of Matthew,\" said Mr. Sterling.\n\nDorothy read: \"'Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be\nbaptized of him.'\"\n\n\"The Jordan was a river, was it not?\" asked the father.\n\n\"Yes,\" replied Sterling.\n\n\"And you say that Jesus went to that river to be baptized?\" asked the\nfather.\n\n\"Yes,\" answered Sterling.\n\n\"And you say he went there to have some water sprinkled on him instead\nof being put under the water?\"\n\n\"Certainly he did.\"\n\n\"Do people generally go to rivers now to be sprinkled?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"I do not know that they do, but they could certainly do so if they\nshould so desire.\"\n\n\"Did you ever hear of anybody doing so?\" asked the father.\n\n\"Why, possibly not; but that doesn't prove that it never has been done;\nbut let us have the rest of the passage.\"\n\nShe read: \"'And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of\nthe water.'\"\n\n\"Hello!\" said the father, \"that sounds curious. Why did he go down into\nthe water, Sterling, if he was simply to be sprinkled?\"\n\n\"Why, he simply walked a little way into the stream and stood there\nwhile John gently sprinkled the water on him. It must have been a\nbeautiful ceremony.\"\n\nDorothy was consulting her concordance.\n\n\"Here is another passage in the third chapter and twenty-third verse.\"\n\n\"Let us have it,\" said the father.\n\nShe read: \"'And John also was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salem, because\nthere was much water there.'\"\n\n\"Much water!\" exclaimed Mr. Page. \"What about that, Friend Sterling?\"\n\n\"I think that is plain. There were great multitudes following John and\ncamping around him, and he selected a place where there would be\nabundant water for the cattle. The country was dry in many places.\"\n\n\"But it says he was baptizing there because there was much water there,\"\nsaid Dorothy.\n\n\"That simply means that he did his baptizing in that section because of\nthe abundance of the water for the cattle,\" insisted Sterling.\n\n\"What is your reason, Mr. Sterling,\" asked Dorothy, \"for saying it was\nthe cattle that John had in mind?\"\n\n\"You mentioned the passage as indicating immersion,\" continued Sterling,\n\"and I replied that the mention of much water did not necessarily prove\nimmersion, because it may have had reference to the cattle rather than\nto the mode of the baptism. And besides, the dryness of that Oriental\ncountry is another fact that indicates that John selected the place for\nwatering the cattle.\"\n\n\"But is it necessary to have a place of much water in order to water\ncattle?\" asked Dorothy. \"Would not a small stream be sufficient for many\ncattle?\"\n\n\"Come, come, children,\" said the father, \"why not take the words as you\nfind them? By the way, did John do anything for the crowds except\nbaptize them?\"\n\n\"Oh, yes,\" said Sterling, \"he was a great preacher for the crowds. That\nwas his principal work. Baptism was a very small and almost\ninsignificant part of it. They did not make the ado about it then that\ncertain sects do now.\"\n\n\"Exactly; that is what I am getting at. You say preaching was the main\nthing John was doing. I should think, then, that if it was the cattle\nthat made him select the place, it would have read 'John was preaching\nat Aenon because there was much water there'. But it says he was\nbaptizing there, and that would indicate that the baptizing part of his\nwork brought him to that place. He could have preached where there was\nnot much water. You think, Sterling, that his baptizing had nothing to\ndo with his selecting that place. Why, then, did it say he was baptizing\nthere because of the much water? It looks mighty plain to me that the\nbaptizing was mentioned because of the much water.\"\n\nDorothy was puzzled.\n\n\"I don't see how I am ever to get at the meaning of the Bible,\" she\nsaid, \"if I am not to take what seems to be the natural meaning of the\npassages, but must rather suppose that something else was intended.\"\n\n\"Evidently we can't agree on that verse,\" said Sterling with a smile.\n\"Let us have another, Miss Dorothy.\"\n\n\"Here is a passage, Acts 8:35-39: 'Then Philip opened his mouth and\nbegan at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. And as they\nwent on their way they came unto a certain water and the Eunuch said:\n\"See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?\" Philip said:\n\"If thou believeth with all thy heart thou mayest.\" And he answered and\nsaid: \"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.\" And he commanded\nthe chariot to stand still and they went down both into the water,\nPhilip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of\nthe water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the Eunuch saw\nhim no more, and he went on his way rejoicing.'\"\n\n\"You see they stepped down to the water's edge,\" said Sterling, \"and\nPhilip sprinkled him.\"\n\n\"But it says they both went down into the water and both came up out of\nthe water. Why did they go down into the water if the Eunuch was simply\nto be sprinkled?\"\n\n\"Look here,\" said the father; \"life is too brief to be squandering it on\ndebating a question like that. That's as plain as a chimney on a house.\nYou could never make me think that all that going down into the water\nand coming up out of the water was simply to have a few drops of water\nsprinkled on the man. Sterling, I know you don't mean to do so, but it\nlooks as if you are afraid of the natural meaning that lies on the\nsurface.\"\n\n\"But the surface meaning in the Bible is not always the true one. We\nknow from other passages that baptism was by sprinkling, and when we\ncome to one like this, that may mean either kind of baptism, we know\nfrom the general teaching of Scripture that sprinkling and not immersion\nwas the mode here intended.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nGETTING INTO DEEP WATER.\n\n\n\"Here is another passage about baptism,\" said Dorothy, \"in Luke 12:50:\n'I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it\nbe accomplished?'\"\n\n\"But hold on, Miss Dorothy,\" said Sterling. \"Why should we be spending\nso much discussion simply on the question as to the quantity of water in\nbaptism? It seems a waste of effort. There are far more important\ndoctrines than this.\"\n\n\"It is not simply the quantity of water we are considering, Mr.\nSterling. We are trying to find out how baptism is performed. Surely we\nought to try to get it right.\"\n\n\"That's good logic,\" said the father. \"Get one point settled before you\nproceed to another.\"\n\n\"All right,\" said Sterling with a smile, \"I'm all attention. Read that\npassage again, Miss Dorothy.\"\n\nShe read: \"'I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I\nstraitened till it be accomplished!'\"\n\n\"Who is that talking?\" asked Mr. Page.\n\n\"It is Christ,\" said Sterling, \"and he is talking about his coming\nsufferings which were to end in his death.\"\n\n\"And what is it he says about his sufferings? Read it again, daughter.\"\n\nShe read it once more.\n\n\"You say, Sterling, that Christ here speaks of his future sufferings and\nsaid he was to be baptized in them?\"\n\n\"No, he does not say he will be baptized 'in' them, but 'with' them,\nthus showing that he was not to be immersed but sprinkled.\"\n\n\"You mean, then,\" said Dorothy, \"that Christ said he was to be sprinkled\nwith his sufferings?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"But is it not far more impressive to think of Christ being immersed in\nhis terrible sufferings than simply of his having a few drops of\nsuffering sprinkled on him?\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" said Mr. Page; \"we often speak of people being plunged,\noverwhelmed, in sorrow or suffering, and that is nothing but an\nimmersion.\"\n\n\"But,\" said Sterling, \"if he had meant immersion, why did he not say he\nhad a baptism that he had to be baptized 'in'? But no; he said he had a\nbaptism to be baptized 'with'.\"\n\n\"I don't think it makes any difference whether you use the word 'in' or\n'with',\" said Dorothy. \"When a person is immersed he is baptized 'with'\nwater as well as 'in' water, and when Christ said he had a baptism to be\nbaptized with--and Mr. Sterling says he referred to his sufferings--why,\nit is far more natural to think he had in mind an immersion, an\noverwhelming, rather than a mere sprinkling.\"\n\n\"Have you any more passages, daughter?\"\n\nAfter some examination she answered: \"Here is a strange passage, Romans\n6:4: 'Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like\nas Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so\nwe also should walk in newness of life.'\"\n\n\"Isn't that a wonderful passage?\" exclaimed Dorothy; \"'buried with him\nby baptism'. That looks like immersion.\"\n\n\"That verse seems to be against you, Sterling,\" remarked Mr. Page.\n\n\"Not at all. Christ is not talking here about water baptism.\"\n\n\"What is that?\" asked Mr. Page quickly; \"not talking about water\nbaptism? Have you got still another kind of baptism?\"\n\n\"Certainly. The Bible speaks of a baptism of the Spirit. It is mentioned\nin several places.\"\n\n\"All correct,\" said Mr. Page, \"and now proceed with your argument to\nshow that the passage just read about baptism does not mean water\nbaptism.\"\n\n\"Paul here speaks of a spiritual baptism.\"\n\n\"Why do you say that?\" asked Dorothy.\n\nThe fire of questions seemed to stun Sterling somewhat. He had never had\nthese passages pressed upon him in this fashion, but all his life he had\nhad an open track for his Presbyterian tenets. He continued his\nexplanation of the passage:\n\n\"Paul is here writing to people about their conversion and he is trying\nto show them that if they have been truly converted they must forsake\nsin. He says here in the verse: 'We who died to sin, how shall we\nlonger live therein?' You see he speaks of dying to sin, and that brings\nhim to the idea of a burial. He wants to show them that when they were\nconverted--if they were really converted--that their conversion was a\nbaptism of the Spirit; that just as Christ died, was buried and rose to\na new life, so the converted soul through the work (or the baptism) of\nthe Spirit on him died to his old life and rose to a new life, and\ntherefore such an one must not sin. The passage therefore reads:\n'Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as\nChrist was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we\nalso must walk in newness of life.'\"\n\n\"Well, now, let me see,\" said the father. \"You say the writer compares\nthe conversion of a soul to a baptism of the Spirit?\"\n\n\"Yes, he speaks of it as a spiritual experience; not a mere outward\nreformation, but an inward spiritual experience, and when he says buried\nwith him by baptism he means a baptism of the Spirit.\"\n\n\"Why does he call it a baptism?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"That's the point exactly,\" said the father. \"Sterling says the writer\nis not talking about a water baptism. Well, I don't see why it may not\nbe a water baptism. It says nothing about a spiritual baptism. But\nanyhow let it be a spiritual baptism; the important point in this\nargument is that he calls it a baptism, and note carefully he calls the\nbaptism a burial. No matter whether it is a water or a spiritual baptism\nthat he is talking about, he shows what his idea of a baptism was. It\nwas like a person being buried and being raised again.\"\n\n\"I think, Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"that the verse shows that the\nimportant thing about baptism is the way it is performed; that it is not\nwater that makes the baptism; that it may be water, or it may be the\nSpirit, or possibly it may be something else; but that the important\nthing is the way it is performed. In other words, it must be like a\nburial and a rising again. It looks to me as if Paul is showing what a\nwonderful experience a person's conversion is.\"\n\n\"Exactly,\" said the father, \"and I suppose the writer could not express\nthat spiritual change in conversion better than to call it a baptism by\nthe Spirit, and he showed mighty clearly his notion about baptism; to\nhim it was a burial and a rising again.'\n\n\"I think there is something more wonderful still about that passage,\"\nsaid Dorothy. \"I think you can see two baptisms in the verse, the water\nbaptism and the Spirit baptism. Paul draws a picture of the conversion\nof a soul. It is a change worked in the soul by the Spirit, and as the\nSpirit works on the soul the soul dies to his old life and rises to a\nnew life. But that is just like what takes place when the person is\nbaptized in water. He is buried out of sight in the water and then rises\nagain, and the water baptism is an exact picture of the spiritual\nbaptism. Surely Paul must have had the two baptisms in mind when he\nwrote this.\"\n\n\"It looks mightily that way,\" said Mr. Page.\n\n\"Another thing,\" said Dorothy, all aglow with her interpretation of the\npassage, \"doesn't this show why Christ commanded baptism? You see, he\nknew that every true Christian must pass through this spiritual\nexperience at conversion--the baptism of the Spirit--and he decided to\ngive his people an outward ceremony that would be a sign, or picture, of\nthe inward spiritual change that they must have, and so he commanded\nimmersion, as if he would say: 'Here is a picture of what I command of\neveryone--this burial in the water and rising again; it is the picture\nof that spiritual change that must occur in everyone that would be my\nfollower'. He commands two things, a spiritual burial and rising and a\nmaterial burial and rising; two baptisms, one of the Spirit to come\nfirst and a baptism of the water to come second as a sign of the first\nbaptism.\"\n\n\"If that is true, Friend Sterling,\" said the father, \"then it would seem\na pretty serious thing to change the form of the baptism. If the founder\nof Christianity commanded these two baptisms, one a picture of the\nother, then it looks to me mighty risky to tamper with either of them.\nNow, if you put sprinkling in the place of immersion you destroy the\nwhole meaning in the work of conversion. The two don't go together at\nall. You don't have a burial by sprinkling a few drops of dirt on a\nperson. It is not a matter of much water or little water. The important\nthing is that it be a burial and rising again.\"\n\nIt was a new experience for Sterling, He had begun the discussion with\nthe thought that Dorothy would be delighted with the doctrines of his\ngreat church. She had seemed on the point of joining. He was irritated\nthat the conversation had been hung up on the baptismal controversy.\nBesides, the passages in favor of immersion bewildered him. His\nreligious life had been spent largely among close adherents of\nPresbyterianism and he had rarely heard his doctrines called in\nquestion. Whenever he had heard allusions to the Baptists and their\nbeliefs it was generally accompanied with a smile or a sneer and he had\ncome to regard the dippings of the Baptists as a joke. The passages\nwhich they had just considered unveiled New Testament baptism before him\nin a new light, and while he could not believe that immersion was Bible\nbaptism, yet he felt that he could never as formerly treat immersion in\na joking manner.\n\nThe discussion was becoming exciting for him. He saw that the battle was\non. As he thought of Dorothy drifting away from his faith and his church\nhe had a sinking of heart, and yet he also felt that if he could not win\nher by the truth to his position he would not win her in any other way.\nConsequently he warmed to the fray.\n\nHe had promised to join the family circle on the next evening and resume\nthe discussion. His work kept him closely confined at his office during\nthe morning. He hurried home for a tennis game in the afternoon, and\npromptly that evening he appeared in the library at the Page's ready for\nthe contest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nHANDLING THE THREE THOUSAND.\n\n\nThat evening Sterling opened the discussion: \"Miss Dorothy, I have\nlistened in these discussions to what are evidently stock passages of\nthe immersionists. But let us go deeper into the matter.\"\n\n\"But why do you call them stock passages of the immersionists?\" asked\nDorothy in surprise. \"I did not get them from any immersionists. I told\nyou I thought I saw passages in the Bible teaching immersion and you\nsaid no. I was asked to show these passages and I have been showing\nthem.\"\n\n\"Very well, we will not dispute on that point, my fair debater, but I\nwill try now to show you that it was impossible that immersion could\nhave been intended in these Bible passages. I think I can show you that\ncertain baptisms could not have been immersions.\"\n\n\"Good for you,\" said the father. \"Now the contest is getting spicy. Show\nthat immersion was impossible and you have won the day.\"\n\n\"Father, you speak as if Mr. Sterling and I were engaged in a battle. My\nonly desire is to learn what the Bible teaches about baptism, and I\nshall certainly follow its command as nearly as I can, cost what it\nmay. Why do you say immersion was impossible, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\n\"Because in the account of the baptisms on the day of Pentecost we are\ntold that three thousand persons were baptized and that of course could\nnot have been done by immersion in one day.\"\n\n\"Were they all baptized in one place?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Yes, all were baptized at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost after a\ngreat sermon by the Apostle Peter.\"\n\n\"How many persons did the baptizing?\" asked Dorothy, as if she was\ntrying to picture the scene.\n\n\"That is not stated.\"\n\n\"Let us have the passage, Sterling. My curiosity is excited,\" said Mr.\nPage.\n\nSterling read from Acts 2:41: \"Then they that gladly received his Word\nwere baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three\nthousand souls.\"\n\nDorothy read the verse over carefully and then remarked: \"Why, that\ndoesn't say they were all baptized on the same day. Notice it says there\nwere added to them on the same day about three thousand. Why may not\nsome of the number have been baptized before that and during Christ's\nlife?\"\n\n\"That is a fact,\" said the father, looking over the passage. \"The verse\ndoes not say that they were all baptized that day; but do you suppose,\nSterling, that it would have taken a great deal longer to immerse them\nthan it would to have sprinkled them? Not if the sprinkling ceremony\nthat I saw was a sample of the way the three thousand were baptized. Do\nyou not have a ceremony connected with sprinkling just as they have one\nconnected with immersion?\"\n\n\"Oh, yes, there is always a little ceremony connected with the\nsprinkling.\"\n\n\"Who did the baptizing that day?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Good for you, daughter,\" said the father. \"That is a stunner. One man\nwould have had quite a job on his hands whether he sprinkled or dipped\nthat host of folks. But with several baptizers it was a different\nproposition.\"\n\n\"Oh, father, why do you speak so jokingly about these Bible matters?\"\n\n\"You are right, Dorothy. Forgive me. I always make a muss of it when I\ntackle religion. I'd better call in my tongue before I get into\ntrouble.\"\n\n\"I repeat my question,\" said Dorothy: \"Who did the baptizing on that\nday?\"\n\n\"I guess that Peter, one of the apostles, did it.\"\n\n\"Oh, yes,\" said Dorothy, \"there were twelve apostles, were there not?\nAnd if they all took part in the baptizing, that would have made it much\neasier. And I notice back here in the fifteenth verse of the preceding\nchapter it says there were one hundred and twenty disciples there when\nPeter preached his sermon and that three thousand were converted.\"\n\n\"Hello,\" said the father with a smile, \"you keep on and you will get\nmore than enough people to baptize two or three times three thousand\npersons.\"\n\n\"You don't imagine,\" said Sterling with a smile, \"that the one hundred\nand twenty disciples all took a hand in putting the three thousand under\nwater? That would have been a spectacle indeed.\"\n\n\"I think it would have been a spectacle no matter how it was done,\" said\nDorothy.\n\n\"Another thing,\" said Sterling: \"Supposing that they had enough\nadministrators for the ordinance that day, where could they have\nperformed the baptisms? Do you think they all marched off to the river\nJordan? Of course not. But they did not need to go off anywhere in order\nto be sprinkled. Besides, what about a change of clothing for the three\nthousand persons if they were all put under water? Remember most of\nthem--according to the account--were strangers from different countries\nvisiting Jerusalem.\"\n\n\"I hope,\" said Dorothy, \"that they had not come from their different\ncountries without some change of clothing.\"\n\n\"Isn't it true,\" asked the brother, \"that over in these Eastern lands,\nwith their loose garments and their sunny climate, they could have\narranged for a dipping if they had so desired it? But that other point\nmentioned by Mr. Sterling has not been answered.\"\n\n\"What is that?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"He asked where in Jerusalem could so many have been baptized?\"\n\n\"Does it say they were baptized in Jerusalem?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"No, it does not say so, but do you think they went off to a river?\"\nasked Sterling.\n\n\"The passage does not state. But are you sure there were not places in\nJerusalem where they could have been immersed?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Wait,\" said the brother, \"let me get an encyclopedia.\" He went to the\nshelf and was soon examining the article on Jerusalem. \"Here is a long\narticle on Jerusalem,\" he said, running his eye down the pages. \"Hello,\nhere is something about its water facilities. Here is a reference from\nStrabo in these words 'Jerusalem a rocky, well-enclosed fortress;\nwithin, well watered; without, wholly dry'.\"\n\n\"Now you are making discoveries, son,\" said Mr. Page. \"Give us some more\nabout the water.\"\n\n\"Here is another statement. Dr. Robinson states there were six immense\npublic pools in the city, the largest being five hundred and ninety-two\nfeet long and two hundred and seventy-five feet broad.\"\n\n\"That is enough, son,\" exclaimed the father. \"Sterling, history seems on\nthe side of the immersionists there. I think that five hundred and\nninety-two foot pool could have taken care of the whole three thousand.\"\n\n\"I think the important question,\" said the brother, \"is the meaning of\nthe Greek word originally used for baptism. In other words, does the\nword baptize mean to sprinkle or to immerse? When the people in Christ's\nday used the word, what did they mean by it--sprinkle or immerse?\"\n\n\"That hits the target exactly,\" said the father. \"What does the word\nbaptize mean? Let's see, I think you said that the Bible was written in\nGreek.\"\n\n\"The New Testament was,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"The question is, then, what word did the people use in Christ's day in\ntalking about a baptism? When Christ told the people to be baptized,\nwhat word did he use and what did that word mean? Did the Greek word\nwhich he used for baptism mean for the people in that day 'immerse' or\n'sprinkle'? When they heard the word from him, did they think of\nimmersion or of sprinkling?\"\n\n\"'_Baptizo_', or baptize, is the word which he used,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"But baptize is our English word that we use. What was the Greek word\nwhich Christ used and which meant baptism?\" asked Roland.\n\n\"That is the point,\" said Sterling. \"'_Baptizo_' is the Greek word, and\nthe people who translated our English from the Greek Bible did not\ntranslate the Greek word '_baptizo_' into any English word, but simply\nput the Greek word '_baptizo_' or baptize into our language as it was\nwithout translating it. You see, if they had translated it 'immerse',\nthat would have made the Presbyterians mad, and if they had translated\nit 'sprinkle' that would have made others mad, and so they did not\ntranslate it at all, but simply put the Greek word '_baptizo_' in the\nEnglish Bible, leaving each person to translate it as he thought\nproper.\"\n\n\"But why did they not translate it?\" said Dorothy, as if vexed by their\nneglect. \"It must mean something, and if they translated the other\nwords, why did they not translate this word right, no matter who might\nhave liked it?\"\n\n\"They ought to have done so,\" said Sterling, \"and they ought to have put\nthe English word 'sprinkle' instead of the Greek word '_baptizo_'.\"\n\n\"Oh, I see,\" said the father. \"I guess the Presbyterians, when they came\nto translate the word into English, would put it 'sprinkle', and those\nwho believed in dipping would translate it 'dipping'.\"\n\n\"That's it exactly,\" said Sterling. \"The translators, in order not to\noffend the different denominations, agreed not to translate the word at\nall, but simply to put the Greek word '_baptizo_' in the English Bible\nand let each one translate it for himself as he thought proper.\"\n\n\"Can't we find out what that Greek word '_baptizo_' means?\" asked\nDorothy.\n\n\"Certainly, here is the Greek scholar,\" said Mr. Page turning to his\nson. \"Tell us, Roland, what did the Greeks understand by that word\n'_baptizo_' when they used it?\"\n\n\"I must get my Greek lexicon for that.\" And upstairs he hurried and soon\nreturned with Liddell and Scott's Greek and English Lexicon. He turned\nto the word \"_baptizo_\" and read its meaning as follows: \"To dip\nrepeatedly, to dip under.\"\n\n\"What is that?\" exclaimed the father, almost bouncing out of his chair,\n\"'to dip under'?\"\n\n\"Here it is on page 130.\"\n\n\"It seems to me,\" said the father, \"that would settle it. If the Greek\nword that Christ used meant to dip under, what right has anyone to say\nthat baptism is to be done by sprinkling?\"\n\n\"What do you do with a passage like this in 1 Cor. 10:2?\" said Mr.\nSterling--\"'were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.'\nThey were all baptized, but do you see any immersion in that? It refers,\nyou know, to the time when the Israelites passed through the sea dry\nshod with a cloud over them. They were baptized, but they were surely\nnot immersed, for they would have been drowned.\"\n\n\"I did not know of such an event,\" said Dorothy. \"What do you mean by\nsaying that they went through the sea dry shod?\"\n\n\"God banked up the waters on both sides and let them walk through\nuntouched by the water.\"\n\n\"Did you say the waters were banked on both sides of them and that a\ncloud covered them?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Isn't that a picture of immersion? The ground was under them, the water\non both sides and the cloud covered them. It was much more like an\nimmersion than a sprinkling.\"\n\n\"Hold on,\" said Sterling. \"The cloud was not over them, but back of\nthem. The cloud was always either before or behind them, but never over\nthem; consequently they were not covered up and the water did not even\ntouch them--unless perhaps they were sprinkled by the spray from the\nwall of waters.\"\n\n\"Let me see the passage,\" said Dorothy. She turned to Exodus 14:21. \"But\nlook!\" she exclaimed, \"it reads, 'and the children of Israel went into\nthe midst of the sea'.\"\n\n\"You don't think, Miss Dorothy, that they actually plunged into the\nmiddle of the sea?\" asked Sterling with a smile.\n\n\"Of course not, Mr. Sterling; and yet their position in that sea gave\nthe idea to the writer of their being in the midst of the sea. To his\nmind it looked as if they were covered or buried in the sea, and that is\nimmersion. The Old Testament writer calls it a baptism and the Old\nTestament historian speaks of them as being in the midst of the sea.\nWhich does that look more like--sprinkling or immersion?\"\n\nSterling was getting excited. It seemed to him that Dorothy was moving\nfurther and further away from him, and he imagined he saw a chasm\nopening between her views and his own. But he braced himself for the\nstruggle. To him the mode of baptism was by no means a life and death\nmatter, but Dorothy seemed to recoil from the practice of sprinkling.\nSterling cheered himself with the thought that he had certain passages\nto show her that would turn the tide. He said to her with a confident\nring in his voice:\n\n\"Miss Dorothy, I have an arrow here from the Bible quiver which I think\nwill give the death blow to the immersion theory and prove beyond the\nglimmer of a doubt that pouring is the scriptural mode of baptism.\"\n\n\"I thought you believed in sprinkling; why do you say 'pouring'?\"\n\n\"We make no distinction between sprinkling and pouring. They are\npractically the same thing. I want now to show you a statement from\nChrist himself indicating that he believed that pouring was the mode of\nbaptism.\"\n\n\"Do let us have it,\" said Dorothy.\n\n\"In the first chapter of Acts Christ said to the apostles: 'Ye shall be\nbaptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.' The day of Pentecost,\nwhich came not many days hence, was the day which he was talking about.\nHe tells them they would be baptized on that day with the Holy Ghost,\nand I can show you that this baptism was done by pouring.