The Portland daily press., 1897-06-28
BETHANY CHURCH.
A Letter From the Rev. Mr.. woodward
Defining His Position.

10 the Editor of the Press:
There is a statement made in recent
article respecting Bethany church, South
Portland, which is not only incorrect, but
which does injustice to myself, as one of
the principal actors in the matter there
referred to, and you will undoubtedly be
glad to get at the exact facts so far as
they have not yet been made public. l
therefore wish to make a correction and
also state my own connection with the
affair.
l refer you to the paragraph where it
is said that Mr.. Andrews replied (pre-
sumably in answering my letter. that if
persons connected with his parish were
to be baptised by immersion arrange
ments should be made by him and he was
perfectly willing to make such arrange
ments in this case as he had in others"
In the only letter sent me by Mr.. An
drews, which is now before me, there is
not one word which touches even remote
" on the points brought out in this para
graph. Whatever he may have said to
Others, he has written nothing Of the kind
to me. Neither is it true that he "pro-
tested against this action as breach of
ministerial courtesy All that he said
in his letter regarding a.. breach of Chris
tian courtesy and ministerial fellowship, :"
to quote his own words-was based on
his assumption, for which I had given
him no ground, that l had been guilty
of going into his church and arranging
for this baptism without first consulting
him." His criticism had reference to
the manner of action, rather than to the
action itself. And that even this criti-
cism was wholly without just ground,
the following facts will show.
The first knowledge I had of this mat
ter was on April &c, when a stranger
called at my house, saying that he was a
member of the Bethany church, and
asked me if 1 would go over to South
Portland the next Sunday morning, and
baptise a number of persons in the har-
Dor. My first question was, why does
not Mr.. Andrews attend to this?" The
reply was, "Mr. Andrews refuses to do
it," After some further conversation,
told him that if the friends thought it
was their duty to be baptised, and their
pastor refused to do it, ! would como over
and do it, but only on two conditions:
First, that l should notify Mr.. Andrews,
and see if some amicable, pleasant ar
rangement could not be made, such as
when he brought two of his church mem
bers to my church to be baptised few
days previously; and second, that it
should not be at an hour which would in
terfere with their Sunday morning SER
vices. At this time | was a total stran-
ger to every person who was afterwards
baptised, and till that moment had no
suspicion that any one desired baptism.
then wrote Mr. Andrews, telling him
of the request referred to, and expressing
myself clearly and positively as desiring
to do nothing which should 'hinder him
in his work, - expecting that some AMIGA
reply he totally ignored the purpose for
which | had written, but making the
criticism already mentioned. He also
stated in substance that my letter was
his first intimation of the affair. And it
was only after l had made further in
quiries, and had been positively assured
by two witnesses whom ! believed to be
reliable, that Mr.. Andrews had been not
flied of a desire for baptism, and had
positively declined to do (which | I'M
derstand Mr.. Andrews now claims to
have been a misunderstanding of his real
intentions-tha l decided to go ahead"
and do as l was requested to do. My
reason for that decision, assuming what
l then had no cause to doubt that the
pastor would not himself do the baptls-
ing, was very simple one, and may be
easily understood, namely: believe and
teach that baptism (immersion) is posi-
tive obligation on the part of every Chris
tian, whether church member or not, and
of course, if that belief be correct, then,
after due consideration of all matters of
christian courtesy and ministerial fell
lowship," if the minister who would nat
urally be expected to perform the rite, re-
fuses to do SO, then it Immediately be-
comes the duty of some one else to attend
to the matter, circumstances determining
upon whom that duty should fall I hold
this argument to be beyond successful
controversy, and insist that neither pas
tors nor churches have any right, divine
or otherwise, to hinder any one who de-
sires baptism. And as l understand Con-
gregational usage, having myself been
a member of % Congregational church
more than twenty years, am not here
traversing any doctrine or practice of