The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-10-06
FRIENDS AND BAPTISM
A STRONG ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF
TOLERANCE OF OPINION.
So Long as DIR. Clark Does Not Teach
the Doctrine, Baptism should Not
Interfere with His Work.

oNSdSiUIc IciudThS CoACcILiuS Jc itNtA1
baptism of DR.. Dougan Clark. OF Richmond.
and the bearing of this act upon his re-
lation to the Friends Church. Some i'm
portant features OF the question have not
been mentioned and are in danger Of being
overlooked by your readers. / therefore
take the liberty to call attention to some OF
them. / speak as a Friend. believing in
the doctrine of my church on outward or
dinances. but believing. also, that the
teaching and traditions of the Friends call
for generous tolerance towards and liberty
OF conscience for those who believe them
selves called to partake of the outward
rites of baptism and the supper without
attaching to these ordinances any sacra-
mental Importance. / believe. also, that the
granting Of such tolerance is in harmony
with the teaching of Scriptures and the
spirit OF love and freedom found in Jesus
Christ. 1 beg leave to present the follow
ing points for consideration:
First-The question before the Friends
Church is not the ordinances, but tolerance.
IL is not strange that an occasional Friend,
though carefully trained in the tenets of
his church., should come to view the teach
ing of Scripture on baptism and the p
and should seek relief of conscience by par
taking of these rites. This happens now
more frequently than In former times, be-
SduSC VIC Il " olDic SluQtllSs
more independent thinkers, and more free
in our association with other Christians.
1t is natural, therefore, that the following
shall be the attitude of the church towards
those of its member who, to satisfy the
demands OF a tender conscience, receive the
as to membership. A monthly meeting
could scarcely be found that would disown
a member for being baptized or taking the
supper. We 10 not enter the domain of
controversy till we reach the following
question:: What shall be done with official
members who partake of the ordinances?
Shall we remove them from office or let
them remain and continue their work?
Here discussion is aroused. and the dis
tolerant side has never been fully and fairly
presented. Its advocates have been willing
to be , misunderstood ana to nm mee eSIrc await
pers have been closed against them For
nearly ten years l was editor of the Chris
tian Worker. Chicago, and several times
tolerance. but the feeling aroused was so
strong that a full discussion of it was i'm
practicable. Nevertheless the doctrine
stands ready to abide the severest test of
Scripture, Of experience in divine life. and
of the spirit and teaching Of the early
fathers in the Friends Church.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Second-It should be known and remem-
bered that DIR. Clark, and, SO far as i
know, all the Friends who have been bap-
~ fOld Int "a - ~
the ordinances; they do not believe in them
as procuring means of grace, as steps in
salvation like repentance and faith, but
simply as acts Of obedience like family
worship and going to church. Nothing but
the blood of Jesus means as much TO
them as to others. This explains why they
may seek baptism at any stage of expert
ence, after, as well as before the baptism
with the Holy Ghost, whenever they be-
come convinced it is a from
God. Those who partake Of the ordinances
with this understanding as to their mean
ing are not r1tualists, they are in full ac-
cord with the great body OF our church as
said of the Friends who have been bap-
tiZed with water. that they are singularly
free. from churchly forms. simple in their
methods of work. powerful in their pre-
sentation Of saving gospel truth, especially
the baptism with the Holy Ghost. thor
oughly orthodox in faith, opposed to the
and very fruitful in saving souls and lead
ing them into the better experiences in
Christian life. Notably true is this of DIR.
Dougan Clark. as it was of the lamented
David b. Updegraff.
Third-The true Quaker principle, as ap-
piled to this question is: In nonessentials.
| every man shall be allowed perfect free
dom to serve God in accordance with the
dictates of his own conscience; nothing
Jesus Christ who seeks lovingly and in
diligently to render unto him implicit
obedience. If this is not Quakerism L have
studied the constitution and history of our
church in vain. For what did early Friends
suffer more than for liberty of conscience?
Let us now examine as to the application
of the principle here enunciated to the
question before us. Has the church a right
to put anything in the way Of an official
demands of a tender conscience? Would
anyone say there is any wrong, any un-
righteousness, any sin, in being ba vtized.
especially as a simple act of apprehended
Il obedience If one follows his NUN conSci-
entious convictions, to do or not to do
brings no guilt or condemnation. An off,
Friend, does right. obeys God, in being
baptized or not being baptized, as his con-
science leads him. Baptism, therefore, as
an act OF obedience, Is a nonessential and
comes under. the principle above laid down.
Hence. neither the church nor an individual
has any right to make the way Of a min
in partaking Of this rite. To say, then. that
ne must be deposed from the ministry,
must surrender his fellowship in circles
have his way closed for further service in
the church of his fathers and OF his great
There is. however, a limit to the freedom
to be allowed an official member or any
other Friend who partakes OF the ordi-
make his view Of this doctrine a rule by
which his brother shall act; not to press
his convictions tc the unsettiement of
other minds. Thus We reach the conclusion
that any Friend may partake Of Baptism
and the supper to satisfy his own con-
science, and still ho'd any office i'm the
church, provided ne does NOT press his
views upon others OF seek to unsettle those
who are of a different mind.
SCRIPTURE SOLUTION.
Fourth-The Scripture sorution of this
problem is very simple, as found in the
fourteenth chapter of Romans. II the nom
ritualistic observance Of baptism and the
supper be a matter about which Christians
may believe and act according to their sep
arate convictions without affecting their
spiritual life. we may read them into their
proper place in this chapter, as follows
verses 2 and g.: For one believeth that he
may be baptized; another who is weak,
goes without baptism. Let not him that is
baptized despise him that is baptized not;
and let not him that is baptized not, judge
him that Is baptized: for God hath received
him" Verse 4: ITO his own master he
standeth or falletl." Verse g.: Let every
man be fully pursusded in his own mind"
Verse 6: n that is baptized is baptized
to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks:
ard he that is baptized not. TO the Lord
he is baptized not; and giveth God thanks"
Verse 80: Let US therefore not Judge one
another any more but Judge this rather,
that no man put a stumbling block or an
occasion TO fall in his brothers way"
Fifth-It remains vet TO inquire. What
are the teaching, history and traditions Of
our church on this question:? Quotations
might be given from George Fox. Robert