\"\n\n\"Hold a bit,\" said the father. \"Let me see if I get that point. You say\nChrist promised that the apostles would be baptized on a certain day\nwith the Holy Ghost, and that when this promised baptism came to pass it\ncame not by immersion, but by pouring. Is that your claim?\"\n\n\"You have it exactly correct.\"\n\n\"All right, and now for your proof.\"\n\n\"Ten days after Christ ascended to Heaven this baptism of the Spirit\ncame. The disciples were in an upper room and were waiting for this\nbaptism of the Spirit that had been promised, when suddenly the Holy\nSpirit came. But how did it come and in what way were they baptized? It\nwas poured on them. Don't forget that. When the outsiders, bewildered at\nthe strange manifestation, asked what it meant, Peter stood up and\nexplained it by saying: 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet\nJoel.' In other words, Peter said it was what Joel the prophet long ago\nhad prophesied would come to pass. And what did Joel say would happen?\nListen to Peter: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,\nthat I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.'\"\n\n\"Hello, daughter, he has the dots on you there. The verse declares for\npouring.\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" exclaimed Sterling. \"He does not use the word immerse, but\nsays 'I will pour out of my Spirit'. That was the form that the baptism\ntook--pouring--and Peter was quoting the prophecy to explain the\nbaptism. And look here in the thirty-third verse; he continues in the\nsame strain by saying 'having received of the Father the promise of the\nHoly Ghost, he hath shed forth, this which ye now see and hear.\"\n\n\"Let me see that passage,\" said Dorothy. She looked it over intently and\nin a few moments said: \"Mr. Sterling, notice the whole account. It\ndoesn't read as if the Spirit was poured on them as you would pour a\nlittle water on a person in baptism. A previous verse reads: 'Suddenly\nthere came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind and it filled\nall the house where they were sitting.' And in the fourth verse it\nreads: 'And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.' Think of that,\nMr. Sterling. The Holy Spirit came not in a few drops by pouring, but\ncame so abundantly that it filled the house and they were all filled\nwith the Holy Spirit. I guess if you were to pour water on a person as\nthe Spirit came upon these persons the person would be drowned. The\ndisciples were surrounded by the Spirit, and that looks like immersion\nrather than like pouring.\"\n\n\"But not too fast,\" said Sterling. \"It does not say that the Holy Spirit\nfilled the house. It speaks of the wind, but it does not say even the\nwind filled the house, but simply a sound as of a wind. It was\ntherefore only a sound that filled the house, and sound could not fill\nthe house because sound has no existence except in the ears of those who\nhear it. Where, then, is your immersion? You say they were immersed in\nsound that day, and you call that baptism of the Spirit?\"\n\n\"Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy in surprise, \"you amaze me. The writer must\nmean that the Spirit filled the house. I saw in my reading this week a\nfoot note that the wind in Scripture often symbolizes the Spirit.\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" spoke up the brother. \"_Pneuma_ in Greek means both\n'spirit' and 'wind'.\"\n\n\"Is that so?\" exclaimed Dorothy eagerly. \"That makes it plain. It was\nthe wind that filled the room and they knew it by sound. They heard this\nsound like a wind and it filled all the house--notice, 'all the\nhouse'--and this wind symbolized the Spirit and it was called the\nbaptism of the Spirit, and it certainly looked more like an immersion\nthan a pouring. Why, Mr. Sterling, I think it would lose all its\nimpressiveness if you make it simply the coming of a few drops of the\nSpirit on them.\"\n\n\"Just listen to that,\" said the father with a laugh. \"She is actually\ntrying to turn your guns on you, Sterling, and to make this verse prove\nimmersion rather than pouring.\"\n\n\"I note one striking fact,\" said Sterling, \"and do not forget it. The\npassage speaks of pouring, and I do not see the word immersion.\"\n\n\"But I see the picture of immersion,\" said Dorothy. \"The important fact\nabout that scene seems to me to be the abundant way in which the Spirit\ncame. It was a rushing, in fact, a mighty wind. It filled all the house.\nSuppose some people were in a room and water was poured on them in such\na deluge that the room was filled with the water. Wouldn't that look\nlike an immersion rather than like pouring?\"\n\n\"No,\" said Sterling; \"you don't immerse people by pouring water on them\nand covering them up. You don't put the water around them, but you put\nthem in the water. You must put them in the water to have an immersion,\nbut nothing like that was done on that day. Besides, in an immersion you\nnot only put the person in the water, but you bring him up again out of\nthe water to show a resurrection as is claimed. There was nothing like\nthis on the day of Pentecost in the baptism of the Spirit. The disciples\nwere not plunged into the Spirit and they were not taken immediately up\nout of the Spirit again. If you should use water in baptizing people as\nthe Spirit was used that day, then you must pour water on the candidate\nuntil he is covered up, and then instead of taking the candidate\nimmediately up out of the water you must let him remain submerged.\"\n\n\"Sterling,\" said Mr. Page, \"you are getting in some good licks. I don't\nsee that that baptism that day was exactly like either pouring or\nimmersion. It was like an immersion in that they were surrounded by the\nSpirit, but not like it in any other respect; and it was like a pouring\nbecause it came down on them.\"\n\n\"Why, Mr. Page,\" exclaimed Sterling, \"it is actually called a\n'pouring'. The word 'pour' is used. Joel prophesied that the Spirit\nwould be poured out on them. How could you wish it plainer than that?\nAnd it was called a baptism of the Spirit.\"\n\n\"Daughter, what have you to say to that?\"\n\n\"But let me add another word,\" interrupted Sterling. \"People are\nmistaken in saying that baptism was intended to be a picture of a burial\nand a resurrection. The real truth intended to be taught in baptism is\nthat the power and grace comes from above, comes down on the person and\nhas its origin in Heaven, and I think the idea of divine grace coming\ndown from above is a higher truth than the idea of something that the\nperson himself experiences.\"\n\n\"I think the truth pictured in immersion is much greater,\" said Dorothy.\n\"It is not only the idea that the person has died to his old life and\nrisen to a new life, but it also points to Christ's death and\nresurrection and puts the two together and says that, as Christ died and\nwas raised, even so the Christian must have the same experience. I don't\nsee how you can have a more glorious truth than that. Your idea in\npouring is that grace comes on the person and comes in a few drops, but\nin immersion you have not merely grace come down, but the giver of\ngrace, Christ himself come down--in fact, come down to death and rising\nagain. Oh, I think it is a wonderful double picture showing Christ and\nthe converted soul bound together in these experiences of death and\nresurrection. Besides, Mr. Sterling, where does the Bible say that\nbaptism was intended to show forth that truth about grace coming from\nabove?\"\n\n\"I don't know that it says so in express terms, but the ceremony of\npouring indicates it and the descent of the Spirit shows it.\"\n\n\"Of course the Spirit when he first came had to come down,\" said\nDorothy. \"If Christ promised to send the Spirit from Heaven to baptize\nthe disciples, of course the Spirit had to come down before he could\nsurround them, but it does not seem to have been the fact of his coming\ndown that was the impressive fact that day, but the overwhelming way in\nwhich the Spirit came and surrounded them. That is what the writer used\na good many words to describe.\"\n\n\"You will notice,\" said the father, \"that it says that not only was the\nhouse filled, but the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit.\"\n\n\"Yes,\" said Dorothy, \"it says that the wind filled the house and the\ndisciples were filled with the Spirit. The idea seems to be that the\nSpirit came so abundantly that day that he not only filled all the\nhouse, but filled the disciples themselves. That was the great fact, the\noverwhelming abundance of the Spirit.\"\n\n\"I still remind you that Peter calls it pouring,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"Dorothy, he has not surrendered, you see; his guns are still firing,\"\nsaid the father with a smile.\n\n\"Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"but your pouring is not like the pouring\nthat day. When you pour the water in your baptism, does it come down\nwith a rush and fill the house? The passage does not teach your form of\nbaptism, because you do not imitate it.\"\n\n\"Immersionists do not imitate, in all respects, the baptism of Christ,\"\nsaid Sterling, \"for they do not all baptize in a river as he was.\"\n\n\"Neither did the apostles when they baptized in Jerusalem on the day of\nPentecost,\" said Dorothy. \"We have seen that they probably baptized in\nsome of the immense pools in the city. And look here,\" examining the\npassage about which they had been arguing, \"isn't this interesting? Here\nin the margin of the passage which we have been discussing are the words\n'in the Spirit' as if he had promised to baptize them in the Spirit.\"\n\n\"What is that?\" exclaimed the father.\n\n\"Here where Christ promised that he would not many days hence baptize\nthem with the Holy Spirit it reads on the margin 'in the Holy Spirit',\nand a baptism 'in' the Spirit was surely by immersion.\"\n\n\"I guess,\" said the brother, \"that the Greek word translated 'in' there\non the margin is the word 'en'. Let's see your Greek Testament, Mr.\nSterling.\" He examined it and found that the original word was \"en.\"\n\n\"It is 'en' and it means 'in', and the right reading of that passage is\n'ye shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost'. Here, look at this. In this\nRevised Version it reads just that way. If you had read it that way at\nfirst in your King James' Version of the Bible it might have saved you\nall this argument.\"\n\n\"You must remember, Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"that I did not bring\nthis passage up to prove immersion, but you brought it up to prove\npouring. You spoke very positively about it, but I think you found that\nif it represented the coming down of water it was like a cloudburst more\nthan anything else.\"\n\nSterling was compelled to admit to himself that the Pentecostal baptism\nwas more a picture of immersion than of pouring. He turned the\nconversation now into another line.\n\n\"Even granting,\" he said, \"that immersion is the baptism practiced in\nNew Testament times, it has never seemed to me to be such a prodigiously\nimportant matter.\"\n\n\"Oh, Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy with some impatience, \"I can't\nunderstand such a remark. What do you mean by the word important? If\nChrist was immersed and commanded it of his followers; if the early\nChristians were all immersed, and immersion, as Paul indicates, was\nselected as an outward picture of the spiritual baptism that takes place\nin conversion, then how can you say it is not important?\"\n\n\"The fact is, Miss Dorothy, I have never made an exhaustive study of the\nmatter of baptism. I never thought Christ laid any stress upon form, but\nrather upon the condition of the heart.\"\n\n\"If it is simply a matter of the heart, why baptize at all? Maybe the\nwhole matter is unimportant,\" said Dorothy. \"Would your church like to\ngive up baptism altogether?\"\n\n\"By no means.\"\n\n\"Would your church accept any kind of baptism except sprinkling or\npouring?\"\n\n\"No, I am sure it would not.\"\n\nThe matter had reached a puzzling stage for Sterling. The question\nstared him in the face as to whether he had been Scripturally baptized.\nIn infancy he had been sprinkled, but he had to confess to himself that\nthe Bible teaching seemed to lean towards immersion. In fact, in the\nrecent investigation and discussions he had hardly been able to see\nanything else but immersion.\n\nHe did not return to his office that afternoon, but spent the time at\nhis home searching through the Bible. The discussions at the Page's had\nfilled his mind with passages about immersion, but upon later reflection\nhe felt sure that the trend of Scripture pointed strongly to sprinkling\nand pouring, and with this thought in mind he turned to his Bible\nstudy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nONE POINT GAINED.\n\n\nIn their discussion on the next morning Dorothy remarked: \"Mr. Sterling,\nlet me tell you what I did. I looked up the passages that had the word\n'baptize' in them and in each case I put the word 'sprinkle' in the\nplace of the word 'baptize' and it surely made curious reading.\"\n\n\"Good for you, daughter,\" said Mr. Page. \"That was an ingenious\nprocedure. Let us have the passages to see how they sound. It ought to\nbe a perfectly fair method, because if baptize means to sprinkle then\nyou ought to be able everywhere to put the word 'sprinkle' for the word\n'baptize' and it would read all right. That's a fine idea, and now for\nthe passages.\"\n\nDorothy began with the account of Christ's baptism: \"'Then cometh Jesus\nfrom Galilee to Jordan unto John to be sprinkled of him'.\"\n\n\"That sounds all right,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"Here is the next one,\" said Dorothy: \"'I have a sprinkling to be\nsprinkled with and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!' Just\nimagine Christ speaking of his sufferings in that way, Mr. Sterling. His\nsufferings were not a sprinkling. But here is another: 'And John also\nwas sprinkling at Aenon near Salem because there was much water there.'\n\n\"Again: 'John truly sprinkled with water, but ye shall be sprinkled with\nthe Holy Ghost not many days hence.'\"\n\n\"That doesn't sound natural,\" said the father, \"to be sprinkled with the\nHoly Ghost. That would have been a rather light affair.\"\n\n\"Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"you remember you said the baptism on the\nday of Pentecost was by pouring. Suppose you put the word 'pour' in this\npassage and read it, 'John truly poured with water, but ye shall be\npoured with the Holy Ghost not many days hence'. You could not speak of\nanybody being poured. You could speak of water or the Spirit being\npoured, but not of a person being poured. It would not be proper to say\nyou shall be poured with anything. Something could be poured upon you,\nbut you could not be poured with something. That is another reason why\nthe baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost could not have had reference to\npouring, because from this passage, you see, it would not make sense to\nput the word 'pour' in it. And besides, Mr. Sterling, I think you are\nuncertain whether baptism is by pouring or sprinkling.\"\n\n\"Give us another passage,\" said the father; \"they are quite\ninteresting.\"\n\nDorothy continued: \"'And they went down into the water, both Philip and\nthe eunuch and he sprinkled him.\"\n\n\"Let us have another passage,\" said the father.\n\nDorothy continued: \"'Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling into\ndeath.'\"\n\n\"Oh, my,\" said Mr. Page, bursting into a laugh, \"where did you ever see\nanyone buried by sprinkling a few drops of earth upon him? Say, Friend\nSterling, how did this idea of sprinkling get into so many churches? It\ncertainly does not seem to have a single leg to stand upon.\"\n\n\"I can give you some passages where the word sprinkle would sound\nnatural; for example this passage: 'Go ye into all the world and preach\nthe Gospel unto every creature, and he that believeth and is sprinkled\nshall be saved.' That sounds just as natural as if it read 'he that\nbelieveth and is immersed shall be saved'.\"\n\n\"Maybe so,\" said Mr. Page, \"but it sounds just a little limp to me.\nBesides, you could hardly put the word 'pour' in that passage. If you\nwant to make a real point you must give some passage where the word\n'sprinkle' would sound natural and the word 'immerse' would seem out of\nplace.\"\n\n\"Yes,\" spoke up Dorothy. \"Can you give us such a passage, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\n\"I have such a passage and it will show that immersion could not have\nbeen the mode of baptism.\"\n\n\"Out with it,\" said Mr. Page.\n\n\"It is the words spoken to Saul. It reads: 'Arise and be baptized.' Now\nthat baptism could not have been an immersion. Saul was evidently seated\nand he was told to arise or to stand up. What was he to stand up for? To\nbe sprinkled, of course. You would not ask a man who was seated to\nstand up to be immersed.\"\n\n\"He would have to stand up before he could be immersed,\" said Dorothy.\n\"Why could it not read, 'Arise and be immersed'? Maybe they went off to\nbe immersed. And notice the first part of the verse. It reads: 'Now why\ntarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on\nthe name of the Lord.' Those first words 'why tarriest thou' explain the\nother part. In the first place, he had to arise; that is, to get up in\norder that he might go off to some place where he could be immersed. In\nthe next place, he tells him not to tarry, not to wait, but to arise and\nbe baptized.\"\n\n\"Good for you, daughter. It does look as if you were telling him not to\ndelay his baptism, but to get up and attend to it.\"\n\nThere was a lull in the conversation for a moment, and then the father\nasked: \"What kind of baptism did they have in the churches just after\nthe apostles died? Don't we find anything in history about the kind of\nbaptism that was practiced?\"\n\nDorothy spoke up promptly: \"I was reading in the library yesterday in\nsome of the encyclopedias about baptism and I copied something about\nthat very point you mentioned. Let me get it.\"\n\nShe hurried to her room, brought the book and read as follows: \"'Not\nless than sixty of the ancient baptisteries are found in Italy alone, of\nwhich seven belong to the fourth century, four to the fifth, eleven to\nthe sixth and fourteen probably to the seventh.' Then after describing\nthese baptizing pools found in these ancient church buildings the writer\ncontinues: 'Now baptisteries such as described above are found in all\nparts of ancient Christendom, and their presence makes it impossible to\ndoubt the form of baptism in the patristric and medieval churches. Such\nstructures were plainly intended for immersion. Their size and form and\narrangement entirely preclude the idea of their use for sprinkling or\npouring.'\"\n\n\"That is a great point. What were those baptizing pools doing there in\nthe churches if they were not for immersion? If the churches in the\nfourth century baptized by immersion, it surely must have been because\nthat mode had been handed down to them from the beginning.\"\n\n\"There is one argument against immersion that I have not mentioned,\"\nsaid Sterling.\n\n\"Exactly,\" said the father with a smile. \"You are going now to bring out\nyour Imperial Guards. You've been holding them back for the last\nassault, I suppose. All right, trot them out, Sterling.\"\n\n\"Oh, father, what awful figures you use about these Bible matters.\"\n\n\"That's right, daughter, call me down. I will jump the traces every now\nand then, and I beg pardon. And now, Sterling, what is that argument\nagainst immersion that you have not mentioned?\"\n\n\"It is this: Immersion cannot be right, for it would make infant baptism\nimpossible.\"\n\n\"Infant baptism,\" exclaimed Dorothy with a very puzzled look. \"You\ndon't mean that you baptize infants?\"\n\n\"Certainly.\"\n\n\"Why do you baptize infants?\" asked Dorothy, with an expression almost\nof horror on her face.\n\n\"It is one of the sacred ordinances of the church and is really one of\nthe most beautiful and effective.\"\n\n\"Do you mean little children just two or three years old?\" asked\nDorothy.\n\n\"Yes, indeed, and often only a few weeks old. Where have you been that\nyou have never heard of infant baptism?\"\n\n\"I never heard of it. You know I have been to church very little in my\nlife and have known almost nothing about church matters and have had no\none to tell me. I am very sorry it has been so, for I feel I have missed\na great deal. But, Mr. Sterling, I do not remember seeing anything in\nthe Bible about sprinkling infants. I must have overlooked it.\"\n\n\"You must have overlooked it, for it is taught very plainly.\"\n\n\"Infant baptism?\" she said in a questioning, puzzled tone. \"Mr.\nSterling, the little infants do not know what you are doing to them. I\nthought the baptism of a person was a picture of what had already taken\nplace in that person. It looks strange to baptize an infant, and besides\nI should think you would drown the little things to put them under the\nwater.\"\n\n\"Ha, ha,\" exclaimed Mr. Sterling with a laugh. \"Not too fast. We do not\nput them under the water; we sprinkle them.\"\n\n\"Of course. I ought to have known that, for you baptize by sprinkling.\nBut do tell me some more about it. Why do you do it, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\n\"It is one of the most sacred ordinances of the church. I wish you could\nwitness the ceremony. But I see we will not have the time to go into the\nsubject as we ought. It is a great subject, and if you do not object we\nwill take it up tomorrow night. I hear no objection and so the motion is\nunanimously adopted.\"\n\nSterling felt as if the battle had been going against him so far as\nwinning Dorothy was concerned. But he did not despair. He girded himself\nafresh for his task. He decided, however, that instead of attempting\nsingle-handed to defend the doctrine of infant baptism, he would seek\nreinforcements and call in his pastor, Dr. Vincent.\n\nThe Doctor was regarded as an encyclopedia of Presbyterian lore.\nSterling visited him and told him that Dorothy Page, the daughter of his\nfriend and neighbor, had recently been converted and was concerned about\nthe subject of baptism, and that she was strongly turning towards\nimmersion. \"I am dreading, Doctor,\" said Sterling, \"that if she insists\non immersion she will be drawn into the Baptist church and we would all\nregard that as a disaster.\"\n\n\"Did you mention infant baptism to her?\" inquired the Doctor. \"You know\nthe Baptists would deny to infants this rite and would deny to parents\nthe privilege of such dedication of their children in baptism. That fact\nought to keep her from the Baptist heresy, and if that fails to save her\nfrom it then surely their doctrine of close communion will settle the\nbusiness with her.\"\n\n\"We are to take up the subject of infant baptism tonight. We began it\nlast night, but were interrupted before we got fairly launched upon the\ndiscussion, and yet not before Miss Dorothy had made some remark about\ninfant baptism showing she thought it a curious practice. I am sure,\nDoctor, you could set her right.\"\n\n\"I will come if you think I can be of service,\" he said, for he saw an\nanxiety on Sterling's face that he could not understand.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE CALL FOR REINFORCEMENTS.\n\n\nThat evening Sterling and the old Doctor arrived. The Doctor was\nacquainted with all the Pages except Dorothy. After a preliminary\nskirmish in the conversation Dorothy remarked:\n\n\"It is very kind in Mr. Sterling to be trying to instruct me in these\nchurch matters, for I feel very ignorant. He and I have not agreed on\nall points, but the discussion has helped me greatly.\"\n\n\"I think Miss Dorothy is afraid to take me as her guide as she is trying\nto climb these heights of Bible truths,\" said Sterling with a faint\nsmile, \"and I have brought over a more skilled and experienced leader.\"\n\n\"Maybe she will not endorse your selection,\" said the Doctor with a\nsmile at Sterling.\n\n\"I see you are making me out as being not only hard to please, but also\nvery ungrateful to my friends. You will find me a very interested and\nappreciative listener, Doctor, to anything you may be kind enough to say\nto me.\"\n\n\"We are to talk about infant baptism tonight, and, Doctor, if you are\nwilling, I suggest that you give the reasons for this practice,\" said\nSterling.\n\n\"You are laying out quite a program for me. I will attempt, however, to\nbring it within brief compass. The first fact I would mention is\nChrist's treatment of the little children.\"\n\n\"Did he baptize them?\" broke in Dorothy.\n\n\"Hold on, daughter,\" said the father. \"You open up your artilleries too\nsoon. The Doctor was merely making a skirmish.\"\n\n\"Pardon me, Doctor Vincent. I ought not to have broken into your remarks\nso abruptly, and yet I am sure you understand that I ask because I am\ndeeply interested.\"\n\n\"Break in at any time and I shall be glad.\"\n\nShe repeated her question: \"Did Christ baptize the little children?\"\n\n\"We are not told expressly that he did, but we read in Matthew 19:13\nthat when the little ones were brought to him the disciples sought to\nprevent it.\"\n\n\"Just as a good many people would do today,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"Yes,\" continued the Doctor, \"but Christ said, 'Suffer little children\nand forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of\nHeaven'.\"\n\n\"Maybe they were bringing the little children to him for him to baptize\nthem,\" said the father. \"What about that, Doctor? Doesn't it tell what\nthey brought the children for?\"\n\nDorothy had turned to the passage and remarked: \"Yes, it tells what they\nbrought the children for. They brought little children to Christ that he\nmight put his hands on them and pray. There is nothing there about\nbaptism. It looks plain that they did not bring them to be baptized,\nbecause it simply says 'to put his hands on them and pray'.\"\n\n\"At any rate,\" said the Doctor, \"it showed Christ's tenderness for\nlittle children. The point is this: He said 'of such is the Kingdom of\nHeaven'. Think of that. It is a remarkable statement about the little\nones.\"\n\n\"What did he mean by the words 'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven', and\nwhat have they to do, Doctor, with baptism?\"\n\n\"A great deal, my daughter. They mean that the little child has the\nheavenly nature.\"\n\n\"I think that is a beautiful idea, but what has that to do with the\nbaptism of infants?\"\n\n\"Why, this: If anybody is entitled to baptism, surely a little child\nwith its heavenly nature is. We may make mistakes in baptizing old\npersons who claim the right of baptism, but never can we be mistaken in\nthe case of a little child.\"\n\n\"I can understand about the beautiful nature of a child before sin has\ntaken hold of its will,\" said Dorothy, \"but why that little helpless one\nshould be baptized I cannot understand.\"\n\n\"I thought you were deciding all these questions by the Bible,\" said the\nfather. \"What does the Book say about it, Doctor? Do you baptize them\nbecause you think it is appropriate to baptize the sweet little ones or\nbecause you think the Bible commands it?\"\n\n\"It is from the Bible alone that we get the authority.\"\n\n\"Where is it commanded in the Bible, Doctor?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"It is not definitely commanded, but it is implied in many ways. We\nbaptize grown people who profess to be born of the Spirit of God and to\nbe regenerated by his grace. How much more, therefore, should we baptize\nan infant who does not need to be regenerated, because, according to\nChrist's own words, it possesses the heavenly nature. It is often\nclaimed by our opponents that infants must not be baptized because faith\nand repentance--in other words, regeneration--must come before baptism.\nAll right, I answer; the infant possesses those necessary qualifications\nfor baptism. It does not need regeneration. It already, according to\nChrist's own words, possesses the heavenly nature and needs not to go\nthrough the process of regeneration. In another place Christ said:\n'Unless ye become converted and become as a little child ye cannot see\nthe Kingdom.' There you see conversion is compared to the condition of\nthe child nature. Christ said a person desiring conversion must become\nlike a little child. Now we know that a converted person is entitled to\nand must receive baptism. Why, then, could not a child be baptized?\"\n\n\"Doctor Vincent,\" said Dorothy, \"it seems to me that the whole matter\nhinges on the question as to who was commanded in the Bible to be\nbaptized. Does Christ say that all persons having the heavenly or\nchild-like nature must be baptized? If so, why did he not baptize the\nlittle ones the day they were brought to him? It looks as if the\ndisciples did not know anything about baptizing the little ones.\"\n\n\"No, they seemed to know very little about Christ's attitude towards\nchildren.\"\n\n\"Let me ask this question, Doctor,\" said Dorothy. \"You spoke of the\nheavenly nature of the infant. When an infant is baptized and grows up,\ndoes the baptism cause the heavenly nature to stay with the child?\"\n\n\"Not necessarily.\"\n\n\"What good, then, does the baptism do? Do you mean that a baptized\ninfant might grow up to be a fearful villain?