An interesting correspondence. A discussion between C.E.W. Dorris and Miss Nora Yount (Christians) and A.E. Clement, W.H. Lovell, Chas. W. Galloway, and Geo. W. Nackles (Methodists).

Part Fifth— Nackles, Pastor 59-280 The Phoenix Letter— Dorris 89-104

"Mode of Water Baptism"— Nackles 129-159 Reply to "Mode of Water

Baptism"— Miss Yount 160-193

Reasons for Leaving- the Methodist Church Answered — Nackles; and

Miss Yount's Reply to Same . . . 194-251 Declining- Further Discussion — Nackles 25 f >-2f>0

Miss Yount's Closing- Article .... 261-280

Appendix— Dorris 281-289

HOW TO ORDER.

All orders for this book should be sent direct to

C. E. W. Dorris, 5605 Morrow Road,

West Nashville, Tenn.

INTRODUCTORY.

The discussion between Miss Yount and Messrs. Clement, Lovell, and Galloway was published in the Gospel Advocate by the writer in 1906-1907- Mr. Geo. W. Nackles read part of said discussion, after which he opened a correspondence with Miss Yount on December 19, 1906, which was kept up until he declined further discussion on September 30, 1907. There have been many calls for the correspondence between Miss Yount and Messrt. Clement, Lovell, and Galloway in tract form; but since the correspondence has been greatly enlarged by the discussion between Miss Yount and Mr. Nackles, it has been decided to give the entire correspondence to the public in book form. The whole correspondence published in this book is real, and not visionary, as some supposed when the first of it appeared in the Gospel Advocate. It actually occur red . The author of this Introductory directed and assisted Miss Yount in her correspondence. The following was published by the writer in the Gospel Advocate, as an Introductory, in 1906:

"About the middle of November, 1905, I began a m f ting on Paradise Ridge, some twelve or fifteen miles from Nashville, Tenn. Miss Nora Yount, of Goodlettsville. was teaching: school in the community at that time. She was sound in the Methodist faith and so prejudiced against the church of Christ that she refused to attend the meeting until late in the week, though she was boarding- with one of the brethren whose family attended the meeting regu-

*JS INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. I

larly. She attended the meeting- only two nights. At the close of the services the first night the young- lady was present, I met her, and the next evening- I had a conversation with her at her boarding- house relative to Bible doctrine. Realizing- she was above an averag-e in intellect, and believing I could lead her out of darkness into lig-ht, I soug-ht a correspondence with her, which soon led her to see the true lig-ht of the g-ospel, and also led to a correspondence between her and her pastor and presiding- elder, and an effort to correspond with the bishop. The Methodists had a quarterly meeting at Miss Yount's home congregation. During this meeting Mr. Clement, the presiding elder, delivered a discourse in which he said: 'There is no more scripture for any subject than there is for infant baptism.' Miss Yount, taking for granted the presiding elder was correct in his statement, wrote me to know why I opposed infant baptism, when there is so much scripture sustaining it. I made a clear-cut argument against it, and closed the argument with an offer to give ten dollars for a scripture that would show the time when and the place wherr- Christ or the apostles authorized or practiced infant baptism, and gnve her the privilege to gfet the presiding elder to furnish her the scripture if she failed to find it. After a close search for the scripture authorizing infant baptism and a failure to find it. Miss Yount wrote me to this effect, inclosing a copy of a letter she had written to the presiding elder, asking him to furnish her scripture warranting his statement relative to infant baptism.

This correspondence soon grew to be very interesting-; and realizing- that Miss Yount was gaining a great victory for the truth in her correspondence with the presiding- elder, I then sugg-ested that she correspond with the pastor and the bishop relative to infant baptism, sprinkling, and baptism because of the remission of sins. The pastor made an effort to defend the doctrine, but the bishop made no reply. The correspondence beg-an and ended with the presiding- elder. The correspondence with the pastor and bishop took place during- the correspondence with the presiding elder; hence we cannot publish the correspondence in its re g-ular order, but will publish it by publishing- each letter of each individual separately. On Saturday morning-, September 29, 1906, I baptized this young- lady into Christ. "

C. E. W. Doeeis.

AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE.

Part First. Discussion between Hiss Nora Yount and

Mr. A. E. Clement, Presiding Elder

in the n. E. Church, South.

BETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER.

