The Indianapolis journal., 1896-04-06
THE GARvIN QUESTION AGAIN.
Elder Sweeney Draws the Line and
Asks the Professor to ''TOe It,"
To the Editor Of the Indianapolis Journal:

sweeney
Asks the Professor to ''Toe It.''
To the Editor Of the indianapolis Journal:
Prof. III. c. Garvin complains that in my
letter of March IS 1 misunderstood his an
syser to J. H. Garrison, and the value of my
information is thereby impaired. He makes
no attempt to show how, where or in what
L misunderstood him. but at once proceeds
to a caustic and sarcastic criticism of myself
and the church 1 represent, in which he
grievously misrepresents us both. If all he
says were true 1t Is irrelevant The position
of the Christian Church is not under dis
cussion; nor Is it 4 matter OF Importance
whether 1 am a consistent representative.
While our position as religious people Is
not always sanctioned by our religious neigh
bors, there has been no complaint that it
cannot be understood. AS for myself, it has
never been doubted that / represent the
teachings Of my people. Even the professor
bears witness to this when he departs from
the classic English that permeates college
town and adopts the vernacuiar of the dis
tillery to proclaim that am a. ''gauged,
sealed and certified" representative Of my
people.
This settles the credentials of my church
and self. Now for Professor Garviu's.- Is he
a ''gauged. sealed and certified represent
ative or the religious people whose money,
talent and clientele have built up Butler col
head of which stands Professor Garvin? !?
This question presses for solution, and / re-
spectfuly submit that all minor questions
must be relegated to the rear till this one is
settled. He says misunderstood him. Why,
then, doesn't he try to set me right? Let me
submit the question again and his answer.
Question-Does Professor Garvin believe
that baptism Immersion in water) is di-
vine requirement now In force?
His Answer-The New Testament does not
teach that immersion in water is essential
to salvation.
answer for moment They must conclude
that the Professor either means: First, that
II Is divine requirement now In force: or,
second, that IL Is not a divine requirement
now in force; or, third that Professor Gar
win Is resorting to fiddle-faddle / ask the
Professor TO show how l misunderstood his
answer. This claim of being misunderstood
is an old dodge with the Professor. He has
put forth that cry in every- discussion OF this
question with our editors, educators and
preachers. SO frequent has been its use that
strong suspicion is creeping into the public
mind that Professor Garvn does not under
stand himself 1t is great pity that the
head of the Bible department in Butler Col
lege cannot make himself understood upon
so simple a question. The directors of the
college should remedy the matter.
In view of this condition of affairs, SUBJ
NIT that 1t Is high time for Professor Garvin
to be thoroughly understood. I beg, there
fore, to submit TO him the following ques-
tions in the simplest language that can
command:
the baptism OF the commission Is divine
requirement now in force?
Second-Does. 1t teach that that require
ment can be obeyed by immersing a proper
Third~-Does it teach that pouring or Sphinx