\"\n\n\"Yes, it is possible.\"\n\n\"Well, do the baptized infants have a less tendency to sin than the\nunbaptized infants?\"\n\n\"No. I can't say that the baptism itself has any effect on the infant.\nNeither does it have any effect on the grown person that is baptized and\ndisgraces his baptism received in later life.\"\n\n\"But is there not this difference, that in the case of grown people you\nbaptize only those who desire baptism, but in the case of infants you do\nnot make such distinction?\"\n\n\"It seems to me,\" said the father, \"that the important question is, who\nin the Bible are commanded to be baptized? Does the Bible say that\ninfants must be baptized or not?\"\n\n\"No,\" replied the Doctor, \"it does not say that.\"\n\n\"Well, who are entitled to baptism?\"\n\n\"Let me get my concordance,\" said Dorothy, rising from her seat, \"and\nlook at the passages about baptism so as to see who are commanded to be\nbaptized.\"\n\nShe began with the aid of the concordance to pick out the passages\nhaving the word \"baptize\" in them. She read: \"'He that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved.'\"\n\n\"Hello!\" said the father. \"Who said that?\"\n\n\"Those are the words of Christ,\" said Doctor Vincent.\n\n\"That looks as if a person had to believe before he could be baptized.\nBut give us another one, daughter.\"\n\n\"Here is one: 'When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning\nthe Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both\nmen and women.'\"\n\n\"There it is again,\" exclaimed the father, \"believing coming before\nbaptizing.\"\n\n\"And notice,\" said Dorothy, \"it says they were baptized 'both men and\nwomen', but it does not say 'and children'. But here is another: 'See,\nhere is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he said, if thou\nbelievest with all thy heart thou mayst be baptized.'\"\n\n\"There it is again,\" spoke up the father. \"If he believed then he could\nbe baptized. Evidently that writer considered believing essential to\nbaptism.\"\n\nDorothy read on: \"'Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were\nbaptized.' Isn't it strange? Every time it is those that believed that\nwere baptized. Here is another: 'Then Simon himself believed also, and\nwhen he was baptized he continued with Philip.' And again: 'Then they\nthat gladly received his Word were baptized.' They do not use the word\n'believe' in that passage, but the words 'gladly received his Word', and\nthese are practically the same; they not only heard his Word, but\nreceived it, and received it gladly.\"\n\n\"Oh, they were genuinely converted,\" said the Doctor. \"There can be no\ndoubt about that. It occurred on the day of Pentecost and those converts\ncontinued in the apostles' doctrine and bore good fruit.\"\n\n\"You see, Doctor,\" said Dorothy, \"that those who were baptized in New\nTestament times first believed. You say that infants ought to be\nbaptized because they have the heavenly and converted nature; but the\nBible does not say that. Those who were baptized first believed. Now an\ninfant cannot believe. I do not feel, Doctor, that I know a hundredth\npart as much of the Bible as you know, but don't you think that Christ\nmeant by those words about little children and the Kingdom of Heaven\nthat they must cultivate the qualities of a little child and that the\nchild nature was a type of the heavenly nature? He did not connect this\nwith baptism.\"\n\n\"Did you know that whole families were baptized?\" asked the Doctor.\n\"Many times baptisms were administered in homes not simply on those who\nbelieved, but on the whole family, young and old.\"\n\n\"But are you sure, Doctor, that there were infants in those families?\"\n\n\"Not absolutely sure, but almost; at any rate the burden of proof is on\nthose who deny that infants were in any of those families.\"\n\n\"Show us some of the accounts of family baptisms,\" said the father. \"It\ndoes look a little curious, daughter.\"\n\nThey turned first to Acts 16:13-15: \"'And a certain woman, named Lydia,\na seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard\nus, whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things that\nwere spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized and her household she\nbesought us, saying.'\"\n\n\"How do you know there were any infants in her household? It does not\neven say she was married,\" said Dorothy. \"She was a seller of purple and\nmaybe she was an unmarried woman working for her living. At any rate I\ndo not see that you can prove that she had any infants in her\nhousehold.\"\n\n\"It looks to me,\" said the father, \"as if that woman was a working woman\nand as if her household were her fellow-workers, and that there were\nprobably no infants among them.\"\n\n\"Here is another passage,\" said the Doctor, \"in 1 Corinthians 1:16: 'And\nI baptized also the household of Stephanus.' Will you affirm there were\nno infants there? How many households do you think I could baptize\nwithout hitting upon an infant? Why do you exclude infants?\"\n\nThe brother was busy looking through the concordance to see if he could\nfind out something more about this Stephanus and his household, and in a\nfew moments he exclaimed: \"Here is some light on the household of\nStephanus in 1 Corinthians 15:15. It reads: 'Ye know the house of\nStephanus.' There you have it again--'the house of Stephanus'. That must\nhave been an interesting house: 'Ye know the house of Stephanus, that it\nis the first fruits of Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to\nthe ministry of the saints.'\"\n\n\"You see, Doctor,\" said Dorothy, \"it seems that that household were\nintelligent people and acted for themselves, and therefore were not\ninfants. Just notice what it says--that the house of Stephanus were 'the\nfirst fruits of Achaia'. What does that mean--'the first fruits'?\"\n\n\"Why, the first fruits are the first grain that is gathered in a\nharvest.\"\n\n\"Oh, I see. Then the members of Stephanus' household were the first ones\nto accept Christianity in Achaia, and if they accepted Christianity of\ncourse they were not infants.\"\n\n\"But it may have meant that they were the first ones in Achaia to be\nbaptized--'the first fruits' in that sense--and if so, there could have\nbeen infants in the house.\"\n\n\"But notice what comes in the next verse: 'And that they have addicted\nthemselves to the ministry of the saints.' You don't think, Doctor, he\nwould speak of infants addicting themselves to the ministry of the\nsaints, do you?\"\n\n\"It looks as if you will have to surrender on that point, gentlemen,\"\nsaid Mr. Page. \"I am a novice in Bible teaching, and yet it does seem\nplain that that household were intelligent folks--the first to be\nconverted in Ach----\"\n\n\"Achaia,\" spoke up Dr. Vincent.\n\n\"Thanks for the word, the first fruits of Achaia, and they also\n'addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints'. I don't think you\nhad better look for any young ones in that bunch.\"\n\n\"I give you another household,\" said the Doctor. \"It is in Acts 16:33.\nIt is in the story of Paul and Silas' experience in prison and the\nconversion of the jailer at midnight. It reads: 'He took them the same\nhour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all\nhis straightway.' Now, my fair debater, I suppose you will declare in\nmost solemn tones that there were no infants in the jailer's family. May\nI ask for your verdict on that point?\"\n\n\"Look here,\" said Dorothy, who was examining the passage: \"It says\nplainly that all of them 'did believe'.\"\n\n\"Stop, daughter,\" said the father. \"You are joking about that.\"\n\n\"Listen to the next verse,\" she said: \"'And when he had brought them\ninto his house he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God\nwith all his house.\"\n\n\"Take down your flag, gentlemen,\" exclaimed the father impulsively.\n\"Your guns are silenced. The jailer believed in God with 'all his\nhouse'. Well, I guess that means that all his house believed with him,\nand they must have been very sprightly infants and quite overgrown to\nhave joined their father in that believing.\"\n\n\"It says they all rejoiced also,\" said Dorothy. \"And look at the verse\npreceding: 'And they spake the Word of the Lord to all that were in the\nhouse.' That came before they were all baptized. They 'spake the Word to\nall'. Notice the 'all', to all that were in the house. I guess that\n'all' that were in the house must have been old enough to understand his\npreaching if he spoke the Word to all of them. Doctor,\" she asked, \"do\nyou think you can find an infant in that attentive, believing, rejoicing\nhousehold?\"\n\n\"Read us about another household baptism,\" as she noted that the Doctor\nseemed to be closing the Bible.\n\n\"This completes the list of household baptisms. I think they are\nsufficient.\"\n\n\"But, Doctor, not one of these households are said to have had children\nin them, and if they did have children the children must have been old\nenough to believe, because it is stated in the case of every one of them\nthat those that were baptized believed or received the word that was\nspoken. They were all old enough to hear, to understand and to believe\nthe Word.\"\n\n\"From all the passages which I have heard in these discussions,\" said\nthe father, \"one thing seems to stand out very plainly about baptism,\nand that is that in the Bible times faith had to come before baptism.\"\n\n\"If this is so,\" said Dorothy, \"then infant baptism is unscriptural,\nbecause it is a baptism without faith. Infants can not exercise faith.\"\n\n\"Daughter,\" said the Doctor, \"you are mistaken. I can show you that in\nthe case of every infant baptism there is always a faith that precedes\nthe baptism.\"\n\n\"What do you mean, Doctor?\" asked Dorothy in great perplexity.\n\nAt this moment the telephone bell rang and Dorothy was called to speak\nto a girl friend, who extended to her an invitation for a carriage ride\non the next afternoon. In a few moments the conversation was resumed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nWRONGING THE LITTLE ONES.\n\n\n\"Doctor Vincent,\" said Dorothy on her return to the room, \"you were\nsaying that the baptism of an infant is always preceded by faith. How\ncan that be? Can an infant exercise faith?\"\n\n\"Not the infant, but the father or mother.\"\n\n\"Oh, you mean it is the parent that has faith! And do you baptize an\ninfant because the parent has faith?\"\n\n\"Yes. Either the parent or the god-parent must have faith.\"\n\n\"The god-parent!\" exclaimed Dorothy in a puzzled tone. \"What is a\ngod-parent?\"\n\n\"If the child has not a parent, then some Christian man or woman\nbelieves for the child and is thus called its god-father or god-mother.\"\n\n\"And so the infant, in order to have baptism, must have some person to\nbelieve for it?\"\n\n\"Yes, my daughter, you catch the idea exactly.\"\n\n\"I thought you said just now that infants ought to be baptized because\nof their heavenly nature, and now you say they cannot be baptized unless\nthey can get some Christian man or woman to believe for them.\"\n\nThe Doctor for a moment was startled as he saw where his arguments had\nbrought him. He saw in a flash that both of the statements could not be\ntrue.\n\n\"Doctor, which fact must I accept?\" she asked. \"Must we baptize infants\nbecause of what they are in themselves with their heavenly natures, or\nmust we baptize only those infants who can come and have somebody\nbelieve for them?\"\n\n\"I see your point, and it has a show of logic in it.\"\n\n\"Oh, Doctor,\" she said, almost impatiently, \"why do you say a show of\nlogic? Can both of these positions be true? If the child's nature\nentitles it to baptism, then all children are entitled to baptism; but\nif it is the faith of some parent or some god-parent that entitles the\nchild to baptism, then it is only a certain class of infants that can be\nbaptized and the baptism is put on the basis of the faith of another.\"\n\n\"That sounds a little strange to me,\" said the father. \"I did not know\nthat one person could be religious for another. I thought that every tub\nhad to stand on its own bottom in religion. This thing of one person\nbelieving for another person so that the other person, especially a\nlittle infant, is entitled to baptism--well, that sounds very new and\nstrange. How can the parent make the child fit for baptism? Do you mean\nto tell me that if I had a little infant and I should believe in\nChristianity that that would be a reason why not only I should be\nbaptized, but my little infant also?\"\n\n\"Is it thought, Doctor,\" asked Dorothy, \"that the baptism does the\ninfant any good?\"\n\n\"Oh, no,\" said the Doctor, \"the baptism has no power in itself.\"\n\n\"I think the baptism does the infant a wrong,\" said Dorothy. \"Baptism\nis a religious ceremony which everyone ought to obey of his own will and\naccord. In the Bible it comes after believing and is a sign of what has\ntaken place in the person's heart. Now, when you baptize an infant you\nforce on him a religious ceremony. Suppose he grows up and is converted\nand desires to obey Christ in baptism and then learns that baptism was\nforced on him in infancy. Instead of believing and then being baptized\nhe is first baptized and then many years afterwards he believes.\"\n\n\"And suppose, Doctor,\" said the father, \"he never believes; then what\nhave you got? You have a person walking around baptized who ought never\nto have been baptized, though he is not to be blamed for it. If the\nbaptism does no good, why do you baptize him? Why not follow the regular\ncourse and get him first to believe and then to be baptized?\"\n\n\"I have an idea,\" said the brother, \"that infant baptism started with\nparents with dying infants who they thought would be lost if they were\nnot baptized.\"\n\n\"Oh, never,\" said the Doctor.\n\n\"Well, I remember in a house where I was boarding while at college that\na mother thought her little infant was about to die and she sent off\nimmediately for the preacher to baptize her child, for she said she was\nafraid it would be lost if it died without baptism. Now, if that mother\nhad that idea about baptism, why may not many others have the same idea\nabout baptism?\"\n\n\"Since I come to think of it,\" admitted the Doctor, \"I myself have had\nquite a number of excited mothers to ask me to baptize their sick\ninfants because they were afraid for them to die without baptism; but\nthey are the exceptions and of course their fears were entirely\ngroundless. This is a Catholic doctrine. The Catholics teach, that\nbaptism saves the infant, but we teach no such doctrine.\"\n\n\"But is it not natural for the mother to get such an idea about\nbaptism?\" asked Dorothy. \"They come to think that it keeps the child\nfrom being lost and the child, as it grows up, would get the idea from\nthe mother that it was saved because of its baptism in infancy. If the\nmother thought the baptism saved her child, why would she not be apt to\ntell this to the child, and how awful it would be for a child when grown\nto think that it was saved when actually it was lost. Doctor Vincent,\nthis doctrine seems to me to be a frightful one. It looks as if it might\ndo a world of harm, and I cannot see where it does a particle of good;\nand besides, it is so different from that principle which father said\njust now was one of the characteristics of religion, and that is that\nreligion must be a personal matter. Each soul must be accountable to\nGod, and it is what I do and not what somebody else does for me for\nwhich I shall be held responsible.\"\n\n\"My daughter,\" said the Doctor, \"I have let the discussion run along for\nawhile in this fashion without mentioning the main feature and benefit\nof infant baptism. It is a dedicatory ceremony. The parent brings the\nchild and offers or dedicates it in baptism to God; and not only that,\nnever forget that the baptism does not stop with that.\"\n\n\"With what?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"With the sprinkling of the water.\"\n\n\"You say the baptism does not stop with the sprinkling of the water?\nWhat else, then, Doctor, is added?\"\n\n\"Why, the parent not only dedicates the child to God, but solemnly\npromises to watch over the child and to seek to train it up in the\nnurture and admonition of the Lord.\"\n\n\"Ought not every parent to do that?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Exactly; that is what I am contending for, that every parent--I mean\nevery believing parent; we could hardly expect an unbelieving parent to\ndo so--every believing parent ought to dedicate in baptism his infant\nand to make the promise for its religious training.\"\n\n\"Is it necessary to baptize the infant in order for the parent to make\nthe promise?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Miss Dorothy,\" said the Doctor, with a faint smile, \"you amuse me; you\nalmost astonish me. What grudge have you against the simple baptismal\nceremony? Do you think there is anything wrong when the parent brings\nits little one to dedicate it to the Lord to have a few drops of water\nsprinkled upon the little one?\"\n\n\"Certainly not. Sprinkle as many drops upon the infant as you please;\nsometimes the more the better. But why call it baptism? I think the\nwrong consists In calling it Bible baptism.\"\n\n\"Oh, you object to the sprinkling. Do you think we ought to plunge the\ninfant in water?\"\n\n\"Not at all, Doctor. It is true I do not believe sprinkling is baptism,\nand in that respect I do not think you have even baptized the little one\nwhen you sprinkle it; but admitting that sprinkling is scriptural\nbaptism, I think it is wrong to call the ceremony baptism. It is all\nright for a parent to dedicate its child and to use water with it in any\nshape, but do not let the parent call it baptism. Baptism is something\nthat the person receives of his own accord, and that comes after\nbelieving and as a sign that the person has had a change, that the\nperson has died to his old life, as we read the other night, and has\nrisen to a new life; but don't call the sprinkling of water on an infant\nbaptism and thus deprive that child ever afterwards of having a regular\nBible baptism, performed on himself by his own choice. I find myself all\nconfused, Doctor, as I try to understand your reasons for infant\nbaptism. You must let me tell you frankly how it appeals to me. At first\nyou said the child deserved baptism because of its own heavenly nature,\nand next you said it deserved baptism not because of its own condition,\nbut because of the faith of its parent, and now you mention this other\nidea of dedication and pledging on the part of the parent. This last\ncharacteristic seems to have more reference to the parent than to the\nchild, and seems to make the baptism something that is used for binding\nthe parent to do his duty to the child. In that case you make the\nbaptism a matter of the parent doing his duty, and if there is any\nreligion in the ordinance it seems to be on the part of the parent\ninstead of the child. If you call that Bible baptism, I think you put\nbaptism in the wrong place.\"\n\nSterling presented a picture. He had hung his hopes high on the Doctor's\narguments. In fact, he came to the house with a feeling of triumph and\nwondered why he had not thought of bringing the Doctor into the\ndiscussion earlier. But as he had tried to follow the Doctor in his\ndifferent arguments, he had found himself lost in a wilderness. He kept\nup his courage, however, believing that ultimately victory would come.\n\n\"Doctor,\" said Dorothy after she had remained thoughtful for awhile, \"is\nthere not great danger in infant baptism that people will get the idea\nthat salvation comes through a ceremony rather than from Christ? You\nspoke of the mothers thinking baptism would save their infants. If those\nmothers think so, then do you not see that the practice of infant\nbaptism in a community helps to spread abroad in that community the idea\nthat salvation comes by some outward magical performance?\"\n\nAt this point Dorothy was called to the door by a party of young people,\nwho were returning from a walk, and who, seeing a light in the Page\nhome, had run in for a few minutes.\n\n\"Father,\" said Dorothy, \"you must listen to the Doctor for me and give\nme the points when I return.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nCIRCUMCISION TO THE RESCUE.\n\n\n\"Let me say,\" continued the Doctor, \"that I have not yet mentioned the\nstrongest reason for infant baptism.\"\n\nThe remark waked new hope in Sterling.\n\n\"What is that reason, Doctor?\" asked the father.\n\n\"It is the argument of circumcision. In the Old Testament times the\ncommand was that every male child of Jewish parents should be\ncircumcised. This circumcision made the child a member of the Jewish\nchurch and of the covenant of grace. Now in the Christian dispensation,\nafter Christ came, circumcision was done away with and baptism was put\nin its place, and it is now baptism instead of circumcision that admits\none into the church.\"\n\n\"You are getting into deep water for me, but let me make the effort to\ncatch your point. You say that in the olden times--\"\n\n\"Yes, in the days of the Old Testament.\"\n\n\"Well, you say that in those days every male child of Jewish parents was\ncircumcised and thereby admitted into the Jewish church, and so in the\nChristian church every male child--\"\n\n\"No, not simply every male child, but every child, both male and\nfemale, who was baptized was admitted into the Christian church.\"\n\n\"Well, why this difference? If they circumcised only the males in the\nold church, why do you not baptize simply the males in the Christian\nchurch if baptism is put in the place of circumcision?\"\n\n\"There is no reason why the females, as well as the males, should not be\nbaptized, but there was a difference in the matter of circumcision.\"\n\n\"This is surely a new kind of argument for infant baptism.\"\n\n\"I think it is a very natural one. God does not change his plans of\ndealing with his people. In the first covenant all Jewish children were\nadmitted into the covenant simply because their parents were members of\nthe commonwealth or church, and the condition of their admission was\ntheir circumcision. Now if God would admit the children in the old\ndispensation, would he not admit them also in the new? And what is the\nsign under the new dispensation? Is it circumcision? Oh, no; it is\nbaptism. That seems plain and unanswerable.\"\n\n\"So then it is not the inherent heavenly nature of the child, but the\nfact that one of the parents is a Christian that makes you baptize his\nlittle ones.\"\n\n\"Yes, that is the reason. The parent must of course promise to train the\nchild aright. Circumcision was the door to the Old Testament church,\nwhile baptism is the door to the New Testament church.\"\n\n\"Here is a foot note in this family Bible on this passage,\" said the\nfather. \"It says that 'in the old dispensation all the natural children\nof Abraham were by circumcision admitted into the Jewish church; so now\nall who are the spiritual children of Abraham are by baptism admitted\ninto the Christian church'.\"\n\n\"Exactly so,\" exclaimed the brother. \"The contrast is between the\nnatural and the spiritual children of Abraham. The natural descendants\nof Abraham, who were of course Jews, were admitted by circumcision. I\nthink if you wish to run the parallel you must follow that line. In the\nOld Testament it was a natural relationship and in the New Testament it\nis a spiritual relationship.\"\n\n\"Son, you are surely on the right track. This foot note here says 'all\nbelievers are the spiritual children of Abraham'. Christ said he could\nraise up children unto Abraham, who was the father of the faithful.\nEvery such believer is entitled to baptism and church membership. Why,\nthat is plain. It runs this way: In the old dispensation all natural\nchildren of Abraham were admitted by circumcision. In the new\ndispensation all spiritual children of Abraham--that is, all\nbelievers--are admitted by baptism; but you will notice, Doctor, if the\nspiritual children are believers there can be no infants among them.\"\n\nThe brother was busy looking in the subject index of the Bible for\npassages about circumcision in the New Testament, and he soon remarked:\n\"Here is an account of a discussion in a council concerning\ncircumcision. It is found in the book of Acts, the fifteenth chapter.\"\n\n\"Read it,\" said the father. \"We want light on this subject.\"\n\n\"That council met in Jerusalem and was made up of the apostles and other\ndisciples to consider certain doctrinal matters,\" said the Doctor.\n\nRoland began to read the account of the council: \"'And certain men which\ncame down from Judea taught the brethren and said except ye be\ncircumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.'\"\n\n\"Now you are getting at the core,\" said the father. \"You see they are\ndiscussing whether they have to be circumcised. I guess the apostles\nwill say they need not be circumcised because baptism has been put in\nits place. Read along and see if it does not say that.\"\n\nHe ran his eye down every verse, but could find no such statement.\n\n\"Do I understand that they came together in that council to discuss\nwhether circumcision was necessary for salvation, and that nothing was\nsaid about baptism having been put in its place?\" asked Mr. Page.\n\n\"It certainly looks that way,\" said Roland.\n\n\"What did that council decide?\" asked the father.\n\n\"The council decided that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be\ncircumcised,\" answered Mr. Sterling.\n\n\"Who were the Gentiles?\" asked the father.\n\n\"They were all the people who were not Jews.\"\n\n\"You mean that they were discussing whether it was necessary for the\nGentiles to be circumcised, and that it was decided that it was not\nnecessary, and now do you say that nothing in this discussion was said\nabout baptism having taken the place of circumcision?\"\n\n\"Oh, this may have been said in the discussion, but there is no record\nof it.\"\n\n\"They would hardly have left it out of the record if there had been any\nmention of it in the discussion. I notice here in this chapter they give\nthe different reasons for their views; but the word baptism is not\nmentioned. If baptism had taken the place of circumcision, would it not\nhave been natural for one of the apostles to have said something like\nthis: 'Why, of course it is not necessary to be circumcised, because\nbaptism has taken the place of circumcision.' That would have settled\nthe question.\"\n\n\"I have another point,\" said Doctor Vincent, \"but let's wait a few\nmoments for Miss Dorothy's return.\"\n\nIn a few minutes Dorothy rejoined the party and the Doctor remarked:\n\n\"I can show you that the Bible teaches plainly that God will take the\nfaith of the Christian parent for that of the child.\"\n\n\"Do show it to us,\" said Dorothy, eagerly.\n\n\"Paul declares that the faith of a parent makes the child holy and\nsanctifies the child.\"\n\n\"I don't know what you mean by sanctifying the child, but show us that\npassage, Doctor.\"\n\n\"Let me see if I understand your point, Doctor Vincent,\" said Mr. Page.\n\"You assert that the Bible declares that the faith of a parent will make\nthe child holy?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"I want to see that passage.\"\n\nThe Doctor turned to 1 Cor. 7:14 and read: \"'For the unbelieving husband\nis sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the\nhusband; else were your children unclean but now are they holy.'\"\n\n\"Hello,\" said Mr. Page, \"that sounds like it.\"\n\n\"It is very plain,\" said the Doctor. \"The apostle has said that a\nbeliever must not marry an unbeliever; but then someone may say:\n'Suppose a believer has already married an unbeliever, must the\nbelieving wife leave her unbelieving husband?' 'No,' says Paul. 'The\nbelieving wife sanctifies the husband and thus the marriage is not\nunclean, but a proper one.' The fact that one of the parties is an\nunbeliever does not make the union an unclean one, but he says the child\nof such a union is holy. Note that. What does he mean by that word\n'holy'? The Jews, according to the old covenant, regarded all who were\nnot Jews as unclean or unholy; that is, as not partakers of the holy\ncovenant. But all of Abraham's descendants were holy; that is, were\npartakers of the covenant, and Paul here states that the children of\nChristian parents, even though only one of the parents was a believer,\nwere holy.\"\n\n\"But, Doctor,\" said Dorothy, \"I do not see anything about infant baptism\nin all that.\"\n\n\"This is related to infant baptism. The point before us now is as to\nwhether the faith or belief of a parent makes the child holy, and Paul\nsays it does. The question was asked where the Bible taught that the\nfaith of the parent was taken for the faith of the infant, and I\nmentioned this passage.\"\n\n\"But does this passage teach that?\"\n\n\"It undoubtedly does. It declares that one believing parent sanctifies\nthe child; that is, makes the child holy, and that is the same thing.\"\n\n\"I am not much on Scripture,\" broke in the father, \"and I guess I had\nbetter keep my hands off of this part of the argument, and yet that\npassage sounded to me as if the writer was trying to keep married\ncouples from separating simply because one of them might be an\nunbeliever.\"\n\n\"That is correct,\" said the Doctor.