Goodlettsville, Tenn., April 30, 1906.— Dear Brother Clement: I have a friend who opposes infant baptism, and he offers me ten dollars in gold if I will show him in the Bible where Christ authorized infant baptism and one example of it. He also gives me the privilege of asking- any one I wish to assist me in finding" this scripture; and remembering- that you said at our last quarterly meeting-, "There is no more scripture for anythingthan there is for infant baptism," I appeal to you for help. Now, what I want you to do is to refer me to those passag-es where I can find authority for infant baptism that is indisputable. I feel quite sure that it is there somewhere, but I do not know just where to find it.

Trusting- that I may hear from you soon, and thanking- you in advance for the favor, I am, Your sincere friend,

(Miss) Nora Yount.

LBTTBE PROM PHE PRESIDING ELDER TO MISS YOUNT.

Clarksville, Tenn., May 1, 1906.— Miss Nora Yount. Goodlettsville, Tenn. — Mv Dear Miss Nora: It will not be difficult to point out scriptural reasons for holding- to infant baptism, but your trouble in convincing- vour friend will be that he wants to be the judg-e as to when logically defeated, rather than a searcher for truth. For instance, several of the immersion papers have a standing- offer, so it is reported, of five hundred dollars to any one who will produce another meaning- for the Greek word "baptizo" than that of "immersion;'' and yet they have never surrendered the money, though Greek lexicons are full of "sprinkle" as one of its meanings, and several who started out to trip us have come to us instead. The trouble is, they are to be their own judges as to when convinced and will never acknowledg-e it, althoug-h the facts of the world's scholarship put them wholly on the defensive; for that man does not live who can prove immersion as exclusively the only scriptural baptism. I have no objections to giving you, in brief, the proof; but I forewarn }~ou, you will not convince your friend nor win vour ten dollars in gold.

1. All members of the "kingdom of God'' are fit subjects for baptism. Christ says the children are members of the kingdom of God (Mark 10: 14); therefore children are fit subjects for baptism, already being members of that kingdom. It would be a strange shepherd that would shelter the old sheep from the storms of winter and ravages of the wild beasts, and shut out the lambs; equally strange would be that church that would house, feed, and protect older people from Satan, and leave the children exposed to Satan, the world, and its trials, affording- them no protection. The children go in with us by baptism.

2. It is often said: "Place your hand on the command of Christ for the baptism of children." It is proper to retort: "Place your hand on a single instance where he commands women to be baptized." You cannot do it; and yet no one dares exclude the women, and correctly so, for there are historical instances of their baptism. Equally true are there historical instances of childhood baptisms. See the Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), Stephanas and his household (1 Cor. 1:16), Lydia and her household (Acts 16:13), and others. Now note carefully that these households were baptized on the faith of the head of that household, and not on their own personal faith. This Jewish custom of a man's taking- his household with him into whatever faith he accepted prevailed in the Christian church in relation to baptism as well, as herein proven.

3. Baptism in the Christian church took the place of circumcision in that of the Jewish church. They both stand as an outward sign of an inward condition of the heart, for exactly the same thing. "Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. 2:29.) "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? . . . That like

7 W IX TKKKSTING CORRESPONDENCE.

;is Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:3,4.) These two verses on the two rites point to the same thing — spiritual regeneration. Jewish children were circumcised, and so were Christian children baptized, as signs of their union with God and Christ.

4. Historv proves the above points as holding in the davs of the apostles. "The practice of infant baptism was, evidently, the policy of the church in the time of Origen and Cyprian, the former of whom declares it a matter of apostolic tradition. The practice was also quite current in the time of Tertullian, who opposed it on the ground of the inexpediency of placing young and innocent children under the heavy responsibility of the baptismal covenant." (Sheldon's "History of Doctrine," Vol. I). Origen (185-253 A.D. ) writes: "According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants." "For this cause it was that the church received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to infants.' 1 Tertullian (160-240 A.D.) opposes infant baptism, not on the ground of its not being* historical, but "that it istoo important; not even earthly goods are intrusted to infants." Justin Martyr (138 A.D.) declares, that there were among Christians in his time •'many persons of both sexes, some sixty and some seventy years old, who had been made disciples to Christ from their infancy," and who must, therefore, have been baptized during the lifetime of some of the apostles. He says: "We are circumcised by baptism, with Christ's circumcision." History, therefore, proves the practice followed by the apostles and early church of baptizing- infants as set forth in 1, 2, and 3, as stated above.

If any one of these points you do not understand, write me, and I will take pleasure in illuminatingthem. Or if any difficult points confront you, write me, and I will do my best to help you out. Write me what your friend says.

Sincerely your friend,

A. K. Clement.

LETTER PROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER.

