The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1876-02-10
THE BAPTISTS' DISPUTE.
Withdrawal of a Distinguished
Preacher from the DenOmi-
nation.

Preacher from the Denomi-
nation.
The Rev. DR.. Behrends, pastor of
the First Baptist Church of Cleve
land, O., announces his resigna-
tiOn of that position and his
withdrawal from the Baptist de-
nomination. The reasons that in
duced him to take this course are
given by him as follows:
81. have found myself growing
more and more out of sympathy
with the prevailing and dominant
policy OF the communion question,
by which dissent is treated as ser
ious disloyalty, and fair public
hearing is emphatically and univer-
sally refused, until my self-imposed
silence. IN the face of unrestrained
assault upon my brethren and my
self in public gatherings, at social
feasts, in ministerial conferences, on
the platform, and through the press,
has become practically uncomfortable
and almost a wrong at the bar of my
conscience
"I do not impeach my brethren as
guilty of conscious and designed
intolerance; l believe them to be
honest in the advocacy of their prin
ciples as necessary to a maintenance
of their apostolic. orders; but I am
equally free to say that, without call
ing in question the Baptist claim of
immersion as essential to the validi-
ty of Christian baptism, the policy
of resticted communion appears to
me not only uucalled.f for and unwise
but positively unseriptural and
wrong. I am satisfied that the pub
lie advocacy of such a position
would be emphatically resented by
the denomination and have no de-
sire to play the part Of a disturber
of the peace. They who cannot
agree, or amicably discuss their
differences, should quietly part.
80. The more serious reason
remains to be added. So far as 1
know, l am more radical in my
dissent than any present open com
munion advocates in the denomina-
ton. The exclusive attitude of the
denomination on the baptism ques-
tion I am uh4ble any longer to
maintain. l shall not presume to
present the argument, but content
myself with a summary of the re-
suit to which a fresh and painstak-
ing review, especially of the Scrip
lures, has led me, as all that is per-
-tinent here.
"Granting that immersion was
the practice of the Apostles and the
usage of the early church, it can
not be shown from the New Testa-
ment that immersion is so related
to the design or symbolism OF
Christian baptism as in its absence
to destroy the integrity or validity
of the ordinance. Immersion is
baptism, and as it seems to me, by
the preponderance of critical and
historical evidence, the primitive
baptism, but that immersion only
is valid Christian baptism I deem
incapable of proof, whether the ap
peal be to philology, to histo y, ol
to the doctrinal significance of thC
ordinance. 1t may be wise and de
sirable that immersion should re
tain prominence of practical recog
nition in the Christian Church, ol
that it should resume its ancient
prevalence; bat that such a return
to ancient usage is necessary t
the rescue and restoration of Chris
tian baptism, is a claim l find i
impossible to maintain. I believe il
open church membership, therefore
no less than in free Christian com
munion.