\n\n\"Exactly,\" continued Mr. Page. \"The writer wanted the Christians who\nwere married to those who were not Christians to understand that their\nmarriage was O. K., and that their children were also O. K. Otherwise a\nChristian wife might feel that her marriage and her children were\nunclean. Is that right, Doctor?\"\n\n\"Yes, but do not lose sight of the main point, which is that the faith\nor holiness of the parent makes the child holy.\"\n\n\"But look here!\" exclaimed Dorothy, as if she had made a discovery. \"It\nsays that the believing wife sanctifies not only the child, but also the\nunbelieving husband. Do you believe that a believing wife sanctifies an\nunbelieving husband?\"\n\n\"Of course not the husband. A believing wife cannot make an unbelieving\nhusband holy and a member of the covenant of grace.\"\n\n\"But it says here that the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving\nhusband,\" insisted Dorothy.\n\n\"That means that in the case under consideration the marriage must not\nbe considered an unclean relation so as to make the wife leave the\nhusband or consider herself involved in an unclean relation.\"\n\n\"When it says the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing\nwife, does his sanctification mean becoming a member of the covenant?\"\nasked Dorothy.\n\n\"No, not at all.\"\n\n\"Why, then, do you say that the child who is made holy by the parent is\nmade a partaker of the covenant? Do the words 'holy' and 'sanctified'\nmean the same thing?\"\n\n\"Yes, they are practically the same.\"\n\n\"It seems clear as a sunbeam to me from that passage,\" broke in the\nfather, \"that whatever was done to the child by the faith of the\nbelieving parent was also done to the unbelieving husband, for it\nplainly says so. Let us have that passage again, daughter.\"\n\nShe read: \"'For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing\nwife--'\"\n\n\"There you have it plain,\" said the father. \"And the unbelieving wife is\nsanctified by the believing husband, else were your children unclean but\nnow they are holy.\"\n\n\"And look here!\" exclaimed Dorothy, examining the passage closely. \"In a\nverse or two below it says: 'For how knowest thou, Oh wife, whether thou\nshalt save thy husband?'\"\n\n\"There, now,\" said the father, \"'save thy husband'. He evidently was\nnot saved by his believing wife. It shows that, even though he was\nsanctified by the faith of his wife, yet he was not saved.\nSanctification did not mean much for him, and maybe it did not mean much\neither for the children. The writer was trying, I think, to keep those\nmarriages intact, and I guess he had a hard time of it sometimes. Even\nthough that husband was sanctified, yet he needed saving. That looks\nmightily as if the sanctifying part had reference to the marriage\nrelation of that husband and wife and not to any spiritual or religious\ncondition of the husband, and therefore not to anything spiritual as\nregards the child.\"\n\n\"Look here,\" said the Doctor with a smile, \"I think Mr. Page will have\nto start a commentary.\"\n\n\"I see you have a twinkle in your eye,\" retorted Mr. Page, \"and\nconsequently I will not extract any compliment from your remark.\"\n\nThe conversation ended at this point. The Doctor stated that an\nengagement compelled him to hurry from what to him had been a very\ninteresting discussion, and that he would be glad to renew it. He bowed\nhimself out and Dorothy remarked:\n\n\"Father, I cannot tell you how strange I feel. I appreciate Doctor\nVincent's efforts to help me to know my duty, but this conversation\ntonight has made one thing clear to me, and that is that I can never\njoin a church that teaches and practices sprinkling and infant baptism.\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy,\" said Mr. Sterling, \"I think you could join my church,\nand I think you ought to do so, even though you do not believe these two\ndoctrines.\"\n\n\"Daughter, if you won't join the Presbyterian church, I don't know which\nway you will look.\"\n\n\"But why, Miss Dorothy, can you not join my church?\"\n\n\"Because I feel it would be wrong for me to join your church believing\nas I do about these matters.\"\n\n\"Wrong for you to join that church, daughter? I can't see where any\nwrong would be involved in your joining any decent church.\"\n\n\"Don't you think, father, that it would be wrong for me to join a church\nthat teaches that infants ought to be baptized and that sprinkling is\nbaptism, when the Bible seems so clearly to me to teach that infants\nought not to be baptized and that only immersion is baptism? What about\nmy baptism? I would have to be sprinkled if I joined your church, would\nI not, Mr. Sterling?\"\n\n\"I think you ought to be sprinkled,\" he replied.\n\n\"Do you think I ought to be sprinkled when I think the New Testament\nteaches so clearly that immersion is baptism?\"\n\n\"But, Miss Dorothy, will you set your judgment up against the judgment\nof the learned divines and scholars of the churches?\"\n\n\"I do not set myself up against them, but Dr. Moreland said that each\none of us must study our Bible and go where it led us; and besides, Mr.\nSterling, I have considered all your arguments for sprinkling and all\nDr. Vincent's arguments for infant baptism, and I take for granted that\nyou have brought out the strongest passages on that side, and yet in the\nface of them it seems to me that none of the passages point to\nsprinkling and infant baptism, while many passages point clearly to the\nbaptism only of believers and to immersion as the only baptism. I must\nnot put away my judgment and go directly against that to follow the\njudgment of another, must I? Suppose I should join your church,\nbelieving that your church was doing wrong in putting something else in\nthe place of Bible baptism; think how uncomfortable I would feel. I\nwould either have to keep silent about what I believed or else I would\nbe constantly engaged in argument with the members.\"\n\n\"Maybe that would be a good thing. You might convert some of us to your\nway of thinking.\"\n\n\"But is that the right basis on which to select a church? Do you choose\na church without reference to what they or you believe, or do those who\nbelieve other things go together in another denomination?\"\n\n\"You will never find a church where everybody in it believes exactly the\nsame thing about Bible teaching.\"\n\n\"Of course not; but I thought you were mentioning the principal\ndoctrines of your church about which all your members are agreed.\"\n\n\"You are correct about that.\"\n\n\"I cannot get away from the belief that I ought to join that church that\nseems to come nearest to holding those truths that I hold.\"\n\n\"Maybe there is no such church, daughter,\" said the father. \"What other\nchurches are there, Mr. Sterling? I know of a few--the Methodist, the\nEpiscopal, the Catholic--\"\n\n\"I am sorry I must leave this charming circle, but let us take up the\nother denominations tomorrow evening.\"\n\n\"Good,\" said the father. \"We shall expect you, then, tomorrow evening.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE DISCIPLE PREACHER.\n\n\nThe next morning was spent by Dorothy at the library searching through\nencyclopedias and making full notes. On the next evening the discussion\nwas resumed.\n\n\"Well, here we are,\" said the father, coming into the library a short\nwhile after supper. He had heard Mr. Sterling's voice. \"Now let us take\nup the subject of the other churches.\"\n\nSterling was anxious to get into that subject, for he felt confident\nthat the result would be that Dorothy would find it as easy to decide\nfor the Presbyterians as for any of the others, and probably more so. He\nbegan with the remark:\n\n\"The other denominations--the Methodist, the Episcopal and the\nCatholic--which you mentioned last night believe just as we do about\nsprinkling, and infant baptism.\"\n\n\"There now,\" said the father, \"you are shut out of four denominations at\nthe start.\"\n\n\"That may be true,\" said Dorothy, with a troubled look on her face, \"and\nyet what else can I do? Is there no church, Mr. Sterling, that believes\nthat only immersion is baptism and that only believers ought to be\nbaptized?\"\n\n\"Yes, there is one denomination--the Campbellites, or rather the\nDisciples--for they do not like the first name. The Disciples believe\nonly in immersion and the immersion of believers. They are the only\ndenomination that teach this except, I believe, the Baptists; but of\ncourse you would not join them.\"\n\n\"It looks, daughter, as if you are shut up to the Disciples.\"\n\n\"But think, Miss Dorothy, these Disciples have just started up not a\ngreat many years ago. They are a small denomination and with few\nchurches.\"\n\n\"That does not make any difference. Believing as I do about the Bible, I\nwould certainly feel more comfortable with them, than with some other\ndenominations whose doctrines I could not accept. It seems to me I would\nhave to cry out and not keep quiet.\"\n\n\"But how do you know that you would believe the other doctrines of the\nDisciples? You seem to have fallen suddenly in love with them.\"\n\n\"What do they believe?\"\n\n\"They believe in baptismal regeneration.\"\n\n\"My, those are words!\" said Dorothy with a smile.\n\n\"What do you mean by that, Mr. Sterling?\" asked Mr. Page.\n\n\"They believe that a person's sins are washed away in baptism.\"\n\n\"Washed away in baptism?\" asked Dorothy with amazement. \"Are you sure\nthey believe such a strange doctrine?\"\n\n\"I know it. I have heard their ministers say that a person was not saved\nuntil he was baptized.\"\n\n\"What, even though the person had believed in Christ?\"\n\n\"They say that such a person is only partly saved and not completely\nsaved until he is baptized.\"\n\n\"I can't understand, Mr. Sterling, what you mean by being partly saved.\nDon't you reckon you have been misinformed about these people?\"\n\n\"I have been told that there is a Disciple preacher that lives here in\ntown,\" said the father, \"and that he has two churches out in the county,\nbut makes his home here. Suppose you capture him, Sterling, and march\nhim up here to speak for himself, and tell him you have a prospective\nmember for him.\" The last remark was accompanied with a smile at\nSterling and a wink towards the daughter.\n\n\"No, indeed, you must not tell him that,\" spoke up Dorothy. \"And yet I\nshould like to hear about the doctrines of his church. I want to know my\nduty and I desire all the light I can get.\"\n\nSterling felt sure that Dorothy would recoil from the doctrines of the\nDisciple church.\n\nOn the next evening at eight o'clock Mr. Sterling arrived, bringing the\nRev. Mr. Garland, the Disciple minister. He was a striking figure.\nYoung, tall and with classic face and fluent speech, he commanded\nattention at his first word. Sterling saw that he was captured\nimmediately by Dorothy's beauty, and he thought that he also noticed\nthat the handsome young preacher was not entirely unobserved by\nDorothy. But the shadowy suspicion flitted out of his mind as rapidly\nas it had slipped in. Not a great many words were spent in\npreliminaries. Mr. Sterling soon remarked:\n\n\"Miss Dorothy, I have told Mr. Garland about the earnest study you are\nmaking of the different churches. The question came up, Mr. Garland, as\nto the doctrines of your church. I told them your church believed in\nimmersion as baptism and also in the immersion of none but believers.\"\n\nMr. Garland with a bow indicated that Sterling had stated the case\ncorrectly.\n\n\"I also said that your church believed in baptismal regeneration.\"\n\n\"Oh, never!\" replied Mr. Garland.\n\n\"I thought you believed that a person was not saved until he was\nbaptized.\"\n\n\"Yes, but that is a very different statement from your first one.\"\n\n\"What is the difference? If he is not saved until he is baptized, then I\nshould think his baptism must have something to do with his salvation.\"\n\n\"Here is my position: 'The Bible declares that he that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved'. Note that not he that believeth shall be\nsaved, but he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That shows\nthat it takes both believing and baptism to save a person.\"\n\n\"How about the thief on the cross? He was saved without baptism, don't\nyou think so?\"\n\n\"Baptism was impossible for him, and God does not require\nimpossibilities. Besides, that was an unusual case and Christ made an\nexception in his conversion and salvation.\"\n\n\"But does the Bible say it was an exceptional case? If he could be saved\nwithout baptism, why not others? But let me remind you that you did not\nread to the end of that passage that you quoted just now. You read a\npart--'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'--but read the\nremainder of the verse.\"\n\nMr. Garland repeated the other part of the verse as follows: \"He that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\"\n\n\"Exactly,\" said Sterling. \"That seems to teach that believing is the\nimportant thing. He does not say that a person is lost if he leaves out\nboth believing and baptism, but simply if he leaves out believing, as if\nbelieving was the necessary thing for salvation. If baptism had been a\nnecessary part of salvation, Christ would have said 'he that believeth\nnot and is not baptized shall be damned'.\"\n\n\"Not at all. There are two things necessary to salvation, believing and\nbaptism, and leaving out either one of them is sufficient to cause a\nperson to be lost. You have to mention both of them in stating what is\nnecessary for salvation, but you need mention only one of them which, if\nneglected, will cause a person to be lost.\"\n\n\"You think, then, Christ could also have said 'he that is not baptized\nshall be damned'? Would a believer in Christ be lost if he were not\nbaptized?\"\n\n\"If he could be baptized and would not be, then I think he would be\nlost.\"\n\n\"Mr. Garland,\" said Dorothy, \"really I cannot understand what you mean.\nMr. Sterling said that he thought your denomination believed that in\nbaptism the water washed away a person's sins. You say you do not\nbelieve that. Do you think the water has any magic about it? If Mr.\nSterling should immerse a person, would that water help to make him a\nsaved person?\"\n\n\"No, not that. I do not believe the water has any spiritual cleansing or\nsaving efficacy, and I don't think it does anybody any good whatever\nunless the person first believes in Christ. I think believing is one\npart and that baptism is the second part.\"\n\n\"You don't think, then,\" asked Mr. Sterling, \"that a person is saved\nsimply by believing?\"\n\nAt this point a message came for Mr. Sterling that he was wanted at his\nhome on an important matter. \"Too bad,\" he said, \"for this discussion is\ngetting mighty interesting. I hate to miss any of it.\"\n\n\"We will hold it until your return,\" said Dorothy. \"I will try to keep\nMr. Garland contented during your absence.\"\n\nSterling could not understand why she should be so contented to have him\nleave and should so happily accept Mr. Garland's company. The thought\nthat he might not be able to return that night irritated him.\nFortunately, he was successful in attending in a few minutes to the\nmatter that called him home, and in less than twenty minutes he was\nhurrying back across the lawn to the Page library.\n\n\"Hello,\" said the father, \"you must have chartered the lightning\nexpress. But we held up the proceedings until your return and are now\nready to get down to business again. Where were we when you left?\"\n\n\"I had just asked Mr. Garland if he believed a person was saved simply\nby believing, and he remarked that he did not. I would like to ask Mr.\nGarland this question: What about the inquiry that the Philippian jailer\nput to Paul and Silas? You remember that when the jailer was converted\nhe came in trembling before Paul and Silas and said: 'Sirs, what must I\ndo to be saved?' And what did they answer? Believe on the Lord Jesus\nChrist and thou shalt be saved.' Not one word, you see, about baptism.\"\n\n\"You would think,\" said Dorothy, \"that they would have said 'believe on\nthe Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and thou shalt be saved', would\nyou not, Mr. Garland?\"\n\n\"Yes, but you notice that just a little while afterwards that very night\nthe jailer was baptized. You see the baptism had to come. In fact,\nbaptism always came immediately after believing. It was a necessary\npart, and the work was not complete until the baptism had taken place.\"\n\n\"But does that prove that the baptism was a part of the man's conversion\nor salvation?\" asked Sterling. \"Suppose the person had fallen dead just\nafter he had believed and before any baptism was performed on him, would\nhe not have been saved? If so, I think it proves that he was saved\nsimply by believing, and that baptism is simply a matter of obedience.\"\n\n\"By the way, Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"you remember that passage in\nRomans where it speaks of being buried by baptism. We found that baptism\nwas a picture of something that had already taken place in the person's\nheart and life--that he had been buried to his old life and risen to a\nnew life. It is not baptism, therefore, that helps to make the change in\na person, but it simply pictures the change that has already taken\nplace.\"\n\n\"What is the use of a person being baptized?\" asked Mr. Garland, \"if he\ncan be saved without being baptized?\"\n\n\"Mr. Garland, I trust that I have already been saved by believing in\nChrist. I want to be baptized, however, not to help me to be saved, for\nif I am not saved now I certainly do not think my going down into the\nwater will make me any more saved. I simply want to be baptized because\nChrist was baptized and because he commands all who believe in him to be\nbaptized, and because all those who claimed to believe in him in the\ndays of the apostles were baptized. I reckon I will find from the Bible\nthat there are a great many other things besides baptism that I must do,\nbut that does not mean that the doing of all these things is a part of\nmy conversion or salvation.\"\n\n\"I guess you take up these duties because you are already a Christian\nand already saved. If you were not already a Christian I guess you would\nnot feel like doing them,\" said the father.\n\n\"I do not exactly agree to that,\" remarked Mr. Garland, \"and yet I do\nnot think we are very far apart. There are some people of our\ndenomination who go to an extreme and declare that the water does wash\naway sins, and they seem to put more stress on the baptism than on the\nbelieving. My doctrine is that every believer must be baptized, and that\nunless he does become baptized he has no right to consider himself\nsaved.\"\n\n\"But that is different,\" said Dorothy. \"Of course, if a person refuses\nto be baptized, although he believes that Christ commands it, why, such\na person has no right to claim to be converted. I can't imagine a\nconverted person flatly refusing to do what he believes Christ commands.\nI cannot understand, Mr. Garland, just what your doctrine about baptism\nis.\"\n\n\"We have another doctrine which I am sure you will like,\" said Mr.\nGarland.\n\n\"What is that?\" asked Dorothy, who was eager to learn everything\npossible about the denomination.\n\n\"We believe in what is called open communion rather than in what is\ncalled close communion.\"\n\n\"I don't understand what you mean.\"\n\n\"I mean this. The Lord gave two ordinances to the church, baptism and\nthe Lord's Supper.\"\n\n\"Yes, that is what Mr. Sterling told us.\"\n\n\"Now as to communion, one of the questions of the day about which\nChristians are divided is the question as to who ought to be admitted to\nthe communion.\"\n\n\"Let me understand clearly about the Lord's Supper. I have read about it\nin the New Testament, but I wish you would explain it to me fully.\"\n\n\"Christ, on the last night that he spent with his apostles, instituted\nthis supper of bread and wine.\"\n\n\"Yes, I have read that.\"\n\n\"He told them that the bread typified his body that was that night to be\nbroken for them, and that the wine poured out typified his blood that\nwas that night to be poured out for them, and that when he was gone they\nmust repeat that ceremony, and they must do that in remembrance of him;\nand that as often as they did that they would show forth his death until\nhe should come again.\"\n\n\"What a beautiful thought! And so that is why the people in the church\nhave the communion? I see it clearly now. What, then, do you mean by\nopen communion?\"\n\n\"I mean that we throw the door to the communion table open. We do not\nsay that nobody but members of our denomination should come to our\ncommunion table, but that anybody who loves the Lord may come.\"\n\n\"You mean anybody who is a Christian?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Well, that would certainly seem proper. Does the Bible specify who\nought to come to the communion?\"\n\n\"We simply have to take the practice of the apostles and early\nChristians. It looks as if all people who loved the Lord were welcome to\nthe table.\"\n\n\"Don't all people believe alike on that point?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Yes, all except the Baptists. They believe that none but Baptist people\nhave any right to the communion.\"\n\n\"Oh, how selfish!\"\n\n\"They believe that unless you have been immersed you must not come to\nthe table,\" said Mr. Sterling, \"and they will not let anybody come to\nthe table when they have it in their church unless he has been baptized\nin their way.\"\n\n\"Why not?\"\n\n\"I don't know, unless it be because they are so ignorant and narrow.\"\n\n\"Maybe they believe,\" ventured Dorothy, \"that a person ought to be\nbaptized before he takes the communion.\"\n\n\"Of course,\" said Sterling, \"that is just what they do believe; and\nsince I come to think of it, our church holds the same position as to\nbaptism. Our church believes that a person must first be baptized.\"\n\n\"You mean,\" said Dorothy, \"that your church and the Baptists believe\nalike on the communion question?\"\n\n\"Not exactly. We both believe that baptism must come before the\ncommunion, but we differ as to what constitutes baptism.\"\n\n\"Does the Bible teach that a person must be baptized before he can\ncommune?\"\n\n\"The Bible teaches that all who believed were immediately baptized. That\nalways seemed to be the first thing they did.\"\n\n\"It seems the natural thing to me,\" said the father, \"for baptism to\ncome first, and before the other duties of the Christian life. In the\npassages which we have studied baptism seemed to follow on the heels of\nbelieving. The question is, however, does the Bible have anything to\nsay on that subject? Does it teach that baptism must come before the\ncommunion?\"\n\n\"I think it would look strange for a person to be going to the communion\ntable before he was baptized,\" said Dorothy.\n\n\"Excuse me, Miss Page,\" said Mr. Garland. \"Is it a question as to what\nyou or I might think ought to be done, or is it a question as to what\nthe Bible teaches? I affirm that the Bible does not state that baptism\nis a prerequisite to the communion.\"\n\n\"That is a somewhat new question to me,\" said Dorothy, looking at Mr.\nSterling, as if he were the proper one to give the answer.\n\n\"We do not have from the lips of Christ the actual words,\" said Mr.\nSterling, \"'ye must be baptized before partaking of the communion', but\nI think it is definitely implied in Scripture. In the first place, take\nthe command of Christ: 'Go ye into all the world and disciple all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy\nGhost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded\nyou.' There you have first baptism, and next observing all things that\nChrist has commanded, and the Lord's Supper is one of these things.\"\n\n\"Very true,\" said Mr. Garland, \"but you exclude the great body of\nChristians from the table simply on your interpretation of that one\nverse.\"\n\n\"Isn't this the proof?\" asked Dorothy. \"In nearly all the passages about\nbaptism we have read we found that baptism always came immediately after\nthe believing; and father, I feel that I must not delay my baptism.\nWhat shall I do, and whom shall I ask to baptize me? I think, Mr.\nGarland, that I ought not to go to the communion table until I have been\nbaptized. That seemed to be the custom in the days of the apostles.\"\n\n\"Suppose people in the days of the apostles did become baptized quickly\nafter conversion,\" said Mr. Garland, \"would that prove that no one has a\nright to commune before he has been baptized?\"\n\n\"I think it does, if we find that in every case the first thing people\ndid after believing was to be baptized. It must mean that they were\ninstructed by the apostles that baptism came first.\"\n\n\"Do you mean that it would have been wrong for them to have done\nanything whatever before baptism?\"\n\n\"Of course they could not cease all activity.\"\n\n\"Why, then, do you pick out the Lord's Supper as something they must not\nengage in until they were baptized?\"\n\n\"Because,\" said Sterling, \"there are two ordinances, and if the\nordinance of baptism always came first, then the other ordinance must\nnot come first, and so I think it is clear that only baptized persons\nhad the right to the table. Don't you remember about the people\nconverted on the day of Pentecost? It reads 'then they that gladly\nreceived his words were baptized', and then in the next verse we read\nthat 'they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrines and prayer\nand in breaking of bread'. Notice 'breaking of bread' came after\nbaptism.\"\n\n\"Does the Bible say anything about who ought to commune or who did\ncommune in those days?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Get your concordance, daughter,\" said the father.\n\nDorothy did so and soon turned to a passage about the Lord's Supper. \"In\nFirst Corinthians, chapter nine, the writer is writing to some people\nabout celebrating the Lord's Supper.\"\n\n\"Is that so!\" exclaimed the father. \"Find out then whom he is writing to\nand who are taking part in that supper, and that will answer your\nquestion.\"\n\n\"It was the Corinthian church,\" said Mr. Sterling.\n\n\"If it was the members of the church who were taking communion, then\nthey must all have been baptized, don't you think so, Mr. Garland?\"\nasked Dorothy.\n\n\"I guess the members of that church at Corinth which was founded by Paul\nwere all baptized.\"\n\n\"It does look plain, then,\" said Dorothy, \"that all those early\nChristians were first baptized and then took the communion and then\nperformed the duties that came up.\"\n\n\"Yes,\" spoke up Mr. Sterling, glad to join the forces with Dorothy\nagainst Garland, \"baptism was a duty to be performed once and for all\ntime and in the beginning, but the communion is something that is to be\nobserved right along through the Christian life at regular times.\"\n\n\"Mr. Garland,\" said Dorothy, \"I can't understand why anyone should want\nto come to the communion table before he is baptized. Why does he not do\nthe first duty first?\"\n\n\"I don't see the point in all this,\" said the father. \"I think it is a\nclear proposition that baptism always comes first after believing and\nbefore communion. But all the churches baptize--Presbyterians,\nDisciples, Methodists and the rest. Why, then, cannot they all commune\ntogether?\"\n\n\"Ah!\" said Mr. Garland with a smile, \"there is the point. These other\ndenominations have been sprinkled, but according to the Bible they have\nnot been baptized. Now if I believed that baptism had to come before\ncommunion, I would not commune with the Presbyterians, Methodists and\nothers who sprinkle, because I do not believe they have been\nscripturally baptized; but even though I think them unbaptized, yet I\nwould invite them to the communion, because I do not think baptism is\nnecessary to the communion.\"\n\n\"That certainly sounds strange,\" said Dorothy. \"Why, I thought you\nconsidered baptism so important that a person could not be saved unless\nhe was baptized; and now you say baptism is not necessary for the\ncommunion. That seems contradictory. I should think if baptism is\nessential to salvation it surely would be essential to taking the\ncommunion. Do you think a person ought to take the communion who has not\nbeen converted?\"\n\n\"Of course not.\"\n\n\"This is what puzzles me,\" said Dorothy. \"You say a person can't be\nconverted without baptism. If an unbaptized person should come to your\ncommunion table claiming to be converted, would you not have to deny his\nconversion because he had not been baptized? You say you do not require\nbaptism before communion, and yet when you require conversion before\ncommunion you thereby require baptism before communion, because you say\nthere can be no conversion without baptism. In other words, you must\nhold that an unbaptized person cannot come to your table.\"\n\n\"That does look like a clear proposition, daughter,\" said Mr. Page.\n\n\"Let me ask you this question, Mr. Garland,\" said Dorothy: \"Why do you\nadmit members of other denominations to your table?\"\n\n\"Because it is not my table, but the Lord's table, and I have no right\nto shut any of his people out.\"\n\n\"You think the members of other denominations are Christians, then, do\nyou?\"\n\n\"Certainly they are; probably as good Christians as we are. We do not\nset ourselves up as being better than others.