Goodlettsville, Term., June 15, 1906.— Dear Brother Clement: Yours of May 1 received and contents carefully noted. I wish to thank you, first of all, for your kind offer to illuminate the points you make and to help me out in difficult points confronting- me, for I am in need of the fulfillment of both of your promises.

But before placing- my difficulties before you, I wish to say I fhink your idea of my friend wanting- to be judgv as to when logically defeated is entirely wrong-, for I fully believe he is honest and sincere and wants nothing- but the truth. I also believe he would be willing- for me to be "judg-e ,T as to whether or not I am entitled to the ten dollars in g-old, and feel confident he will make g*ood his promise when I can produce scripture authorizing- infant baptism; but, of course, I am not entitled to this until I can produce it,

I have searched the Bible for one single example of infant baptism, but fail to find it. You do not satisfy th demands of my friend. In your letter you give historical proof only, and I am wanting' Bible proof. His offer is not for historical proof, but for Bible proof. True, you introduce three scriptures (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:13) as examples of infant baptism; but these do not entitle me to the ten dollars, since none of these were baptized but believers. Infants cannot believe, hence were not baptized. You say: "Note carefully that th >s • households were baptized on the faith of the head of the household, and not on their own personal faith." Now, if you will give me Bible proof for this statement, I will get the prize and perhaps win my friend to the truth. The scriptures you offer do not, to my mind, prove that any were baptized on the faith of the heads of the family; but perhaps I have overlooked the point in the Bible which proves that some of the members of the families were baptized on the faith of the heads of the household, and not on their own personal faith. I need some "illumination" here. Please give me chapter and verse in the Bible that proves your statement. If infants were baptized on the faith of the heads of the family, then where is the authority for baptizing- infants of unbelieving- parents? Would you baptize infants whose parents do not belong- to the church? If not, do not our churches protect the sheep and leave the lambs exposed to the wolf? Why debar them from the Lord's table?

Your third arg-ument is based on baptism takingthe place of circumcision. If this is true, where is the scripture for baptizing- girl babies, since circumcision was never applied to any except the males?

Your first arg-ument in favor of infant baptism is, they are in the king-dom and fit subjects for baptism. You close this arg-ument with these words: "The children g-o in with us by baptism." My friend says you contradict yourself. He says you arg-ue infants should be baptized because they are in the king-dom, and then contradict yourself by the statement, "The infants g-o in with us by baptism." I cannot meet my friend's arg-ument here,

11 AN INTEEEESTING CORRESPONDENCE.

and hence must ask 30U to harmonize the two statements so I can meet it. He also asks me for our scripture for sprinkling-. Can you furnish this?

The retort of women not being- commanded to be baptized is overturned by my friend, who introduces scripture which shows that both men and women were baptized (Acts 12:8), also the baptism of Lydia (Acts 16:15). Now, he produces two examples where women were baptized and demands one example of infant baptism. Will you please give me one Bible example where infants were baptized? I am anxious to find such an example, not merely for the sake of the ten dollars, but I am anxious to g-et the truth before my friend.

Trusting- that you will favor me with an early reply, I am, Yours sincerely,

(Miss) Nora Yount.

LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER.

Nashville, Tenn., July 23, 1906.— Dear Brother Clement: Some time ago I addressed a letter to you at your request and in reply to yours of May 1. I did this in all g-ood faith, because I was searching- for Bible truths relative to some points of doctrine our church teaches.

I have a friend who called the practice of infant baptism in question, and asks me to give authority from the Bible for the practice. I was born in a Methodist home, rocked in a Methodist cradle, reared by Methodist parents, and would have been sprinkled in infancy (seven years of age) had I not slipped out and hid the morning old Brother Rooker came to my father's home for the purpose of sprinkling me and two other children. I have been organist in the Methodist Church since I was thirteen years of age. I joined the Methodist Church at seventeen, and have been an active worker since that time. I have been taught from infanc}^ that infant baptism was authorized by the Lord, and when my friend made me this offer I thought it would be an easy task to find plenty of scripture warranting the practice of infant baptism; but, to my utter surprise, after a close search, I failed to find a single scripture authorizing the practice. You being a brother of high standing, also our presiding elder, which makes you next to the highest authority in our church, and remembering, too, that you said at our last quarterly meeting in a discourse that "there is no more scripture for any-

13 W" 1NTKKKSTING CORRESPONDENCE.

thing than there is for infant baptism," I at once appealed to von for Bible authority for your statement. To this you replied immediately, setting* forth your claims for the practice of infant baptism; but, to my surprise, you failed to set forth a single scripture authorizing- the practice. You asked me to write you what nry friend said, also promised to help me out if any difficult points confronted me. After my friend read your letter and commented on the same, there were several difficult points confronting- me, and, complying- with your request, I write you what my friend said, placingmy difficulties before you and asking- you to "illuminate" the points according- to promise.