\"\n\n\"How can you think they are Christians? You do not think with their\nsprinkling and pouring they have been scripturally baptized, do you?\"\n\n\"No, I do not.\"\n\n\"How, then, can you think them converted? I understood you to say that\nnone are perfectly converted and saved until after baptism, and you say\nthat sprinkling and pouring are not Scriptural baptism. Therefore you\nmust think they are not Scripturally converted and saved.\"\n\n\"But such people think they have been scripturally baptized, and they do\nwhat they consider right.\"\n\n\"But do you think it is right?\"\n\n\"It is right for them.\"\n\n\"Do you think anybody will be saved if he will only do what he thinks is\nright for him? Suppose a person should come up and say that he believed\nthat touching the tip of the little finger in the water was baptism,\nwould you say that baptism would be all right for him?\"\n\n\"Well, hardly,\" he said with a laugh.\n\n\"I declare, Mr. Garland,\" said Dorothy, \"you confuse me. I really don't\nunderstand what you believe. It may be my stupidity. I wish I did\nunderstand. One thing, however, seems clear to me, and that is that in\nthe Bible teaching the first thing that comes after conversion is\nbaptism. I certainly do not think that I ought to go to the communion\ntable in a church before I have been baptized.\"\n\n\"You don't seem to be able to accept the views of Mr. Garland's\ndenomination,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"I want to say,\" said Mr. Garland, \"that there are variations within our\nown ranks. In some sections of the country our denomination is more\nradical in its views than in other sections. In the East our people are\nnot so pronounced as we of the West are in regard to the relation of\nbaptism to salvation.\"\n\nIn response to Sterling's remark to Dorothy about her accepting the\ndoctrines of the Disciples, she replied:\n\n\"No, I cannot accept the views of Mr. Garland. I am not sure that I\nunderstand clearly what his doctrines are, and yet from what he has said\nabout free or open communion and baptism I must say they do not seem to\nme to be in accordance with the Bible teaching. I am speaking frankly,\nMr. Garland. I have been interested in your statement of the doctrines\nof your church, and I thank you for telling me about them.\"\n\n\"I am sorry that you have not had an abler champion of our doctrines to\npresent them to you,\" said Garland with a smile. \"If you can't join us\nyou can't join the Methodists, nor the Presbyterians, nor the\nEpiscopalians. You are therefore shut up to the Baptists.\"\n\n\"Oh, I do not think I could join them, either. What do you mean, Mr.\nSterling, exactly by their close communion?\"\n\n\"I mean that they think they are better than anybody else, and that\nnobody but Baptists have any right to partake of the Lord's Supper. They\nare an ignorant, bigoted set and think that nobody can be saved who is\nnot put under the water.\"\n\n\"Well, the Disciples believe that, don't they, Mr. Garland?\"\n\n\"Ah, but not in the way the Baptists believe it,\" spoke up Sterling.\n\"Miss Dorothy, there is a little Baptist mission here in the eastern\npart of town. I will take you over there that you may take a look at\ntheir base of operations, and I think a sight of it will set at rest any\nfurther inquiries as to the Baptists.\"\n\nThe members of the little Baptist mission to which Sterling referred\nworshiped in a plain, unsightly frame chapel. The city had raised the\nstreet that ran in front of the building so that the lot on which the\nchapel stood was left several feet below the level of the pavement and\ncould be reached only by a rough board stairway from the street to the\ndoor of the building. Here a Baptist minister had been ministering to a\nsmall and struggling flock in connection with two other churches out in\nthe county. The members were poor and many of them unlearned, and the\npastor with such a poor building equipment found his task a difficult\none.\n\n\"Daughter, I think you want to keep away from that Baptist crowd,\" said\nMr. Page. \"They are very small fry and I would hate to see you tied up\nwith such folks.\"\n\n\"I have no intention of joining them, and yet I am much bewildered over\nthis matter of church membership. What must I do? I cannot unite with\nany of these denominations that I have heard about without doing wrong\nto my conscience.\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy, you do not have to endorse all the beliefs that every\nmember of your church holds,\" said Sterling. \"Where will you find such a\nchurch? Each person must interpret the Bible for himself and be\naccountable to God only. If a church is composed of Christian people,\nwhy is not that the essential thing, and why can you not join with them?\nYou will have to live in Heaven with them, and why can you not live with\nthem here?\"\n\n\"I am living with them here. I mingle freely with them, but when\nChristians divide themselves up and group themselves according to their\ninterpretations of Bible teaching, then I must join myself with those\nwho interpret the Bible as I do.\"\n\n\"But suppose you cannot find any church group or denomination that\ninterprets the Bible as you do; what will you do? You have not found\nsuch a people yet. Suppose you do not find such, will you stay out of\nall the churches?\"\n\n\"That is a puzzling question. I am not sure just now what I ought to do\nif I find no denomination believing as I do. But really, I would rather\nstand alone, keeping loyal to my convictions regarding the Bible, than\nto compromise them in order to join some church. This is all very new to\nme, but I am determined to stand alone rather than go against my\nreligious convictions. I know that each individual must interpret the\nBible as best he can, and it must be his own conclusion, his own\nconviction, and I certainly shall not join a church whose doctrines I\nthink are contrary to the Bible. Such a church is no place for me. I\nwould be uncomfortable and I would be in constant controversy with the\nmembers.\"\n\n\"Well, there is no sin in controversy,\" said Sterling. \"Our discussions,\nI hope, have not been very wicked. In fact, such discussions are often\nthe best means for bringing people to see the truth. Why not come into\nour church simply on the ground that we are Christians like yourself,\nand then try to teach the other members the truths which you hold and\nwhich you think we ought to embrace? In other words, I should think you\nwould have the best reason for coming in among us because we need the\ntruth--according to your view--and you could come and sow the good seed\namong us.\"\n\n\"Oh, Mr. Sterling, what a strange thing you are saying. You surely don't\nmean it. Do you say that your church will take in people no matter what\nthey believe?\"\n\nSterling saw in a flash that in his eagerness to save Dorothy from\njoining some obscure sect he was advocating an impossible procedure.\n\nDorothy continued: \"Your church has its own special doctrines, does it\nnot?\"\n\n\"It does,\" said Sterling, seeing in advance the point to which she was\naiming.\n\n\"Would your church accept a person who should apply for membership who\nshould declare he could not accept the teachings of your church because\nhe thought them unscriptural?\"\n\n\"I surrender on that point, my fair antagonist,\" said Sterling with a\nsmile. \"But I will take down the church bars any fine morning for you\nand help you over the line into our ranks whenever you decide to come. I\nthink I could swallow my Presbyterian doctrines or lay them on the shelf\nfor a few days under those conditions, because I think in a short while\nafter you had come in and gotten well acquainted with our denomination\nyou would discover we are not far apart after all.\"\n\n\"Oh, Mr. Sterling, how can you talk in that fashion? I like a person who\nbelieves something, and though I may not agree with him, I can respect\nhim for his convictions.\"\n\n\"That's a straight thrust you are giving me, and I guess I deserve it,\nbut it was the thought of the fair recruit for our ranks that got my\nlogic and my Presbyterianism into a mixup. So if I was guilty of\ninconsistency I must blame my accuser. But seriously, it looks as if you\nare shut up to joining the Baptists.\"\n\n\"No, Mr. Sterling, I do not have to join any denomination unless my\nconvictions lead me to them. But why do you keep mentioning the\nBaptists? Are my beliefs nearer to theirs than to those of any other\ndenomination?\"\n\n\"Oh, no; I was joking that time. You do not believe as they do. Please\nconsider them out of the question.\"\n\n\"Mr. Sterling, you make me curious to know what these Baptists do\nbelieve. Could we not get the pastor to explain their doctrines?\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy, that is not at all necessary,\" with a show of impatience.\n\"I can give you their views. It is true they believe in immersion, but\nthey have a horrible view about it. They believe that unless you are\ndipped you are doomed. They think infant baptism was born in the lower\nregions, and as for the communion they are as close as a clam, and in\naddition to this they have achieved brilliant success in the matter of\nignorance and bigotry.\"\n\n\"Daughter,\" said Mr. Page with much earnestness, \"keep on the other side\nof the road from that gang. There are some things that a father knows\nbetter than a daughter.\"\n\n\"Father, you would not object to my hearing a Baptist preacher tell\nwhat his denomination believes, would you?\"\n\nIt occurred to the father that that would be the quickest plan for\ncuring Dorothy of any curiosity she might have about the Baptists. He\nthought that a sight of that preacher would show her the impossibility\nof her linking herself with his people, and so he said:\n\n\"Yes, daughter, that will be all right. Hear the preacher. Let us all\nhear him and get his side of the question.\"\n\n\"Mr. Page,\" said Sterling, \"I think it would be humiliating to you and\nyour family to be entering into negotiations with that preacher about\nthe views of his sect.\"\n\n\"Mercy, are they so very terrible?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"They are not a wicked people, so far as I know,\" said Sterling. \"They\nare a fairly good sort of people probably. In fact, our country is a\nfruitful soil for all manner of sects, with all sorts of peculiar\ndoctrines.\"\n\n\"Are the Baptists a regular denomination like the other denominations?\"\n\n\"In a sense I guess they are, and yet they are not in a class with the\nother prominent denominations.\"\n\n\"Sterling, suppose you get hold of that Baptist preacher and march him\nup for our investigation,\" said Mr. Page.\n\nMr. Walton was the pastor of the little Baptist church. He was also\npastor of two country churches, each of them several miles from town,\nbut as the town was about midway between the two points, Mr. Walton\nchose the town as his home.\n\nHe was much surprised next morning to receive a visit from the rich\nyoung Presbyterian elder, and still more surprised when Mr. Sterling\ntold him the object of his visit. He listened with interest as Mr.\nSterling told of Miss Page's desire to know the beliefs of the different\ndenominations, \"and of course\", continued Mr. Sterling, \"she does not\nwish to leave out any denomination.\" He said this in a tone that seemed\nto hint that, while the Baptists were hardly worth considering, yet they\ncalled themselves a denomination and therefore could not be omitted. Mr.\nWalton stated that he held himself ready always to give a reason for the\nfaith that was in him, and that if Miss Page desired to know the\ndoctrines held by his people he would cheerfully explain them to her. He\nwas unwilling, however, he said, to force his views upon the young lady.\nIt was finally agreed that Mr. Walton would call at Mr. Sterling's\nhouse, and that together they would go next door to the Pages'.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nA BAPTIST ON THE WITNESS STAND.\n\n\nAt eight o'clock that evening Mr. Sterling and Rev. Mr. Walton were\nushered into the library of the Page mansion. Mr. Walton was fifty-three\nyears of age, a man of native gifts, a certain degree of culture and\nalso with college and seminary training. He could not exactly explain\nit, but he had not been put entirely at his ease by the bearing of Mr.\nSterling on that morning in their first conversation. He had determined,\nhowever, to make the visit and meet the issue as it came. The family\nsoon appeared and a battery of curious glances were opened upon the\npreacher in his plain but neat garb. Mr. Page thought that Dorothy's\nfirst view of the brother would settle the question for her. There was a\nself-containment and a lack of self-consciousness on the part of the\npreacher that was not unnoticed by Sterling. Soon after the arrival of\nMr. Walton, Rev. Mr. Garland, the Disciple preacher, also appeared. On\nthe previous evening he had been invited by Dorothy to return and join\nthe circle on the next evening, when Mr. Walton was to tell about his\ndenomination. After some preliminary chatting the conversation was\nturned into the main channel.\n\n\"Mr. Walton,\" said Mr. Sterling, \"in our discussion last evening I\nstated that the Baptists believe that immersion is the only form of\nScriptural baptism. Did I state your position correctly?\"\n\n\"You did,\" quietly replied the visitor.\n\n\"I also stated that your denomination teaches that infant baptism is\nwrong. Is that a fact?\"\n\n\"It is.\"\n\n\"Next as to communion. Your denomination believes, does it not, that\nnone but Baptists will be saved and that therefore only Baptists can\ncome to the communion table?\"\n\n\"Mr. Sterling, I am sure you do not intend it, but your statement\nwoefully misrepresents my denomination. We hold no such theory. I am\naware that we are often charged with having a lofty opinion of ourselves\nand a contemptuous opinion of other denominations. Such a statement does\nus great injustice. We do not think ourselves better than others; in\nfact, they may reach higher standards of piety than we do. Certainly we\nhave no words of praise for ourselves. We love all our brethren in\nChrist and are happy to join with them in different forms of activity.\"\n\n\"What about the communion?\" asked Mr. Sterling. \"Are you willing to let\nother denominations commune with you?\"\n\n\"That is a matter they must decide for themselves.\"\n\n\"Would you permit a member of another denomination to come to your\ncommunion table?\"\n\n\"If the person considered himself qualified to come I would not seek to\nput him out.\"\n\n\"Why, that is startling, Mr. Walton,\" said Mr. Sterling. \"I understood\nthat Baptists thought the other denominations were not qualified to come\nto the table.\"\n\n\"Very true,\" said Mr. Walton. \"But you asked me first if I would permit\nsuch a person to come to the table, and I said I would not seek to keep\nsuch a person out. We keep no policeman to guard the Lord's table, but\nif you ask me whether I think such a person is qualified to come and\nought to come, that is another question and I answer, no.\"\n\n\"Why not?\"\n\n\"My reason is this. The Bible teaches that all who partook of the Lord's\nSupper in the days of the apostles first believed in Christ and next\nwere baptized upon a profession of faith. In other words, the New\nTestament seems to lay down these steps--first faith in Christ, next\nbaptism and then the partaking of the communion and the other duties of\nthe Christian life.\"\n\n\"We invite to our table all who love the Lord,\" said Mr. Garland. \"We\ncare not what church a person belongs to if only he is a consistent\nchurch member.\"\n\n\"Would you invite me to your table in your church, Mr. Walton?\" asked\nSterling.\n\n\"You speak of my inviting you to my table as if it were a table in my\ndining room. But remember, it is not my table at all. It is the Lord's\nSupper spread in my church. The members of my church anxious to carry\nout the command of Christ that we observe this supper in memory of him\ncome together at regular intervals for that purpose. I have never felt\ncalled upon to look out over the entire community to decide whom I\nwould invite to this table.\"\n\n\"But is it not your duty as a Christian minister to invite the people to\ncome?\"\n\n\"It is my duty to explain the nature of the supper and also to state the\nqualifications that ought to be possessed by those who come to the\ntable. I am always willing to try to make it plain who I think are\nentitled to come to the table, but I hardly think I am commanded to pick\nout a list of people to be invited to the table. I state the conditions\nand each one must decide whether he ought to come.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said Mr. Sterling, \"I will put my question in another form. Do\nyou think I am entitled to come to the Lord's table in your church and\ncommune?\"\n\n\"In reply I would say that, while I have respect for your Christian\nprofession, yet I think you are not entitled to come to the communion\nbecause I do not think you have been baptized.\"\n\n\"Yes, I know you think that, but why do you not leave the communion\nmatter to me? If it is the Lord's table, and if I am satisfied with my\nbaptism and am baptized in the manner in which the Bible seems to me to\nteach, why should I not commune?\"\n\n\"That is for you to decide, Mr. Sterling, but I think you have left out\none of the steps that, according to the Bible, ought to precede the\nsupper, and that is baptism. I am bound to think you have left out that\nstep, and therefore I think the thing for you to be interested in is not\nthe taking of the communion, but the being properly baptized. For me to\ninvite you to the table would be wrong. If I felt called on to invite\nyou to anything it would be to the proper Scriptural baptism. If you\ncome to my table I will not put you out. You are responsible for your\nactions, but if my opinion is asked about your action I can only say I\nthink you would be communing without having taken the previous step of\nbaptism which the Bible requires.\"\n\n\"But according to my best judgment, I have taken the step of baptism. I\nhave chosen the form of baptism which I believe the Bible teaches. Would\nyou ask more of me than that?\"\n\n\"I endorse your sincerity, Mr. Sterling, but you surely would not expect\nme to say I believe that you have followed the Scriptural baptism. I am\nbound to believe that you have not met the Scriptural requirements for\ncoming to the table. I do not try to force my opinion on you. I simply\nhave my opinion, which of course I am ready at any proper time to state.\nPeople who have not been immersed know that we have this opinion\nregarding their baptism, and they seem to take offense because we hold\nsuch a view regarding their baptism. Because we think they have omitted\none of the preliminary steps to the table they call us close in our\ncommunion.\"\n\n\"It looks as if you are close in your baptism rather than in your\ncommunion,\" said Dorothy. \"And is that what is meant by the close\ncommunion of the Baptists?\"\n\n\"I do not know what our critics always mean when they speak of our close\ncommunion,\" said Mr. Walton, \"but that is our position. I know that here\nand there in our own denomination there are those who are open in their\ncommunion--that is, they will invite Christians of all denominations.\"\n\n\"What, whether they have been immersed or not?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Oh, I can't see any consistency in that. If I were a Baptist I would\ncertainly be a close communion Baptist in the sense that Mr. Walton has\nexplained it; that is, I think that people ought to be Scripturally\nbaptized before coming to the communion table, and I certainly don't see\nanything so terrible in holding such an opinion.\"\n\n\"It is a very ugly doctrine in the eyes of many,\" said Mr. Walton, \"but\nI take this view of it. If the Bible had given us the two ordinances,\nbaptism and communion, and had said nothing at all about the order in\nwhich they were to be observed and we were left free to choose their\norder, then we would not be able to speak so positively; but when we\nfind in the Bible that baptism is always put immediately after\nbelieving, and that the Lord's Supper is never put in this order, then I\nthink it is clear that baptism is expected always to come first. And if\nit came first in Bible times, why should anyone now wish to reverse the\norder?\"\n\n\"Let me ask you a question,\" said Sterling. \"You say a person ought to\nbe immersed before coming to the table. Suppose a person has believed in\nChrist and been immersed and joins a Methodist church. You would then\nhave a Scripturally baptized Christian. Would you permit such a person\nto commune with you?\"\n\n\"You speak of my permitting such a person to commune with me. In the\nfirst place, I doubt whether such a person would want to commune with\nme. I never find such people coming to our church asking to commune with\nus. We do not have guards before our table. We simply have our views as\nto those who are properly qualified and the people know it.\"\n\n\"Would you think that this immersed Methodist ought to commune with\nyou?\"\n\n\"Why do you say 'commune with me'?\"\n\n\"I will change the question, then. Do you think that an immersed\nMethodist ought to partake of the communion anywhere?\"\n\n\"I think not, as long as he occupies that position. But of course he can\nfollow his own convictions. If, however, he should ask my opinion, I\nwould tell him I think he is living in disorderly fashion. He believes\nthat immersion only is the Scriptural baptism, otherwise he would not\nhave sought immersion when the prevailing mode in the Methodist church\nis sprinkling. Believing thus about baptism he yet throws his membership\nwith a church that seeks to put another form of baptism in the place of\nthe Scriptural baptism. I think that is wrong. He is a Baptist by\nconviction, and yet for social or other reasons he joins a church of a\ndifferent faith. Why does he not join the church of his own faith?\nBesides, in joining that church he is linking himself with an\norganization that teaches and practices not only sprinkling in the place\nof immersion, but also infant baptism. I would have to say to such a\nperson, if he should ask my opinion, 'Sir, I think your first duty is\nnot to go to the communion, but to get the matter of your church\nrelationship straightened out'.\"\n\n\"But suppose he should say he believed in infant baptism and therefore\ncould not join the Baptist church? Suppose he should say he believed in\nall the other doctrines of the Methodist church except their view of\nsprinkling, and that even on the point of baptism the Methodists\nbelieved in immersion as one form of baptism, else they would not have\nimmersed him. What would you say to him then? There you would have a\nperson Scripturally baptized and joining the church that came nearest to\nhis convictions, and now do you say that such a person ought to keep\naway from the communion?\"\n\n\"Mr. Sterling, I think that is an impossible case. In the first place,\nhow could that person believe in infant baptism if he believed in\nimmersion? Infant baptism is only by sprinkling. Could that person\nendorse the sprinkling of infants? I doubt whether you will find a\nperson believing that only immersion is baptism and yet believing that\ninfant baptism is Scriptural. But granting this, you ask if that person\nought to keep away from the table. I answer that if that person thinks\nhis position is correct, and he desires to commune, let him take the\nresponsibility. I think he is violating the Scripture. I do not believe\nthe apostles would have advised such a person going to the communion. I\nthink they would have instructed him on the subject of infant baptism\nand any other important Bible doctrines that the person was neglecting,\nand they would have sought to set him right on these things before\nadvising him to go to the communion, and if he had refused to follow the\nScripture, even though he was sincere in his action, I do not believe\nthe apostles would have countenanced his partaking of the communion.\nThat is simply my view of it. The responsibility rests with him, and he\nmust follow his conscience; only let him be sure that he studied the\nBible teaching on the point as thoroughly as possible. I certainly would\nnot invite such a person to our table, because if such a person were a\nmember of my church and should accept and practice the infant baptism\nand give his influence to propagating that and the other doctrines of\nthe Methodists, he would have to be excluded from our membership; and if\nsuch a person would have to be excluded from our membership he surely\ncould not be invited to our communion table. There would be no\nconsistency in that.\"\n\n\"That seems plain,\" said Mr. Page, who had been a silent, interested\nlistener.\n\n\"This is what we believe on the subject, but, as I said a moment ago, we\ndo not force our views on others. They are generally brought up against\nus. They attack us about our close communion and thus compel us to state\nour views as to the communion. People know that we have positive\nconvictions about the relation between baptism and the Lord's Supper,\nand yet they seem horrified if we stand by these convictions and follow\nthem to their logical conclusion.\"\n\n\"Well, well,\" said Dorothy, \"I think this abuse of the Baptists is much\nado about nothing. I do not see how the Baptists could occupy any other\nposition than they do about the communion as long as they believe as\nthey do about baptism.\"\n\n\"Mr. Walton, what about myself?\" asked Mr. Garland. \"Would you permit me\nto commune at your table?\"\n\n\"Permit you? Mr. Garland, I have stated that we do not turn anybody\naway.\"\n\n\"Exactly. But you make it plain whom you want and it amounts to a\nprohibition. Nobody wants to go where he is not wanted. But tell me, do\nyou think I have taken the necessary steps before communion? I have\naccepted Christ as my Savior, I have been immersed and am a member of a\nchurch that believes in immersion as the only baptism and that does not\nbelieve in infant baptism. These are the same doctrines as those held by\nthe Baptists. Would you therefore say that I am qualified to come to the\ntable?\"\n\n\"I have always understood, Mr. Garland, that your view of baptism was\nnot the same as ours; that you regard baptism as a necessary part of\nconversion, and in that respect we think you have made a mistake\nregarding baptism. Scriptural baptism is one of the steps laid down to\nbe taken before the communion, and consequently I think you have not\ntaken that particular step. Those who partook of the communion in\nChrist's day were baptized because they had believed and were already\nsaved, but you have been baptized in order to be saved. Yours is a\ndifferent kind of baptism from the Bible baptism.\"\n\n\"I thought immersion constituted baptism?\"\n\n\"Ah, that is a mistake very frequently made. There is something else in\nbaptism besides the form. There must be the right motive as well as the\nright mode. I think that when you go down into the water, not that you\nmay typify your death to your old life and your rising to a new life--a\nchange that has already taken place within you--but in order that in\nsome way your baptism may complete your salvation, you rob baptism of\nits chief glory. It is not the same baptism that Christ commanded. He\ndid not go down into the water in order to be saved nor in order that it\nmight work any change in him, but simply to show forth certain truths\nand to fulfill all righteousness.\"\n\n\"I don't believe you have answered my question,\" said Mr. Garland. \"Do\nyou think I am entitled to partake of the communion?\"\n\n\"I am not your judge, but if you ask my opinion I am bound to say that I\ndo not think your baptism was after the Scriptural order--that is, if in\nyour baptism you regarded it as completing your salvation.\"\n\n\"But do you think I have a right to commune?\"\n\n\"You must follow your conscience on that point.\"\n\n\"Would you yourself commune with the Disciples, Mr. Walton?\" asked\nSterling.\n\n\"Why ask such a question, Mr. Sterling? Why should I go to their church\nto commune with them? I have my own church in which to commune.\"\n\n\"I know, but suppose that while visiting in a community you attended\nservice at a Disciple church, and they had the communion and the\nelements were passed around. Would you partake of the supper there?\"\n\n\"I have never been placed in such a position.\"\n\n\"What would you do, Mr. Walton?\"\n\n\"There are many who claim that my communing with you would endorse not\nonly your act in communing, but also your baptism as you teach and\npractice it. If my act would be a practical endorsement of your\ncommunion and your baptism, then I certainly ought not and would not\njoin with you.\"\n\n\"I think you would endorse them,\" said Dorothy, \"if you should sit with\nthem and commune with them.\"\n\n\"I think not,\" said Mr. Garland. \"Each one would be acting for himself\nand your act would not be misunderstood.\"\n\n\"Why should he commune with them?\" asked Dorothy. \"Must not a person\nalways have a reason for communing? Must he commune every time he may\nsee the table spread before him in any church? If Mr. Walton should\nretire from the communion in the Disciple church, or simply should not\ntake the supper, the people would understand that he differed from them\nas to the Scriptural steps required before communion, and it is a\nperson's duty to let his beliefs about Bible teaching be known.\"\n\n\"No, the people generally would not understand Mr. Walton's act in that\nway,\" said Sterling, \"but would simply think Mr. Walton thought himself\ntoo good to commune with them, and this would have a bad effect, and\nthis is the harm of close communion. None of us are perfect, Mr. Walton.\nWe Presbyterians may fall short in some particulars; the Baptists also\nmay not hit the mark at every point. Why not recognize this, and with\ncharity for each other come together around the table of the Lord and\navoid making such unbrotherly distinctions?\"\n\n\"Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"that does not appeal to me at all. If a\nthing is right it is right, and I do not believe we will gain anything\nby putting that aside just to come together. If I believe that the\nDisciples' baptism is not the Bible baptism I do not know of any better\nway I could say that to them than by not joining with them in their\ncommunion. I should think that such loyalty to conviction would do no\nharm and ofttimes might do good.\"\n\n\"Is it not a fact, Mr. Garland, that the different denominations very\nrarely commune with each other?\" asked Mr. Walton.\n\n\"You are correct,\" said Mr. Garland. \"Although we practice open\ncommunion, it is the rarest thing in the world for a member of another\ndenomination to commune with us or for any of our members to commune in\nthe church of any other denomination.\"\n\n\"I can respect a person who differs from me,\" said Dorothy, \"but a\nperson who seems to be so anxious to appear on good terms with me as to\nbe willing to smooth over or minimize his convictions--oh, I want none\nof that. If we differ in our views and think the other is not keeping\nthe Scripture requirement, then let us differ and not pretend that we\nare together or that our differences do not amount to anything.\"\n\n\"I think that their doctrine of close communion has greatly hurt the\nBaptists and kept from them many who would otherwise have joined them,\"\nsaid Mr. Garland.\n\n\"I must differ with you,\" said Mr. Walton. \"If the Baptists abandon\ntheir position on the communion question they could not hold their\nposition on immersion. You know that in England, where the Baptists are\nnot gaining, many of the open communion Baptist churches also have open\nchurch membership, thus admitting people to the church who have not been\nimmersed. Do you know why the Baptists of the South have grown so much\nmore rapidly than the Baptists in all other parts of the world?\"\n\n\"No, I do not,\" answered Mr. Garland.\n\n\"It is because they are strict in their views and stand loyally by their\ndenominational convictions.\"\n\n\"What is another doctrine of your denomination, Mr. Walton?\" asked\nDorothy.\n\n\"Another doctrine is the 'independence of the local church'.\"\n\n\"Independent of what?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"I mean that no pope, priest, presbytery nor bishop, nor any\necclesiastical power has any authority over any local church, but that\nthe church in the conduct of its affairs is entirely independent.\"\n\n\"That sounds like pretty good democracy,\" said Mr. Page.\n\n\"It is democracy, pure and simple,\" said Mr. Walton. \"The Baptist\ndoctrine is that every individual has equal religious rights with every\nother individual, that all members are on a level, that the local\nmembers are capable of managing their own affairs. And, by the way, Mr.\nPage, did you know that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of\nIndependence, got his ideas of democracy largely from a little Baptist\nchurch?\"\n\n\"What is that?\" asked Mr. Page, leaning forward in his chair. \"You say\nthat a Baptist church gave to Mr. Jefferson his ideas of democracy? If\nyou will prove that, Mr. Walton, you will be giving us the livest bit of\nsensation that I have gotten hold of for many a day.\"\n\n\"I have the newspaper here in my pocket that proves what I say. The\nwriter is Rev. Dr. Fishback, of Lexington, Ky., and he writes for the\nChristian Watchman, and he tells of a conversation he had with Elder\nAndrew Tribble, who was a Baptist preacher and whose church was near the\nresidence of Thomas Jefferson, and it was this Baptist church of Mr.\nTribble that gave to Mr. Jefferson his ideas of democracy.\"\n\n\"Do you have in that paper a letter from Mr. Tribble about it?\" asked\nMr. Page.\n\n\"No, but I have a letter from Mr. Fishback telling of the conversation\nhe himself had with this Mr. Tribble about the matter.\"\n\n\"All right, let us have it.\"\n\nMr. Walton opened the paper (The Christian Watchman, a paper that bore\nthe marks of age) and said: \"Here is Dr. Fishback's letter:\n\n\"'Mr. Editor: The following circumstances, which occurred in the state\nof Virginia relative to Mr. Jefferson, was detailed to me by Elder\nAndrew Tribble about six years ago, who since died about ninety-two or\nninety-three years old. The facts may interest some of your readers.\n\n\"'Andrew Tribble was the parson of a small Baptist church which held\nmonthly meetings at a short distance from the Jefferson home nine or ten\nyears before the American revolution. Mr. Jefferson attended the\nmeetings of the church several months in succession, and after one of\nthem asked Elder Tribble to go home and dine with him, with which he\ncomplied. Mr. Tribble asked Mr. Jefferson how he was pleased with their\nchurch government. Mr. Jefferson replied that it had struck him with\ngreat force and had interested him much, that he considered it the only\nform of pure democracy that then existed in the world, and had concluded\nthat it would be the best plan of government for the American colonies.\nThis was several years before the Declaration of Independence.'\"\n\n\"Well, well,\" exclaimed Mr. Page, \"that is mighty interesting. That\nsurely is a big tribute to the Baptists, and that does seem the natural\nform of government for a church.\"\n\n\"But does the Bible say that a church ought to be governed that way?\"\nasked Dorothy.\n\n\"I think the Presbyterian form of government is taught in the\nScriptures,\" said Mr. Sterling; \"in other words, that a church ought to\nbe governed by a body known as the presbytery.\"\n\n\"That means that a larger body should be governed by a smaller body,\ndoes it not?\" asked Mr. Page.\n\n\"Yes,\" answered Mr. Walton.\n\n\"That may be Scripture,\" said Mr. Page, \"but I don't like it.\"\n\n\"I think it is wise as well as Scriptural,\" said Sterling. \"You know\nthat today in all great bodies it is a few leaders that do the thinking\nand planning and directing. Even in the Baptist church, that claims to\nbe a democracy, I'll venture that a few men in each church hold the\nreins. How much better to have a body of wise men to whom all important\nquestions shall be submitted and who shall have general oversight over\nand direction of the affairs of the church.\"\n\n\"I must differ with Mr. Sterling as to the Scriptural plan of church\ngovernment,\" said Mr. Walton. \"I think the Bible clearly teaches that\neach local church in the days of the apostles managed its own affairs.\nWhere have you any record in the Bible, Mr. Sterling, of any presbytery\nor smaller body of men controlling the affairs of any local church?\"\n\n\"I can cite you a case.\"\n\n\"Good,\" said Mr. Page. \"Let us have it.\"\n\n\"The council at Jerusalem drew up a list of requirements that were to be\nbinding on the churches. That looks very much like a body of men\nlegislating for local churches.\"\n\n\"Of course the apostles in their day gave direction for the churches,\"\nsaid Mr. Walton. \"They were inspired to give directions to the\nchurches. In fact, they were the founders of the churches. Christ gave\nthrough them the rules for the churches not only of that day, but of all\nsucceeding days.\"\n\n\"It looks as if the apostles directed the churches, and why do you say\nthe churches managed their own affairs?\" asked Sterling.\n\n\"No, I do not think the apostles managed the churches. The apostles at\nthe first had to give rules for the founding and starting of the\nchurches, but even in the first days the apostles threw upon the\nchurches the responsibilities of their own government. You remember that\nwhen an apostle was to be chosen to take the place of Judas he was not\nchosen by the other apostles, but by all the disciples just as if they\nwere all, disciples and apostles, on a level when it came to voting for\nanything. They cast lots, and I have seen it stated that this casting of\nlots was simply a voting by ballot, and that is the democratic, Baptist\nway. You remember that Christ said that a person having a grievance\nagainst another person must, as a final step, tell it to the church, and\nif the offender would not hear the church then he must be as a heathen\nand a publican. There you see the ultimate authority was lodged in the\nchurch to deal with the offender and not in some presbytery or in some\necclesiastical council. How were the deacons elected? They were told to\nlook out seven men of good report. This was said to the multitude of\ndisciples, and this multitude was to look out from among them the seven\nmen who should be appointed for the purpose. Notice it was not the\napostles that picked out the men, but they made the selection the work\nof the people. In fact, in every church mentioned in the New Testament\nit is plain that there was no ecclesiastical interference in the affairs\nof the church. Even Paul, the founder of the churches, in his letters,\nthrows upon the churches the responsibility of dealing with their\nproblems. In the case of the incestuous man he said 'when your church is\ncome together' cast out this man; that is, 'get your church together and\nlet them act on it'.\"\n\n\"I think you make out a good case, Mr. Walton, and this principle of\ndemocracy is the best thing about the Baptists that I have yet heard,\"\nsaid Mr. Page.\n\n\"There are other interesting facts about the Baptists,\" said Mr. Walton,\n\"but I find I must leave at this point. If you should care to learn more\nabout our denomination I should be glad some time to give you further\ninformation.\"\n\n\"Can't you come again tomorrow night?\" asked Dorothy in an eager manner.\n\n\"An engagement will prevent this, but I could come on some other night.\"\n\nIt was so agreed, though the Pages did not suspect the surprises that\nwere in store for them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nDISCOVERY.\n\n\nAfter the party broke up after their last discussion Mr. Page\ncomplimented the Baptists on their democratic principles of church\ngovernment. \"But, daughter,\" he said, \"it will be impossible for you to\nmingle with that class of people. I am glad for you to know about the\ndifferent denominations, but joining one of them is a horse of a very\ndifferent color, and I am sure you could never be happy tied up with\nthese Baptist people. They may be good folks, but they are evidently a\npoor and obscure folk. I guess they have sprung up mostly in country\ndistricts. I remember in the valley of Virginia where I was reared there\nwas a little Baptist church in the country five or six miles from us.\nThe Presbyterian church, I think, was the strongest and the Baptists cut\nvery little figure in that section, though I confess I did not pay much\nattention to any of them.\"\n\nA large part of the day was spent by Dorothy at the public library\nransacking the encyclopedias searching for something about the Baptists.\nTo her surprise she found a great deal. She was amazed as she read of\nthe part that the Baptists had played in history. Knowing that the\npeople at her home would be interested, she made copious notes during\nher reading.\n\nShe hurried through her lunch that day and informed her mother that she\nwas getting some very important information about the Baptists, and that\nby dinner time she hoped to have it in shape to lay it before the\nfamily.\n\nThe mother thought that of course she was unearthing unfavorable\ninformation about the Baptists that would show Dorothy that she could\nnever identify herself with them.\n\nThat evening Mr. Page, when he reached home, was greeted with the words\nfrom Dorothy: \"Oh, father, I have made a discovery!\"\n\n\"Is it a gold mine under the front porch?\"\n\n\"It is a discovery about these Baptist people. But wait until Mr. Walton\nand Mr. Sterling come and I will tell you.\"\n\nSoon after dinner the two visitors were gathered in the parlor and\nready.\n\n\"Dorothy announces a big discovery,\" said Mr. Page. \"Let us have it,\ndaughter.\"\n\n\"I don't know that any others will be interested in it, but it greatly\nsurprised and interested me. I have learned that these Baptists have had\na remarkable history.\"\n\n\"Remarkable for what, daughter? For obscurity?\"\n\n\"No. They have played an illustrious part in this world's history.\"\n\nThe father's face darkened. The thought of his daughter falling in love\nwith the Baptists struck him in an unpleasant point of his anatomy. The\nlittle Baptist chapel with its plain-looking people and pastor put the\ndenomination in a sorry light before the public.\n\n\"Father, I have been in the library hunting for facts about the\nBaptists. I have read their doctrines and they surely seem to believe\nexactly what the Bible teaches, and their history is a noble and\ninspiring one.\"\n\n\"What did you find out about these Baptists? Where did they come from?\"\n\n\"That is the interesting part. Do you know they are next to the largest\ndenomination in the world except the Catholics?\"\n\n\"What is that, daughter? You evidently got into some fairy tales in the\nlibrary. Why, the Methodists are as large as all the other denominations\nput together, and as for the Baptists, they are but a drop in the\nbucket. Look at them in this town, and I guess the bunch here is a\npretty good sample of them everywhere.\"\n\n\"Oh, father, either those books in the library are wrong or else you and\nlots of other folks are terribly mistaken. The Baptists and the\nMethodists are the two largest denominations in the world, except the\nCatholics.\"\n\nThe father wore an incredulous and bewildered look.\n\n\"There may possibly be a lot of Baptists scattered over the earth,\"\nadmitted Sterling, \"but you must have quality as well as quantity, and\nquality is what the Baptists have not.\"\n\n\"You are prodigiously mistaken,\" replied Dorothy in a vehement manner.\n\"I could hardly believe it myself as I read it; but it is a fact that\nthe Baptists hold a high place in history. One writer says that the\nBaptists are in the front ranks in the matter of education. Two writers\nsay that the great Foreign Mission movement of the present and the past\ncentury was started by the Baptists of England. Another book says they\nhave led in founding and perfecting Sunday schools.\"\n\n\"England?\" said the father. \"I didn't know that any Baptists had ever\nfound their way across the seas to England.\"\n\n\"Why, father, England owes much of her present greatness to the\nBaptists. In the Puritan movement that saved England from Catholicism\nand kept her Protestant the Baptists are said to have played a large\npart.\"\n\n\"When did they come into existence?\"\n\n\"They claim that they have always been in existence since the days of\nthe apostles.\"\n\n\"Well, well, that is a clincher sure.\"\n\n\"Father, it does look as if the truths which the Baptists hold are the\ntruths which Christ taught and which the first Christians practiced; and\nif so, then the first churches were in that sense Baptist churches.\"\n\n\"All of the other churches knocked out at the first blow,\" said the\nfather with a laugh, \"and Christianity starting off with only Baptist\nchurches.\"\n\n\"This history which I read also said that all through the centuries\nsince Christ there seem to have been bands of Christian people\nbelieving substantially what the Baptists of today believe. This was not\nproved with absolute certainty, but all the evidence points that way.\nThe great Roman church came into power and ruled the religious world,\nbut there were always bands of Christians protesting against Catholicism\nand standing up for those truths and practices which they believed the\nBible taught. Baptist historians say that these persecuted churches held\nvery largely what the Baptists of today believe.\"\n\n\"Exactly,\" said Sterling. \"You say that the Baptist historians claim\nthat these Christian sects who in every century protested against\nCatholicism and stood up for Christianity were Baptists. Of course\nBaptist historians claim that these Christians were Baptists. Suppose,\nhowever, you had read Presbyterian histories; who knows but that you\nwould have read that there were in every century Presbyterian churches?\"\n\n\"But how could this be? I read in two or three places that the\nPresbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and many of the other\ndenominations were the fruit of the Reformation, and came after the\nsixteenth century.\"\n\n\"Daughter, you seem to have these histories at your finger ends.\"\n\n\"I do not know very much about them, but I have read everything in the\nlibrary that would throw light upon the matters that we have been\ndiscussing, and I have made full notes from my reading.\"\n\n\"Your statements sound strange, Miss Dorothy,\" said Mr. Sterling, \"for\nthe Baptists evidently were one of those numerous sects that sprang out\nof and were a part of the Protestant Reformation.\"\n\n\"Two or three of the books that I examined said that the Baptists\nexisted before the Reformation and helped to bring about the\nReformation, and that they did much to shape the Reformation both in\nHolland and in England and in other places.\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy,\" said Mr. Sterling, \"the idea seems preposterous to me\nthat the Baptists existed before the Reformation.\"\n\n\"Here is a statement that I read in 'Mosheim's History of Antiquity', in\nwhich he says 'the origin of the Baptists is lost in the depths of\nantiquity'.\"\n\n\"Does Mosheim say that?\" asked Mr. Sterling. \"Why, he was a noted\nwriter.\"\n\n\"I found that three or four hundred years ago the Baptists were called\nAnabaptists, and that they gradually dropped the first part of their\nname.\"\n\n\"What does the word Anabaptist mean?\"\n\n\"It means a rebaptizer. It seems that they insisted when a person who\nhad been baptized in infancy was converted in later life that he should\nbe baptized on profession of faith. They claimed that his infant baptism\nwas not Bible baptism, and so the people called them rebaptizers or\nAnabaptists. And here is one statement that I read: 'It is said that two\nof the presidents of Harvard College were Anabaptists'.\"\n\n\"What is that!\" exclaimed the father, almost bouncing out of his chair.\n\"Two of Harvard's presidents Baptists? Where did you find that\nstatement?\"\n\n\"On page 338 of Gregory's 'Puritanism in the Old World and the New'.\"\n\n\"And you say the Baptists and the Anabaptists are the same?\"\n\n\"Yes, indeed. I find that the names are used interchangeably in the\nhistories, and gradually the shorter name took the place of the longer.\"\n\n\"Two presidents of Harvard? Well! Well! If that Gregory knows what he is\ntalking about, then that is a stunner. I would never have thought it.\nBut go ahead and give us some more.\"\n\n\"Here is something about the Baptist soldiers in Oliver Cromwell's army:\n'The men who made up the new army of Ironsides, which won the victories\nof Naseby and Dunbar, the men who smiled only as they went into battle\nand never counted the odds against them, were not Presbyterians, * * * *\nthey were Independents, the Baptists forming the largest element, men\nwho believed in self-government in the church as well as in the state'.\"\n\n\"Where do you find that?\" asked Sterling with an interested expression.\n\n\"It is on pages 394 and 395 of Campbell's 'The Puritan in His Three\nHomes, Holland, England and America'. And listen to this from the same\nauthor: 'Thus it came about that the persecuted Anabaptists of Holland,\ntaking their doctrines from the early Christians, gave birth to the\npowerful denomination of Baptists, which has played so important a part\nin the history of England and America'.\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy, you amaze me,\" said Sterling.\n\n\"I learn from my reading that the religious liberty which the Christian\nworld is enjoying today is largely due to the Baptists.\"\n\n\"Julius Caesar!\" exclaimed the father. \"What do you think of that,\nSterling?\"\n\n\"Do you mean to say, Miss Dorothy,\" asked Sterling, \"that you found in\nyour reading that the great blessings of religious liberty that are\nenjoyed in this country, and to a certain extent in Europe, are due to\nthe Baptist denomination?\"\n\n\"I find that fact positively stated in many places. Here is something\nfrom the same book of Campbell, 'The Puritan in His Three Homes,\nHolland, England and America', which I mentioned just now. It is on\npages 202 and 203: 'But no words of praise can be too strong for the\nservices which the English Baptists rendered to the cause of religious\nliberty. They went down with Cromwell and suffered a relentless\npersecution after the restoration of the Stuarts, but they have never\nlost their influence as a leaven in the land. In purity of life and\nsubstantial Christian work they have been surpassed by the members of no\nother religious body. Having been the first British denomination of\nChristians to proclaim the principle of religious liberty, they were\nalso the first to send out missionaries to the heathen.'\"\n\n\"Just listen to that!\" exclaimed Mr. Page.\n\nDorothy continued: \"'In fact, if the Anabaptists had done nothing more\nfor the world than to beget such offspring they would have repaid a\nthousand-fold the care shown for their liberties by the Prince of\nOrange in his contest with some of the narrow-minded Calvinists among\nhis associates.'\"\n\n\"Hold on there, you take my breath away,\" said the father.\n\n\"Please note what that says,\" remarked Mr. Walton. \"Those words call\nattention to the purity and high Christian character of the Baptists,\nand to the fact that they were the first in these centuries to send out\nmissionaries to the heathen. It is a fact that the great Foreign Mission\nmovement now encircling the world was first started by the Baptists a\nlittle over a hundred years ago under the lead of William Carey, a\nBaptist. Notice it gives to the Baptists the honor of being the author\nof religious liberty for the world.\"\n\n\"But who is that Campbell?\" asked Sterling.\n\n\"His book is one of the great books of the day.\"\n\n\"Of course,\" said Sterling with a smile.\n\nDorothy read on. \"Here is another statement from Gregory. He is writing\nconcerning the Anabaptists: 'The history of that remarkable people is\nyet to be written, and when it shall have been written an heroic chapter\nshall have been added to the history of the world. The Dutch Anabaptists\nwere Puritans before Puritanism had sprung into recognized existence and\nheld all that Puritanism afterwards contended for.'\"\n\n\"Think of that,\" said Mr. Walton. \"We all know one of the greatest\nreligious movements of the past was Puritanism. It saved England from\nthe blight of Catholicism and made and kept her Protestant. But there\nwere two wings of the Puritan movement; one wing stayed in the English\nchurch and sought to work reforms within the church, and the other wing\nfought the battle on the outside of that church, and of this party the\nBaptists were the foremost fighters. They sounded clear and strong the\ndemand for absolute religious liberty.\"\n\n\"Here is something from Masson's Life of Milton,\" said Dorothy.\n\n\"Let us have it,\" said Sterling. \"That is a standard book.\"\n\n\"On page 90, Vol. III., find this: 'Not to the Church of England,\nhowever, nor to Scotch Presbyterianism, nor to English Puritanism at\nlarge does the honor of the first perception of the full liberty of\nconscience and its first assertion in English speech belong. That honor\nhas to be assigned, I believe, to the Independents in general and to the\nBaptists in particular.'\"\n\n\"Well, well,\" said Mr. Page. \"Sterling, this daughter of mine has indeed\nmade a discovery. I think it is an eye-opener for both of us. But go\nahead, daughter. You seem to have yet other surprises up your sleeve.\"\n\n\"Here is something very interesting.\"\n\n\"And where does it come from this time?\" asked the father.\n\n\"It is also from Masson's Life of Milton, and it is on page 101, Vol.\nIII.: 'In a confession of faith or declaration of faith, put forth in\n1611 by the English Baptists of Amsterdam, just after the death of\nSmith, this article occurs: \"The magistrate is not to meddle with\nreligion or matters of conscience, nor compel men to this or that form\nof religion; because Christ is the King and the Lawgiver of the church\nand conscience.\" It is believed,' continues Masson, 'that this is the\nfirst expression of the absolute principle of liberty of conscience in\nthe published articles of any body of Christians'.\"\n\n\"Just think of that publication by the little Baptist church in\nAmsterdam,\" said Mr. Walton. \"Consider the circumstances. The religious\nworld was at that time under the domination of the Catholic hierarchy.\nThe church and the government locked arms in absolute control of men's\nforms of worship as well as of every phase of human action. The king and\npope prescribed the prayers, the Scripture readings and the forms of\nworship of every citizen; and in the face of it all this little band\ndrew up its declaration of faith to the effect that the government had\nno right to meddle with a man's religion nor to compel men to any form\nof worship because Christ was the King and Lawgiver. Think of the\nboldness of such an announcement. It was an ultimatum hurled by that\nlittle flock at the king, the pope and the civil government and the\nhierarchy.\"\n\n\"That explains all the horrible persecutions of the Baptists in Holland\nthat I read about this morning,' said Dorothy.\n\n\"Very true,\" said Mr. Walton. \"Of course the thunderbolts of the higher\npowers fell upon the heads of the rebellious Baptists, but persecution\nonly fanned the flame of their faith and zeal. They grew and spread.\nThey planted the seeds of their faith on English soil, and we read that\nafter 1660 the English prisons were full of Baptists, and Miss Dorothy\nhas already read of the brave Baptists who formed the flower of\nCromwell's Ironsides.\"\n\n\"What do you mean exactly by saying that the Baptists have given\nreligious liberty to the world?\" asked Mr. Page.\n\n\"I mean this,\" said Mr. Walton. \"Up to the sixteenth century the\nCatholic Church held the so-called Christian world in its grip,\ncontrolled men's consciences and decided how every man was to worship.\nThe Baptists rebelled against any interference with the religious life.\"\n\n\"I thought it was Martin Luther with his Reformation who broke the power\nof the Catholic Church and thus gave birth to religious liberty,\" said\nSterling.\n\n\"The Reformation under Luther did strike a prodigious blow at\nCatholicism, but it was not a fight for absolute religious liberty.\nNever forget that. Lutheranism simply threw off Catholicism to\nsubstitute a state church of its own. In the Reformation in England the\nchurch broke from Catholicism, but it sought to set up a state Episcopal\nchurch. In Scotland a Presbyterian state church was set up, but during\nall this time the Baptists were ever sounding their demand for absolute\nreligious liberty without any interference or help from the government\nand for complete separation of church and state.\"\n\n\"Did not the Baptists bring these principles to this country?\" asked\nDorothy. \"I think I read that they did.\"\n\n\"You are right, Miss Dorothy. Roger Williams, who was a Baptist--\"\n\n\"What is that!\" exclaimed Sterling. \"Roger Williams a Baptist?\"\n\n\"He surely was, and he was the apostle of religious liberty for America.\nAnd how did the clause in the Constitution of the United States granting\nreligious liberty get in there? It was brought about by the Baptists of\nVirginia, who pleaded for it and fought for it and suffered for it.\nBancroft, the historian, states that the Baptists gave religious liberty\nto America, and John Locke states that the Baptists were the authors of\nreligious liberty. And, gentlemen, it is a fact to be borne in mind\nthat, while all Protestant denominations in America today practically\nbelieve in religious liberty, yet it was not always so. The Baptists in\nthis country, single-handed, took up the cause and fought it through to\na finish, and now all denominations are enjoying the benefits of it.\"\n\n\"By the way, Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"I read today that John Milton\nand John Bunyan were Baptists.\"\n\n\"Hold on, Miss Dorothy,\" said Mr. Sterling.\n\n\"It is a fact,\" said Mr. Walton. \"They agreed with the Baptists in their\nfundamental doctrines. You must remember another thing, and that is that\nthe principles of democracy that are sweeping over the world are largely\nthe trophies of the Baptists.\"\n\nMr. Page, with a laugh: \"There he goes gathering up some more of our\ntreasures and claiming them for the Baptists.\"\n\n\"Come, let us vary the exercises with some ice cream,\" said the mother.\n\n\"You think the discussion is getting too warm, do you, mother?\" asked\nDorothy.\n\nThey adjourned to the dining room and a recess was taken.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nBAPTIST PRINCIPLES ON THE MARCH.\n\n\n\"Now let us have the facts about the part the Baptists have played in\ngiving the principles of democracy to the world,\" said Mr. Page.\n\n\"History shows,\" said Mr. Walton, \"that up to the sixteenth century the\nCatholic Church, in league with the government, not only controlled the\nreligious life, but also the civil life of the people. There was neither\nreligious nor civil freedom. The king and the pope ruled all. Then came\nthe demand of the Baptists for absolute freedom, and although their\ndemand had reference to religious freedom, yet the inevitable result of\nthis principle is civil freedom; and in the wake of this came democracy,\nwhich is simply the rule of the people.\"\n\n\"But I do not see that religious liberty necessarily leads to\ndemocracy,\" said Mr. Page.\n\n\"I think it does. Where absolute religious liberty exists for every\nindividual you then have equal rights for all the people, and this is\ndemocracy. Besides, coupled with the doctrine of religious liberty is\nalso the doctrine of the Baptists regarding church government. They\nbelieve the Bible to teach that every local church is independent of\nevery other local church and of any higher government. They believe not\nonly in the independence of the local church, but also of the\nindividual. In other words, each local church was a democracy in which\nall members were on a level, each entitled to a vote in its management\nand the majority controlling. This is democracy. These principles of\ndemocracy have, like a leaven, penetrated the nations.\"\n\n\"You remember, father,\" said Dorothy, \"it has already been mentioned how\nThomas Jefferson got his idea of democracy from a little Baptist\nchurch.\"\n\n\"You are right, daughter; all this is mighty interesting. Go ahead with\nit.\"\n\n\"See the rapid strides that these Baptist principles are making,\"\ncontinued Mr. Walton. \"They are on a world-wide tour of conquest. In\nEngland the Baptists have been in the front of the fight for freedom.\nTheir household goods have been sold again and again in these latter\ndays. Look at Russia. What mean those uprisings of the people against\ntyranny? It is the stirrings of democracy, and the Baptists are bearing\nthe brunt of the battle. I saw at the Baptist World Alliance in\nPhiladelphia some of the Russian Baptists, and I tell you they were\nstalwart-looking heroes indeed. See how in Spain and Portugal the power\nof the hierarchy and of the monarchical government is crumbling. Behold\nChina! What does it mean except the rule of the people supplanting the\nrule of the monarch?\"\n\n\"Yes,\" said the father, \"I noticed in the paper yesterday that the new\npresident, Yuan Shi Kai, had announced religious liberty for the new\nrepublic.\"\n\n\"Think of that. And whence came that boon of religious liberty which the\nnew Chinese president is so generously offering to his great nation?\"\nasked Mr. Walton. \"Who deserves the largest credit? I believe the\nBaptists, who suffered, who fought, who died that they might win it and\nbequeath it to the world, and but for the Baptists I doubt whether there\nwould be any absolute religious liberty--and I had almost said no pure\ndemocracy--in the world today. At least that is my conviction, and I\nbelieve that had it not been for the Baptists we would be having today a\nstate religion in Europe and in America in the sections which are not\ndominated by the Catholic Church. The Baptists refused to creep under\nthe shelter of the government or to receive any benefits whatever from\nit, but declared themselves in their religion absolutely independent of\nthe government.\"\n\n\"Well, gentlemen,\" said the father, \"if all these statements are facts\nof history--and of course I do not deny them--then this is the biggest\neye-opener that I have ever encountered. I could only wish that the\nBaptists in this part of the country--present company excepted, of\ncourse, Mr. Walton--had only remained true, in quality, to the original\nstock. But maybe my opinion, Mr. Walton, may also be due to my\nignorance; don't you reckon so?\"\n\nMr. Page spoke with a smile, and Mr. Walton smiled back.\n\n\"Another interesting thing I found in my reading--\" Dorothy remarked.\n\n\"Hello, is there something else?\" asked the father. \"I guess this time\nwe will be told that the Baptists took part in the creation of the world\nand in the illumination of most of the stars.\"\n\n\"Father, don't make fun of me. These facts deserve serious\nconsideration.\"\n\n\"Good, daughter, go ahead. I really feel very solemn about it all.\"\n\n\"The other thing I found about them was their fearful suffering.\"\n\n\"Yes, that has already been alluded to.\"\n\n\"I know, but you have no idea what a chapter in the world's history\nthese sufferings make. I saw two volumes filled simply with an account\nof the persecutions and sufferings of the Baptists of Holland. They were\nsubjected to all manner of cruelties and tortures to make them give up\ntheir faith, but they stood firm and thousands and thousands in Holland\nalone were put to death. John Milton and John Bunyan were both\nimprisoned for their faith. It was a time when the governments were\nbitter in their punishments and the Catholic Church, and later on the\nother denominations also, were back of these persecutions.\"\n\n\"Yes,\" said Mr. Walton, \"it is a fact that all the denominations were\nagainst the Baptists, and in a sense that has been the case ever since.\nIn this country grievous punishments were visited upon the Baptists\nduring their fight for religious liberty. They began their fight alone,\nbut the world is gradually accepting their beliefs. Other denominations\nmay not take our name, but they are taking our doctrines. I have spoken\nabout religious freedom. Take the case of infant baptism. And, by the\nway, our doctrine of infant baptism has not been picked up by accident.\nIt is logically connected with the doctrine of religious liberty.\"\n\n\"How can that be?\" asked Sterling. \"I fail to see any connection between\ninfant baptism and religious liberty.\"\n\n\"The doctrine of religious liberty means that every individual is\naccountable to God only, and that each man's religion must be an act of\nhis own free choice, and therefore no religious ceremony must be forced\nupon anyone, infant or adult, without his own consent. Infant baptism\nviolates the principles of religious liberty and individual\naccountability. In fact, I think you will find that there is a logical,\nas well as Scriptural, connection between all our Baptist doctrines.\nThis, however, is parenthetical. I started to speak of the spread of\nBaptist principles among other denominations. Three or four hundred\nyears ago the Baptists were almost the only ones to lift their voices\nagainst the universal practice of infant baptism. How is it today?\nThough it is still on the creed books of the other denominations, yet it\nis a fact acknowledged on all sides that the practice is becoming rarer\nand rarer. The Baptist teaching about this practice is permeating the\nother denominations.\"\n\n\"What is that?\" asked Mr. Sterling. \"Infant baptism going out of use?\"\n\n\"I do not say that it is on the point of going out of existence, but I\ndo say that under the influence of Baptist teaching it is becoming rarer\nand rarer.\"\n\n\"Even though it should be somewhat on the wane--which I do not at all\nadmit, Mr. Walton--yet supposing it to be the case, what have the\nBaptists to do with it?\"\n\n\"I thought such questions might come up and so I came prepared,\" Mr.\nWalton replied, drawing a newspaper clipping from his pocket. \"Here is\nsomething written by Lyman Abbott in the Outlook of November, 1897.\"\n\n\"Is he a Baptist?\" asked Dorothy.\n\n\"No, indeed,\" replied Sterling.\n\n\"Does he believe in infant baptism?\" she asked.\n\n\"Yes. What is your quotation from Dr. Abbott, Mr. Walton?\"\n\n\"Dr. Abbott is writing about the Baptist Congress that had held a recent\nmeeting.\"\n\n\"The Baptist Congress?\" exclaimed Dorothy. \"What is that?\"\n\n\"It is a meeting where Baptist men from different parts of the country\ncome together once a year and discuss different religious subjects, and\nthey call it a Baptist Congress, but of course they make no laws. Now,\nDr. Abbott was writing about one of these Baptist Congresses, and he\nsays: 'They (the Baptists) all hold, and hold as strongly as ever, that\napostolic baptism was a symbolic expression of repentance and faith, and\nthat to baptize infants that can neither repent nor exercise faith is a\nchange of the original ceremony from its original purpose. Historical\nscholarship abundantly confirms this contention. Infant baptism was\nunknown in the apostolic church. The change can be justified only on the\nground that no rite is of the essence of Christianity, and that the same\nspirit of Christian liberty which allowed the Christian church to\ndispense with circumcision allowed it to change baptism from a symbolic\nact of faith by a penitent to a symbolic act of consecration by a\nparent.' This is not directly connected with the matter of infant\nbaptism going out of existence which we were talking about just now, but\nI have read it as showing what this noted advocate of infant baptism has\nto say. He declares that infant baptism did not exist in the early\nchurch, but that the church has changed it.\"\n\n\"I can't understand that at all,\" said Dorothy, in a perplexed tone. \"I\nthought we went to the Bible to learn about Christianity and to the\nteachings of Christ and his apostles for our guidance. I thought that\nbeing a Christian meant taking Christ as our Master and the Bible as our\nguide; and now to say that we can change these commands and put\nsomething else in the place of them--why, suppose Christ does not want\nthem changed? If we can change one command, why not any of the commands?\nIf it is not important to obey one of the commands, why is it important\nto obey any of them? Let others do as they please, but I have taken that\nBook as my guide and I shall stand by it as closely as I can. If I break\nfrom it at one point I fear I will start adrift out to sea.\"\n\n\"Here is the quotation that I was looking for showing the decadence of\ninfant baptism,\" said Mr. Walton. \"I read from the Congregationalist of\nJanuary 18, 1882. This is not a Baptist publication. It reads: 'The\nsimple fact appears to be that the doctrine of the evangelical\ndenominations as to infant baptism is in a transition state and has at\npresent a materially loosened hold upon the popular conviction. * * * *\nCongregationalists, under the attrition of Baptist friction on the one\nside and the force of their own principles of individualism on the\nother, have become a good deal demoralized in this particular.' Think of\nthat,\" continued Mr. Walton. \"You have this Congregationalist paper\nsaying of the practice of infant baptism by its own denomination that it\nwas diminishing partly because of the influence of Baptist principles.\"\n\n\"If infant baptism is wrong,\" said Dorothy, \"it is a good thing you see\nto have these Baptist principles, for they work against the unscriptural\ninfant baptism.\"\n\n\"Here is another quotation. It is stated that at one of the presbyteries\nof the Dutch Reformed church held in 1879: 'In view of the great neglect\nof infant baptism'--notice that--'in view of the great neglect of infant\nbaptism a paper was requested by Rev. F. H. Van Deveer, D.D., on that\nsubject'. There you have a Dutch Reformed presbytery, because of the\ngreat neglect of infant baptism, requesting one of its distinguished\nmembers to write a paper on the subject. Baptist principles, you see,\nare at work among other denominations. This is also true as to\nimmersion. The Baptists have won the fight for immersion also. Here and\nthere you will find some that deny that immersion is Bible baptism, but\nthe scholarship of the world has yielded that point.\"\n\n\"Mr. Walton, you amaze me,\" exclaimed Mr. Sterling. \"Are you not\nmistaken about prominent men of other denominations agreeing that\nimmersion was the original Scriptural mode of baptism? Can you give us\nthe names of them?\"\n\n\"I can, for I brought along a copy of some of these statements. For\nexample, I have the words of John Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther and\nCardinal Gibbons.\"\n\n\"What is that!\" exclaimed Mr. Sterling. \"Why, three of these men are the\nfounders of their own denominations and the other is the head of the\nCatholic Church in America, and all of their denominations practice\nsprinkling and not immersion.\"\n\n\"I will read their own statements, and I can give you the very place\nwhere you can find their words in print.\"\n\nSterling held his breath as Mr. Walton began to read.\n\n\"Here are the words of John Calvin. I believe he is regarded as the\nfounder of your denomination, Mr. Sterling.\"\n\n\"Very well, what does he say?\"\n\n\"He writes as follows in Book IV of his Institutes, Chapter XV: 'The\nvery word \"baptize\" signifies \"to immerse\"; and it is certain that\nimmersion was the practice of the ancient church.'\"\n\n\"Mr. Walton,\" said Sterling, looking at him with an intense gaze, \"do\nyou assert that John Calvin, the great champion of Presbyterianism,\nwrote that?\"\n\n\"I do, and you will find it just where I have quoted it. Listen to John\nWesley, the founder of the Methodist church. You will find his\nstatements in his Notes on the New Testament in his comments on Roman\n6:4, 'We are buried with him, alluding to the ancient manner of\nbaptizing by immersion'. In other words, Wesley says that Paul in this\npassage about baptism was referring to immersion, and I guess Paul was\npretty good authority. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism, says\nin his works, Witten Ed., Vol. II, page 79: 'For to baptize in Greek is\nto dip, and baptizing is dipping. Being moved by this reason I would\nhave those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped in the water\nas the Word doth express and as the mystery doth signify.'\"\n\n\"You mentioned Cardinal Gibbons, the head of the Catholic Church in this\ncountry,\" said Mr. Page. \"Do the Catholics immerse?\"\n\n\"Oh, no,\" said Mr. Sterling. \"What does Cardinal Gibbons have to say?\"\n\n\"In his book, 'Faith of our Fathers', page 275, he writes: 'For several\ncenturies after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually\nconferred by immersion, but since the twelfth century the practice of\nbaptism by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner\nis attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion.'\"\n\n\"Well, gentlemen, I am amazed,\" said Mr. Sterling.\n\n\"Mr. Sterling,\" said Dorothy, \"can it be a fact that the founders of\nthese denominations declare for immersion and yet the denominations\nfollow some other mode? Do you suppose that it is possible that these\ndenominations, like the Catholics, have adopted pouring because it was\nmore convenient?\"\n\n\"That is just how the practice has come into existence,\" said Mr.\nWalton. \"Cardinal Gibbons lets the whole secret out when he states that\nin the twelfth century pouring was adopted as the mode of baptism\nbecause of its convenience. Now remember that at that time there were no\nPresbyterians, nor Methodists, nor hardly anybody except the\nCatholics--except, of course, the Baptists,\" Mr. Walton remarked with a\nsmile in which all the others joined.\n\n\"Yes,\" said Dorothy, \"you remember it was stated tonight that in every\ncentury there were bands of Christians worshiping by themselves and\nprotesting against the practices of the Catholic Church, and that these\npeople seemed to believe, in substance, the principal doctrines held by\nthe Baptists today.\"\n\n\"The point I was making,\" continued Mr. Walton, \"is that all of these\nProtestant denominations, either directly or indirectly, came out of the\nCatholic Church three or four hundred years after the twelfth century,\nwhen the Catholic Church abandoned immersion, and when they did come out\nthey brought with them the custom of pouring, which at that time was\npracticed in the Catholic Church. If the Reformation had come, however,\nbefore the twelfth century, then the Protestant denominations would be\npracticing immersion, because before the twelfth century the Catholic\nChurch was practicing immersion. That is the history of the change, and\nexplains, Mr. Sterling, why you and your church practice pouring. You\ninherit it from your Catholic ancestors. You have it because the\nCatholics abandoned immersion and put their seal on pouring. I do not\nsay it in any unkind spirit, but am simply giving you some ancient\nhistory.\"\n\n\"Father, it does look as if the main part of the Christian world is\nusing a substitute for the baptism which Christ has given us, and that\nthey received this mode from the Catholics. Mr. Sterling, how can you be\nwilling for the Catholic Church to dictate your baptism in that way?\"\nDorothy's eyes flashed as she uttered the question and she seemed\nhorrified at the thought.\n\n\"Mercy alive, let me run out and catch my breath,\" said Mr. Sterling.\n\"These are startling things that I am hearing tonight. If it is true\nthat we have sprinkling or pouring simply because the Catholic Church\nhappened to have it when the Reformation came, then I must confess it\nputs our denomination in the attitude of having our baptismal ceremony\nfoisted on us by the Catholics, and we are now seeking from Scripture to\njustify our position. But, Mr. Walton, that cannot be so.\"\n\n\"I refer you to history. I have given you the places where these\nstatements can be found.\"\n\n\"How did we get back into the subject of immersion?\" asked Mr. Sterling.\n\n\"I was stating,\" said Mr. Walton, \"that the truths of the Baptists were\ngradually permeating the ranks of the other denominations, and I\nremarked that the principal scholars in the different denominations\nadmitted that immersion was the original Scriptural mode, the\nimplication being that, though it was the original mode, yet the\nchurch--and you see it was the Catholic Church--had the right to change\nit. It is a fact that members of other denominations are asking for\nimmersion at the hands of Baptist ministers. Only last fall I baptized a\nvery prominent Methodist minister who had become convinced from his\nstudy of the Scriptures of the evils of infant baptism and the\nscripturalness of immersion.\"\n\nMr. Page, with a smile and a wink at Mr. Sterling, remarked: \"Exactly,\nand you had better be on the lookout, Sterling; these Baptists will have\nyou under the water yet.\"\n\nMr. Sterling colored considerably, for Mr. Page's banter had struck\ndeeper than Mr. Page thought.\n\n\"What I can't understand,\" said Mr. Page, \"is how these Baptists can be\nsuch wonderful people and yet occupy such an obscure position in this\npart of the country.\"\n\n\"But they are not obscure in America,\" said Mr. Walton.\n\n\"No,\" said Dorothy. \"Don't you remember, father, how I told you that the\nfigures state that the Baptists are next to the largest denomination in\nthe United States except the Catholics?\"\n\n\"In Georgia,\" said Mr. Walton, \"one person out of every four is a\nBaptist, and it is almost that way in Virginia, North Carolina and\nSouth Carolina. I understand that the Baptists of Georgia pay over half\nthe taxes of that state. They are a mighty army in the South and in the\nworld.\"\n\nAll of these things were a revelation to Mr. Sterling. As to Dorothy,\nher mind had been made up many days ago, and her path of duty was as\nclear as a sunbeam to her, and it led straight to the Baptist church.\nMr. Sterling had within him a storm of thoughts that he could not still.\nHis efforts to win Dorothy for his faith and his church seemed to have\nutterly failed, and she appeared to be drifting further and further away\nfrom him. He was tortured by the thought that he might lose her.\nBesides, there was the chaos in which his mind had been left by the\nrecent discussions and disclosures. The evidence in favor of immersion\nas the Bible mode of baptism, and the violation of Scripture teaching in\nthe case of infant baptism, as well as the Bible teaching regarding\nchurch government, stared him in the face. It rose above all his ties of\nkindred and church and above all arguments that he could summon to his\naid in favor of his position, but he dared not let anyone suspect his\nstate of mind.\n\nHe was eager to follow the matter still further, though he felt as if he\nwere moving towards a precipice. It may to some thoughtless ones seem a\ntrifling matter for one to abandon a position as to doctrinal matters\nand accept other truths. Men are constantly altering their opinions: but\nfor a Presbyterian elder--especially one filled with an ambition for\nhigh usefulness in his church, whose ancestors on his father's and\nmother's side have been of his faith--for him to come out before his\nchurch and before the public and acknowledge that he was wrong, to give\nup his doctrines and his church and his prospects and his large circle\nof kindred and friends and link himself with an obscure and almost\ndespised band of people meant a crisis, and he did not even permit\nhimself to consider it. He merely tried to regard the restlessness in\nhis mind as transient and to think that soon he would settle into his\nformer composure and confidence. That night as he sat in his room he\nremembered having seen in the afternoon paper the statement that Dr. R.\nL. Boardman, one of the most learned professors in the Princeton\nTheological Seminary, a leading Presbyterian institution, was to lecture\nthat evening in the adjoining town about ten miles distant. In a moment\nSterling decided on his plan. He determined upon a desperate attempt.\nNext morning by telephone he gained Dorothy's consent to a conversation\nwith Dr. Boardman in case he could persuade him to come over for that\npurpose. Before nine o'clock the next morning Sterling had reached the\nDoctor by telephone and made an engagement to meet him, and in less than\nan hour his automobile had whirled him to the next town, and there\nSterling told the Doctor of his friend who was seeking to know her duty\nas to church membership, and he besought him to return with him and in\nthe evening to visit with him his friends at the Page home and to set\nthe young lady right on the matter of sprinkling and infant baptism and\nchurch membership.\n\nSterling won the day and a few hours later he and the Doctor were\nspeeding along the road to Sterling's home. Sterling hung his hopes high\non the Doctor, who was a noted authority on Presbyterian doctrines. He\nfelt as if he were staking everything on the conversation of that\nevening.\n\nMr. Page, when he learned that the Princeton professor and the Baptist\npreacher would both be on hand that evening, knew that the discussion\nwould be lively.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nSTERLING BRINGS IN HIS RESERVES.\n\n\nThat evening after dinner Mr. Sterling brought over his distinguished\nfriend. Dorothy had invited Mr. Walton to return and form one of the\ngroup.\n\n\"Doctor,\" said Mr. Page, with a smile and a wink at Mr. Sterling, \"I\nguess you will have to set us all straight. Mr. Walton here is about to\nenlist Dorothy and Mr. Sterling under the Baptist flag.\"\n\n\"Miss Dorothy seems to think the Bible commands her to be put under the\nwater,\" remarked Sterling, \"and she does not believe at all in infant\nbaptism. She insists that these things prevent her joining our church,\nand she talks as if the Baptist doctrines are nearest to the doctrines\nwhich she believes the Bible to teach.\"\n\n\"Am I stating it correctly?\" asked Sterling of Dorothy.\n\n\"Mr. Sterling is right in saying that I believe in immersion and not in\ninfant baptism, and therefore I do not feel it would be right for me to\njoin his church.\"\n\n\"May I ask why you feel that you cannot join his church?\" asked the\nDoctor in a gracious manner.\n\n\"If I think the doctrines of the church are wrong, do you think I ought\nto select that as the church for me to join?\"\n\n\"May I ask another question?\"\n\nSterling's hopes rose as he saw the Doctor entering upon the discussion.\nHe felt there could be but one result.\n\n\"Mr. Sterling has mentioned that you thought very favorably of the\ndoctrines of the Baptists. One of the cardinal doctrines of the Baptists\nis religious liberty. That means they believe in the right of every\nindividual to interpret the Scripture for himself. Do you believe in\nthat doctrine?\"\n\n\"Certainly. Don't you, Doctor?\"\n\n\"I see you are putting me on the witness stand,\" he said with a smile.\n\"I answer that I assuredly do believe in such individual liberty; but it\nseems to me that the Baptists are inconsistent. They demand individual\nliberty and yet they cry out against us Presbyterians because we\ninterpret the Scriptures in a way different from them. You say, Miss\nPage, you cannot join the Presbyterians because of their beliefs, but I\nshould not think that that ought to concern you. If you hold that\neveryone must interpret the Bible for himself, then that is what the\nPresbyterians are doing. In doing that they carry out the Baptist\ndoctrine of individual accountability to God.\"\n\nSterling was delighted. It was just as he had expected. He saw in a\nflash that if the Baptists were true to their doctrine of religious\nliberty they could not demand that he change his faith, but must accord\nhim a perfect right to his belief.\n\n\"Excuse me, Doctor,\" said Dorothy, \"I do not think you understood me. I\ndo not blame the Presbyterians for drawing their own conclusions about\nthe Bible and believing just what they think the Bible teaches rather\nthan what somebody else thinks it teaches. I grant them this right, but\nit does not follow that I must therefore join their church. I say let\nthe Presbyterians follow what they consider to be the teachings of the\nBible; but let me do the same and let me not feel that I must join their\nchurch.\"\n\n\"No, my young friend, I would not say you must join the Presbyterian\nchurch; but may I ask why you should find it impossible to join that\nsplendid body of Christian people? If everybody must follow his own\nconvictions of Bible teaching, would you say you cannot fellowship those\nwho do not interpret the Bible as you do?\"\n\n\"Doctor, I do not say I could not fellowship the Presbyterians, or\nanybody that may understand his Bible differently from me. I can respect\nthem and believe them to be better Christians than I am. But I don't\nthink I ought to join their church unless I believe their doctrines.\"\n\n\"Well, my daughter, you will never find a church with every member\nbelieving just as you believe.\"\n\n\"What does a denomination mean, anyhow, Doctor? Does it not mean a body\nof people believing a certain set of doctrines?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"It seems to me to be somewhat after this fashion. I guess I have no\nright with my small knowledge about these things to be theorizing, and\nyet is it not this way? Here in the world we find a multitude of\nChristians. As they read the Bible some understand it one way and others\nunderstand it another way, and still others another way, and those\ntherefore who understand it one way get together in one great company\nand those understanding it another way get together in another great\ncompany and so on, and these large groups are the different\ndenominations, and this simply means that people believing alike\nnaturally come together and fall into line under one name.\"\n\n\"Why, yes; that certainly sounds sensible, daughter,\" said Mr. Page. \"I\nguess that those people who believe as Mr. Walton believes about baptism\nand other matters are called by the name Baptists, and that those who\nbelieve the doctrines that Dr. Boardman believes call themselves\nPresbyterians. Now of course you would not respect a person believing as\nthe Baptists do and joining the Presbyterians. He is not a Presbyterian\nin belief and he ought not to call himself such nor be known as such.\"\n\n\"Doctor,\" asked Dorothy, \"would you want a person to join your church if\nhe would not accept the doctrine of your church?\"\n\n\"Since I come to think of it, my fair questioner, I don't think we would\ntake in such a person. If you cannot accept the teachings of the\nPresbyterian church, then probably you ought not to join, though I\nconfess I am not as strict as some of my brethren. If a person is with\nus in the fundamentals, then we can overlook such minor matters as\nbaptism and the like. I think the trouble with the Christian world\ntoday is that we are magnifying the non-essentials and neglecting the\nweightier truths.\"\n\n\"You say baptism is a minor matter?\" asked Dorothy with some surprise.\n\n\"Why, certainly, my daughter. Christ himself must be pained when he sees\nhis people so anxious about external forms rather than about matters of\nheart, of life.\"\n\n\"That greatly bewilders me, Doctor. It has been intimated several times\nthat these matters about immersion and infant baptism and church\ngovernment are minor matters, that there are other doctrines that are of\ngreater moment; but let me ask, are we to disregard and treat these as\nwe please? Must we not try to obey these commands as they were\noriginally commanded and practiced? Besides, Doctor, it seems to me that\nthis beautiful ordinance with its impressive teachings was given great\nprominence by Christ. His last great command to the apostles had baptism\nin it, and when people were converted under the preaching of the\napostles the first thing they always did was to be baptized, as if\nbaptism was one of the things that had to be done and done at once.\nChrist was himself baptized and he commands us to be. I don't see how\nyou could wish it to be plainer than that. I cannot understand how a\nperson can say that one command of Christ is not as important to be\nobeyed as another. When you talk that way about a command, does it not\nsound as if it did not make much difference whether we obeyed the\ncommand at all?\"\n\n\"Well, my daughter,\" said the Doctor, \"I glory in your zeal and courage\nand I bid you follow your convictions; but you must remember one thing,\nand that is that you will probably never find a church all of whose\nmembers believe exactly alike. Suppose you find some in the Baptist\nchurch that believe something that you do not believe. How can you\nconscientiously stay in with them?\"\n\n\"I do not think it is a question as to what every individual member\nbelieves, but what are the doctrines by which that particular\ndenomination is known? There are certain truths which the Baptists\nbelieve, and when you say you are a Baptist people know just what you\nbelieve. As I understand it, there are certain truths which all\nChristians believe, and on those points we are all one; and although we\nmay not be in the same organization, yet I think we are like soldiers,\nall fighting in the army of our King.\"\n\n\"Yes, my daughter,\" said the Doctor, \"we all belong to what is called\nthe church universal.\"\n\n\"But,\" continued Dorothy, \"there are other matters about which there are\ndifferences, and this makes the army break up into different regiments;\nbut we all still have the same Commander.\"\n\n\"You are quite a little theologian,\" said the Doctor with a smile. \"May\nI ask my young theologian a question? How do you manage to swallow the\nBaptist doctrine of close communion?\"\n\n\"They do not seem close in their communion,\" promptly replied Dorothy,\n\"not any closer than you Presbyterians.\"\n\n\"You surely are a valiant defender. How do you prove that?\"\n\n\"You believe, do you not, Doctor, that no one ought to come to your\ncommunion table who has not first been baptized?\"\n\n\"Yes, that is our rule. I certainly would not advise one who has not\nbeen baptized to come to the table.\"\n\n\"The Baptists believe that, too.\"\n\n\"But the Baptists do not think I ought to come with them, and yet I have\nbeen baptized.\"\n\n\"Yes, but you have not been Scripturally baptized--so the Baptists\nthink.\"\n\n\"But what have they to do with my baptism? I am satisfied with it. I\nbelieve it is Scriptural. I thought the Baptists contended for\nindividual freedom in interpreting the Bible. I follow my conscience\nwith my Bible and decide that I must be sprinkled, and now you say the\nBaptists say I ought not to commune because I have not been baptized the\nway they prefer. In other words, the Baptists want me to interpret the\nBible not as my conscience decides, but as their conscience decides. If\nI have followed my conscience about baptism, what more could you ask of\nme as to my baptism, and why should the Baptists therefore refuse me a\nplace at their table?\"\n\n\"Doctor, I don't think they refuse anybody a place at their table. I\nexpect that is where so many people get the wrong idea about the close\ncommunion of the Baptists. Mr. Walton says that they keep no policeman\nat their table to keep people away. I think that is very important to\nremember. They believe that everybody must interpret the Bible according\nto his own conscience, but that does not mean that they think that\neverybody that does this will interpret the Bible as was originally\nintended. But they do leave it to every man's conscience.\"\n\n\"Ah, you are mistaken there, my little lady. That is just what the\nBaptists do not do. They do not leave it to other folks' conscience,\nbut--\"\n\nAt this point the Doctor turned to Mr. Walton and said:\n\n\"Mr. Walton, I think it is one of the calamities connected with the life\nof the Christian church today that so much of her energy is expended in\narguing about differences rather than in discoursing on their\nagreements. I think denominationalism is a blight on Christianity, and\nif we could banish it and unite our forces, presenting a solid front to\nthe enemy in heathen lands as well as in our own land, we would sweep\nthe field for our Lord and Master.\"\n\n\"But, Doctor, how can we get rid of denominationalism?\" asked Dorothy.\n\"Can we ever get all men to think alike and to interpret the Bible\nalike?\"\n\n\"It is not that, my daughter,\" said the venerable man. \"We must all have\nour individual peculiarities, but we must subordinate these to the great\nmission before the church of Christ.\"\n\n\"What do you mean by subordinating our beliefs?\" asked Dorothy. \"I do\nnot see how it weakens the Christian army for Christians to have their\nown individual beliefs. It seems to me it makes Christians a stronger\npeople for them to be people of conviction and not for each one to treat\nChrist's commands lightly. Let us not weaken at the point of conviction\nin order to strengthen at the point of courtesy and friendship. Why, I\nshould think that the greatest success would come by each denomination\npressing forward along its own convictions.\"\n\n\"Will you let me say,\" remarked Mr. Walton, \"that I believe that the\nnext epoch in the life of the Christian church will be a move not\ntowards denominational unity that is so much talked about now, but\nrather towards an emphasized denominationalism in the highest sense of\nthat term? The church in her march of conquest loses rather than gains\nin many of her attempts at union. Mark you, I do not say in all her\nattempts at union, but in many of them. True denominationalism means\nthat the Christian church falls into certain divisions according to\ntheir interpretations of the Bible. The trouble with many efforts at\nChristian union is that the chief effort is not towards bringing the\nchurch to one view of the Bible truth, but the pressure for union is\noften along the line of expediency. A thousand times better is it for\neach denomination to press along the path of its own individual\nconvictions as to Bible teaching; then will each denomination be\nstronger. There will be higher mutual respect. Some of these\ndenominations may be, and undoubtedly are, mistaken in many of their\nviews, but by such loyalty they at least exalt the Bible to the loftiest\nplace. They put the emphasis on its study, and if true union ever comes\nit will come from such focusing of study on the Bible. Under the light\nof its teaching the denominations that are in error may see and abandon\ntheir error. Intenser denominationalism in the truest sense of that word\nis the secret of success. When the slogan is 'one denomination as good\nas another', the Bible truth fades into minor importance; expediency,\ncustom and other current considerations assume control and Christianity\nis the loser. If each denomination surrenders its differences in order\nto come together, they may find after they have come together they have\nnot much left that is worth coming together for. If they put a light\nvalue on some of Christ's commands, the danger is that they will come to\nlook lightly upon all of Christ's commands.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nCROSSING THE RUBICON.\n\n\nThe path seemed perfectly clear to Dorothy, and she announced to her\nparents that she must join the Baptist church. The decision was a blow\nto them. It is true that the discussions of the past two weeks and the\nremarks dropped by Dorothy had indicated that she was moving towards\nthat point and yet neither of the parents had believed that she would\nactually take the step. The father had been greatly surprised at the\nfacts that had been brought out in favor of the Baptists, but when the\nthought of Dorothy identifying herself with the little Baptist band in\nthe town came into his mind his prejudice assumed control and he became\nrebellious. To him and his wife the announcement of their daughter put a\nblighting disappointment on their ambitions regarding her future. They\nhad rejoiced in her growing popularity in the best social circles of the\ntown. Besides, they were not entirely unaware of the admiration of the\nyoung Presbyterian millionaire for Dorothy and a union with that\ninfluential family was a prospect not unpleasant to them. That their\ndaughter should cut herself off from social opportunities and tie\nherself up with an obscure people that held meetings in one of the\ncheaper parts of the town--that was to them almost worse than her\nfuneral. They said nothing to her when she announced her decision. She\nunderstood what it would probably mean for her, but her convictions\npressed her forward. In fact, she felt an eagerness to see and get\nacquainted with the little Baptist band, for she felt sure that, while\nthat particular church might for some reason be obscure and ignorant,\nyet they came of royal lineage with an illustrious record behind them\nand she was glad to link herself with such a people. The parents did not\nforbid her joining the Baptists, but their silence, their lack of\nsympathy and their manifest disappointment and grief over it made her\nburden far heavier than if they had openly opposed it. She felt that she\ncould have braced herself against such opposition and thereby showed her\nlove for Christ above her love for her parents, but their suffering\nmultiplied her own.\n\nA pall of gloom seemed to have settled over the thought of their\ndaughter picking her way along the narrow streets around to the cheap\nsection of the town and down the rough steps from the sidewalk and into\nthe plain chapel to mingle with the even plainer people was a\nhumiliation that seemed crushing, and they were speechless. This was an\nexperience that Dorothy had never counted on. Her joy in finding what\nseemed to her the truth, and in following it had not knew what church\nshe expected to attend. The home on that Sunday morning when Dorothy\ncame down to the library dressed for church. The parents prepared her\nfor this cross that rose up in her path. At first she was inclined to\nresent such lack of sympathy from her parents; but the sight of their\ndisappointed faces put a lock on her lips and a load on her heart. She\nwavered not, however, in her sense of duty. On to the little Baptist\nchurch she wended her way, and it was a sensation indeed for the members\nwhen the door of the little chapel opened and in walked the beautiful\ndaughter of the rich and honored, though worldly, Mr. Page. Her entrance\nwas not met by intrusive and impertinent glances. The worshipers were\nstunned by her arrival, for they had no idea what it meant. But they\nwere too well trained in worship to be ill-mannered in their wonderment.\nThe simplicity of their worship went to her heart and she found herself\nentering into the spirit of the hymns, although she was not familiar\nwith many of them. In fact, the entire service gave her much joy.\n\nAt the close of the service Mr. Walton walked down to Dorothy, gave her\na hearty welcome and proceeded to introduce her to some of his members.\nHow genuine seemed their welcome! The thought that their faith was her\nfaith made her feel at home. It is true that the plain room and the\nexceedingly plain attire of nearly all the people presented an almost\nshocking contrast to what she was accustomed to. It made her wince under\nit, but her better thoughts soon got the mastery. Her sense of duty held\nher firm and gave her a peace and even a joy in what she was doing.\n\nShe told the pastor she had come to ask for baptism and membership in\nhis church. He was not greatly surprised, though much delighted. He\nstated that he would be glad at the conclusion of the night service to\nreceive her for baptism.\n\nThat evening, when she started down the steps of her house to go to\nchurch, she found the automobile at the curb at the front of the house\nand the chauffeur told her that her father had told him to have the\nmachine ready to take her to the church, that he did not wish her to\nwalk around to that section alone. She was touched at the thoughtfulness\nof her father, and yet the silence of it all cut her to the heart. She\nfelt that she was almost an outcast from her parents; but then she\njudged that they could not understand her and that they were simply\nkeeping aloof with their disappointment. The meals had been eaten in\nalmost perfect silence that day. The mother did not care for dinner and\nthe father ate and talked but little, and then to the other members of\nthe family.\n\nThat night Dorothy was received for baptism and it was announced that,\non the following Sunday night she would be baptized. By the next Sunday\nher parents began to relent. At first they were inclined to be indignant\nwith the Baptist preacher, as if he were largely responsible for their\ndaughter's action; but as they recalled the discussions of the past\nmonth they realized that their daughter had reached her conclusions\nlargely through her own study of the Bible.\n\nGradually they came to see that she must have her convictions and they\nought not to interfere with her religion. They saw that she was firm,\nand they decided to accept the inevitable. Husband and wife talked it\nover and the husband said: \"Wife, I think it is a clear proposition.\nDorothy has taken the step and the die is cast. It is not according to\nour fancy or hope, but it is according to her convictions, and I guess\nwe would rather she should be a woman of convictions than for her to be\none with no convictions, but tossed about by every kind of influence. I\nthink we must try to make the most of it. Opposition, I fear, would only\nmake matters worse for her and for us. Let us tell her we shall not\noppose her.\"\n\nAnd so it was agreed, and that evening Mr. and Mrs. Page talked frankly\nwith Dorothy and the burden rolled from her heart. The parents said they\nnever could attend that church, but that they would not stand in her\nway.\n\nHow her heart yearned to have them present at her baptism, but she dared\nnot ask them, and she knew they would not come! Two of her girl friends\nwent with her, partly out of curiosity and partly out of devotion to\nDorothy. Mr. Page told the chauffeur to take Dorothy and her friends to\nthe church first and then to return and take him and his wife for a\nride.\n\nAs Mr. and Mrs. Page were being driven home in the automobile, after\ntheir ride something impelled the father to tell the chauffeur to turn\nthe corner and go up the third street. The little Baptist chapel was on\nthat street. It was a summer evening and the windows of the church were\nraised and the door was open, and as they approached the church Mr. Page\ntold the chauffeur to slow up. They heard singing, and there through the\nopen door they saw the pulpit and the open baptistry. The machine\nstopped and they sat quiet as they listened to the singing, and soon\nthey saw a picture that chained them to their seats. Out into the water\nto the front moved Dorothy at the side of the pastor. The parents were\nsure that Dorothy never looked lovelier than at that moment, and on her\nface was a happiness that they had never seen before. It smote them to\nthe heart. They heard the words of the minister as he said: \"Dorothy\nPage, do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior?\"\n\nShe bowed her head in assent and they saw her lips move. The pastor then\nsaid: \"Upon a profession of your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in\nobedience to his command I baptize you, my sister, in the name of the\nFather, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.\"\n\nThey saw her fade from their sight under the water, and then from the\nwater they saw her rise as the congregation struck up the hymn:\n\n  \"O happy are they\n  Who their Savior obey\n  And have laid up their treasures above.\"\n\nThat was all. Dorothy turned and was led by the pastor out of the\nbaptismal waters and the father bade the chauffeur move on; but an arrow\nhad entered the hearts of the parents.\n\nA new light shone in Dorothy's eyes after that Sunday. Those who saw her\nas she emerged from the baptismal waters declared that her face looked\nlike that of an angel. Many times during the week she was heard singing\nin happy tones. The thought that she had put obedience to Christ's\ncommands above every earthly consideration filled her with peace and\ngladness. To her parents her new joy was a mystery. Association with a\nband of poor and obscure people suggested to their minds not happiness,\nbut isolation and almost disgrace.\n\nDorothy's chief thought now seemed to be her church. Not a day passed\nthat she was not in conference with the pastor or some of the members\nseeking to familiarize herself with the condition of the church, its\nneeds and its work. To the request of the superintendent that she would\ntake a class in the Sunday school she replied with a startled\nexpression: \"Oh, Mr. Randall, I must have someone teach me the Bible\nbefore I can teach others.\" She finally yielded to his appeal and\ndecided to go out among the poor and neglected of the town and gather\nsome girls into a class.\n\nIt was an interesting spectacle that she presented on the next Sunday\nmorning as she marched into the Sunday school with four girls whom she\nhad ferreted out during the week, and who had promised to come with her\non the following Sunday if she would come for them. The sight of\nDorothy--beautiful in face but far more beautiful in soul--bending with\nsuch loving tenderness over her little quartette, put new zeal into the\nother teachers.\n\nAt the first visit that Dorothy made to the church she noticed its bare\nfurnishings, but she gave no sign that she saw these things. Many plans\nhad already begun to form in her mind as to improvements that might be\nmade. When she heard the pastor announce a meeting of the Ladies' Aid\nSociety for the next Tuesday afternoon she determined to be on hand. At\nthe meeting she asked the ladies to tell her what work the society\nsought to do. They replied that they tried to raise money for different\npurposes; sometimes for coal, sometimes for pastor's salary, and that\nthey had been hoping to raise something for improving the church\nbuilding, but the other expenses were so heavy their money was needed to\nmeet them.\n\nAt the next meeting she suggested that they make special effort to raise\nmoney for painting the church, and the plan she advised was that they\nmake bonnets and aprons for sale. They agreed to this and set about the\ntask. The women said they had very little money to give. They decided\nthat in addition to the little money that they could donate they would\nalso give some of their time and labor that could be turned into money.\nThey determined to rent an empty store and offer their goods for sale.\nThis was done. It had already been well advertised and the whole town\nwas talking about the enterprise of the little Baptist church, and the\nhappiest of all was Dorothy as she labored with the other women.\n\nIt was the announced purpose of the society that every article must be\nup to the standard in quality and that every purchaser must get the full\nworth of his money. They asked no buyer to be a benefactor. The women\nconsidered they were giving as much, if not more, than they were\nreceiving. The giving and the sacrifice were not on the part of the\nbuyers, but on the part of those women who had given their time and\nlabor. When they counted up their gains they found they netted over a\nhundred dollars. But some good news awaited them. A paint dealer in the\ntown, hearing of their brave purpose to paint their chapel, asked the\nprivilege of donating a part of the paint. Two of their own members\nagreed to do the painting by working in the early hours of each day.\n'Twas a happy day for Dorothy and for the church when the last touch of\nthe brush was put on the church and the work was completed. They next\ndecided that the church building must be lifted to the level of the\nstreet, and the ladies assumed that as their task. The men promised\ntheir labor at their off hours. A lumber merchant heard of their valiant\nstruggle and made them a large gift of lumber, and thus the skies\nbrightened for them. Dorothy's fingers, as well as the fingers of the\nolder ladies, were busy making garments to be sold. Without going into\ndetails, let it be stated that the little church found itself at last on\na level with the street and with an excellent Sunday school room in the\nbasement.\n\nDorothy's class had grown to a band of twenty girls and it was a picture\nworth going far to see--that of Dorothy surrounded by her girls, and\nherself the happiest of them all.\n\nDuring all this time Sterling was wrestling with a racking experience.\nIt had become apparent to him that convictions had arisen within his\nsoul that were at variance with the cardinal doctrines of his church.\nHe loved his church and her history; he was devoted to the work in his\nSunday school and his church. He determined, however, to remain with his\npeople, even though he felt that his church was in error on certain\npoints.\n\nThoughts of Dorothy filled his mind day and night. The past few weeks\nhad been doleful ones for him. When Dorothy joined the Baptists he felt\nas if he had lost her forever. A gulf seemed to open between her and\nhimself. In a way she seemed to have stepped into a higher realm, far\nabove him.\n\nHer work for her church and her Sunday school occupied the largest part\nof her time, and it was only occasionally that he had the pleasure of a\ntennis game with her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nSTERLING SCORES.\n\n\nAt this time Sterling found it necessary to take a trip through the West\nvisiting his branch houses. It was a doleful trip for him. The spell of\nDorothy was on him and he had never realized how dependent he was on her\nbeing near him. It was with a happy step that he bounded from the train\nat the end of his trip and hastened home with the thought of seeing her\nthat evening.\n\nDorothy could hardly have explained it, but things had not seemed just\nright during Sterling's absence. That she was missing him she had not\nadmitted to herself, but it is a fact that she found herself looking\nforward to his return with eager pleasure.\n\nEach day Sterling sought an excuse for a few words with her. If he could\nnot make an engagement for a tennis game or an automobile ride in the\ncountry he would ask for a drive with her on one of her rounds of\nvisiting among her scholars. In fact, it was one of his greatest treats\nto go with her on such visits. He was sure that no lovelier sight had\never been presented than that of Dorothy in her happy ministrations to\nher scholars. She found comfort in confiding to him her plans regarding\nher class and her church, and in them he was keenly interested. Many of\nhis suggestions were helpful to her.\n\nHe told her one day that his convictions as to Bible doctrines were the\nsame as hers, that the investigations through which they had gone had\nbrought him to that point, but that he did not think that was a reason\nfor his abandoning the church in which he had spent all his life--the\nchurch in which there had been a long line of his ancestors before him.\nHe said he expected to remain there and work, but that he would feel\nfree to state his convictions whenever he thought it proper, and he\nwould rejoice if the day should ever come when his church would see and\nabandon its error.\n\nWhen Sterling found it necessary again to be absent--this time for a\nweek--Dorothy found herself counting the days until his return. The\nsympathetic interest that he had shown in her new experience had made\nhis company very acceptable. She started a game of tennis with her\nbrother on the third afternoon after Sterling's departure, but she soon\ngrew tired of the game and announced that she must do some visiting, and\nshe immediately set out for the homes of her scholars. Sterling cut\nshort his trip and arrived home on the third day after his departure. As\nhe went speeding up to his office from the depot he espied Dorothy on\nthe street. What a shock she received as she saw him stepping out of the\nmachine to greet her.\n\n\"I know what you are up to!\" he exclaimed. \"You are off on another one\nof those angel visits to your neglected ones, and you must let me go\nwith you. My machine will enable you to make twice as many of them\nhappy as you could with your walking.\"\n\nDorothy yielded to his insistent invitation and she found herself\nwhirled along to the other section of the town; and after the visit\nSterling headed the machine for a spin into the country.\n\nThus the days sped by, but there was never a day on which Sterling was\nnot with Dorothy. Into his ear she told all her experiences and her\nplans in her new church life.\n\nSterling was called away one morning by a telegram to Louisville.\nDorothy knew nothing about it, and when he did not appear on the tennis\ngrounds that afternoon, and she had not yet heard anything from him, she\nthought it strange; and when bedtime came and still no news, she was\nfirst surprised and then resentful that he should act in such neglectful\nfashion. When she heard nothing from him on the next day she found\nherself nervous and uneasy. She could not get her consent to make\ninquiries about him, and when she retired that night it was with a\nheadache.\n\nShe was standing in her front porch next morning when his automobile\ndashed up to his gate and Sterling stepped out. He saw her and hurried\nover and gave her an almost hilarious greeting. He noticed an apparent\nreserve in her manner, and yet the thought passed from his mind.\n\n\"It seems like a small century since I saw you, Dorothy. A telegram\npulled me off for Louisville early Tuesday morning, and from that moment\nuntil I boarded the train I have been in a mad dash to finish my work\nand get back, and I tell you I am prodigiously happy to be here.\"\n\nIf Dorothy had studied his eyes during the last remark she might easily\nhave read the reason for his desire to return.\n\n\"And now I must make up for lost time. I have had no pleasure ride since\nI left and I must have one this afternoon. Don't deny a dilapidated\ntraveler the pleasure, but be ready at two-thirty for a ride, and after\nthat for a tennis game.\" Before she could give her answer he decided it\nfor her and told her that he would be on hand at the time mentioned.\n\nFor two hours that afternoon they sped along the country road in happy\nconverse. In fact, their ride was lengthened into nearly three hours.\nThat evening found him again at her side. The clock struck eleven. He\nhad started to leave a half hour before the time, and still he lingered.\nSuddenly he turned his eyes upon her and said:\n\n\"Dorothy, do you know why I dashed through my Louisville trip at such\nbreak-neck speed this week?\"\n\n\"Why, you had to get back to your business, did you not?\"\n\n\"Dorothy, it was you that pulled me back, and I tell you there can be no\nreal life for me without you, and I must have you mine forever. From the\nfirst moment of our meeting I have been yours. God intended us for each\nother.\"\n\n\"You speak very confidently,\" she said with a smile, but with her heart\nfilled with a strange new happiness.\n\n\"Speak, Dorothy, do we not belong to each other?\"\n\n\"I do not deny it.\"\n\nNever had the town witnessed a more beautiful marriage than that of\nDorothy Page and Gilbert Sterling. That was the verdict of the people\nwhen the blissful pair smiled their adieus at the depot and moved off on\ntheir wedding tour.\n\nIt amounted to a sensation when the rich Presbyterian elder severed his\nconnection with his great church and joined the Baptists. It meant a\nbright era for the Baptist church. Before a year rolled around a\nhandsome new building had been erected on a commanding lot in the center\nof the town. Without offering any opposition to his old Presbyterian\nchurch, Sterling plunged into the work of his new charge with\nwhole-hearted devotion. He made a study of the Baptist denomination in\nthe state of Kentucky and in the South and North. One of his first acts\nwas to subscribe for several Baptist papers, and it was interesting to\nDorothy to note with what eagerness he read everything in the papers,\nand each time his reading was punctuated with exclamations of surprise\nat the world-wide activities of the Baptists as he saw them recorded in\nthe columns of the papers. He found himself enthusiastic about their\nhistory and their present enterprises The efforts of the State Mission\nBoard greatly interested him, and he determined to get into close touch\nwith it. He told his wife that he intended to identify himself with all\nthese denominational movements and share their burdens.\n\nThe Baptists of Kentucky and of the whole country have reason to be\ngrateful for the day when Gilbert Sterling enlisted in their ranks. He\nis as yet on the threshold of his usefulness. He is studying the needs\nand tasks of his denomination, seeking to know how he can devote his\nstrength and his possessions most effectively to its upbuilding. There\nis no happier Baptist family in Kentucky and none destined to a wider\nusefulness than that of the Sterlings.\n\n\n                              (THE END.)","title":"Dorothy Page","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":45240}