Up to the present I have received no reply from you, which, of course, is a surprise to me; but this is not as great a surprise as is the fact that when you saw my father some days ag-o you told him that the reason you had not answered my last letter was because I had introduced thing-s you could not discuss with a lady, thereby leaving- the impression on my father's mind that I had crossed over the line of decency. My dear sir, I introduced no new subject, nor asked you to explain anything- but what you introduced. Baptism coming- in the place of circumcision was introduced by you; therefore if any one has crossed the line of decency, it is you. If the subject' is of such a nature that it should not be discussed between a lady and a g-entleman, then you crossed the line and treaded on ground a gentleman should not hive treaded on when you introduced the subject. Not only is this true, but you knew I wanted your argument to place before my friend; and when you introduced the subject, you thereby advised me to introduce the subject to, and discuss it with, my gentleman friend. Why would you advise a lady to do something you would not do yourself? Why do you advise a lady to introduce the subject to, and discuss the subject with, a gentleman friend, and then when she writes and asks you to give your authority for baptizing- female babies, since none were circumcised, go to her f-'ther and try to make the impression on him that she had introduced a subject a lady should not introduce to a gentleman? It seems to me that if any one has any reason for complaint or any cause for insult or anything- to report, I am the one. I would sug-g-est that if you cannot afford to discuss the subject with a lady, do not introduce the subject to her nor advise her to introduce it to a gentleman any more; and if you should do so, do not stoop so low as to denounce her for taking- your advice.

It is my honest opinion that the question and facts I put before you put you to flig-ht — that you were wholly unable to answer a sing-le point, and that you went to my father with the matter for a twofold purpose. The first, to have an excuse for not answering- me; and, the second, to create a prejudice in my father's heart against me and to influence him to stop me from searching for the true light of the gospel of the Son of God. I cannot understand why infants should be baptized because they are in the church, rnd then go in with us by baptism. If they are in the church before baptism, then pray tell me how they can g"o in by baptism.

There are some thing's relative to the household baptism that I do not understand. First, Christ authorized the disciples to baptize believing- penitents; therefore, if they baptize infants, they did something- unauthorized by the Lord, from the simple fact that infants have no faith, neither can they have sins to repent of. Second, how do you know these households had any infants in them? To prove the practice of infant baptism by the household baptism, you must show, in the first place, that infants were in the households, and also that they baptized unbelievers. The scriptures you cite me show that there were none baptized but believers, hence none were infants. Third, how do vou know these infants were baptized on the faith of the heads of the households? Where does the Lord authorize such a baptism; and if this be true, where is the authority for baptizing infants of unbelievers?

You say: "Strangle would be that church that would house, feed, and protect older people from Satan, and leave the children exposed to Satan, the world, and its trials, offering- them no protection." What more does our church offer them than other churches, except a little sprinklingof water which is forced on them and which they receive unwillingly? Thev are debarred from the Lord's Supper and are not competent to receive spiritual teaching-; so I do not see that the children in the Methodist Church are looked after, shielded, or protected better than children not sprinkled.

Besides this, in baptizing- infants you transpose the commission and do the very thing- you accuse others of doing. In the commission we have teaching-, faith, repentance, and baptism. In the practice of infant baptism we have baptism, teaching-, faith, and repentance. Our people accuse a certain relig-ious body of teaching- "water salvation" — that they baptize people without repentance and chang-e of heart. Is it not a fact that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, teaches and practices this doctrine, since it baptizes infants which have neither faith, repentance, nor change of heart? Since water is all they get, is it not a "water salvation?"

You said: "If any of these points you do not understand, write me, and I will take pleasure in illuminating them. Or if any difficult points confront you, I will do my best to help you." This is the second time I have complied with your request. My difficult points are before you; and if you will keep your promise and give me the scripture which, shows the time when, and the place where, Christ authorized infant baptism, or that the apostles practiced it, I will give you the ten dollars in gold. If you fail to do this, your statement, "I forewarn you, you will not convince your friend nor win your ten dollars in gold," will prove true.

My address is 402 Twelfth avenue, South, Nashville, Tenn. Yours truly,

(Miss) Nora Yount.

l.KTTKK FROM THE PRESIDING ELDER TO MISS YOUNT.

Clarksville, Tenn., August 15, 1906.— Miss Nora Tount, Nashville. Tenn. — My Dear Miss Nora: Your recent letter came to hand and was ex= amined carefully, as was also jour former one. My intentions were from the start to answer your letter item bv item, but mv business over the district filled up all my time and made it impossible to do so promptly. I have been away from home on my work for the past month and more, so that you can readily see these delaj-s necessarily have occured. Furthermore, I hardly know what to write you or how to present it in the best form. When I wrote you, I did so as to a Methodist, and had no thought of running- up against a controversy, for which I have no taste and even less patience. I am always anxious to help a truth seeker; but when one puts himself up for controversy, it is well known that w T e Methodist preachers haven't time for that sort of thing-. And, to my surprise, instead of reasoning carefully on the subject, you set yourself in the place of your friend and used his arguments in controversy against the ones shown you.

As for the arguments used by me, though they were hurried!}- put, they stand against the controversy of ages as a Gibraltar of faith for the greatest churches and the greatest scholars of the world. I quote you some of them: "As to the antiquity of infant baptism, it is admitted by Baptist writers themselves that it was practiced in Tertullian's time i A.D.200 ."' ( McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Volume I, page 648.) ""V\ hole he toeholds were sometimes baptized, as those of Lydia, Crispus, the jailer, and Stephanas; and it is probable that there were children in at least some of these. . . . According- to the ideas then prevalent, tht heed of the family represented and summed up tht family, . . . and it would have seemed an unnatuial thing that the father should make a complete change in his religious condition and that his children should be excluded from it. Moreover, the analogy of circumcision would lead Jewish converts to have their children baptized. Had there been this marked difference between the two rites — that infants were admitted to the Jewish covenant, but not to the Christian — the difference would probably have been pointed out; all the more so, because Christianity was the more comprehensive religion of the two. There is, therefore, prima facie ground for believing' that from the first infants were baptized. And this position is strengthened by g-eneral declarations of Christ himself: 'Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God' (Mark 10:14), . . . where there is no intimation that children were exempt. On the contrary, the condition of the children is given as the ideal for entrance in o the kingdom. (Matt. 18: 3.) ... That baptism involved admission to the church hardly needs to be more than stated. It was an instrument for this very purpose, analogous to circumcision. The recipient of baptism, like the recipient of circumcision, is admitted to a new external covenant and new spiritual privileges, l l » AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE.

and is thereby pledg-ed to new duties. To say that a person is baptized is to say that he has been admitted to the Christian communion." (A. Plummer, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, pag-es 242, 243. ) I could quote you scholars of like character by the hour to show that it is accepted and held and practiced by the most careful Bible students of the world. However, as you want my own arguments, I will formulate them.

(1) It is admitted that children are the subjects of redeeming* grace, and on death do not enter heaven because of their Christian descent or the piety of their parents, but because of their personal connection with Christ, by whose rigiiteousness the free gift is come upon them unto justification of life. If there be any for whom Christ did not die, such are obviously ineligible to baptism, which is the exponent of those great benefits which flow from the redemption in Christ. But since the free gift has come upon all (infants included), there can be no reason for excluding- any from the sig-n and seal, except such as exclude themselves by their obstinate impenitence, and infants are not of that number. No one on this earth is outside the king-- dom, except such as exclude themselves by voluntary departure therefrom. And if he ever g-ets back ag-ain, he does so by becoming- a child ag-ain. Christ's teaching-s at this point are unmistakable: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the king-dom of God. " (Mark 10:14.) And ag-ain: "Except ye turn, and become as little children, ve shall in no' wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3.)

One of your questions as to what a child has to repent of, and so why baptize him, smacks of baptismal regeneration, a Romish doctrine exploded years ago. People are not baptized as a means of washing- away their sins, but because their sins have been washed away.

And you ask how a child is to believe, stating that only believers were baptized. To be sure, the preaching of Jesus was to adults; but he did it with the understanding that when the parents believed the new doctrine, naturally they would teach it to their children as they arrived at years of comprehension. The same line of work was done in instructing the children as was followed by the Jews previous to Christ, of course. And as for children not being believers, they are the truest type of faith, as cited by Christ. And as for those incapable of faith in Christ being baptized, that is a point in question covered by my next argument. (2) Children are specifically embraced in the gospel covenant. For when that covenant was made with Abraham, his children were brought under its provisions, and the same seal that was administered to him was administered also to them. They were all alike circumcised as a token of their common interest in that covenant of which circumcision was the appointed symbol. St. Paul says that covenant is yet in force: "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through

Jl AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE.