THE BAPTISM CONTROVERSY: The Results
THE BAPTISM CONTROVERSY: The Results
The Negative Response
The results of Judson’s decision in the broadest sense are evidenced by the entirety of the American Baptist missionary movement from 1812 to the present. In the narrower historic sense, Judson’s decision prompted both a negative and positive response. The negative response was voiced by the Reverend Enoch Pond, a Congregational pastor in Ward, Massachusetts. He published a book entitled, A Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Christian Baptism — Designed as a reply to the Statements and Reasonings of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, which was a response to the sermon that Judson had preached in India. This sermon was published in the United States and subsequently received great attention. Pond begins the book by stating his reason for writing.
But is the present revival of this controversy properly chargeable to the writer? When Mr. Judson wrote and published his Sermon, with the avowed design of transmitting it to America, he well knew that he was treading on controversial ground; and he had every reason to expect, unless he supposed it would force universal conviction, that someone in his native country would attempt a reply.[39]
Pond’s reply, though, was not merely theological in context. He questioned Judson’s motivations for his change in position.
Pedobaptists would gladly indulge the hope, that these pretensions are sincere—that Mr. Judson was influenced in this matter by a sense of duty and the fear of God. They cannot, however, repress the opinion, after a deliberate investigation of concomitant circumstances, that his change is to say the least, a very mysterious event.[40]
He then continued with directly calling Judson’s character into question.
Mr. Judson is a person whom, for several years, I have been accustomed to respect. It is with pain I find myself under obligations to controvert what he has advanced. It is particularly painful, that I am to become the instrument of communicating facts which seriously implicate his moral character. His particular friends may rest assured that I have no pleasure in detraction, and that it would afford me the highest happiness, could the mysteries of his conduct be fully developed, and the charge which in the ensuing pages lies against him be fairly removed.[41]
Pond’s accusations are several. He began by suggesting that Judson’s change was not based upon lines of biblical reasoning, but upon the possibility for financial gain.
The reasonings he has employed have been employed before. And in the course of his theological education, it would seem he must have known this. The arguments he has now advanced and pronounced conclusive, he must have previously considered, and pronounced incorrect.[42]
It is somewhat remarkable in the case of Mr. Judson, that he should be changed to precisely such a point. Having begun to waver, why did he waver just so far, and no farther? Without communicating his “exercises to any of the Baptist denomination,” why did he at length fasten on those very topics, which constitute the peculiarities of the Baptist faith? At a period when his own circumstances were greatly perplexed, and when liable to imagine that some new expedient might improve them; how came he to coincide so exactly with those Missionaries among whom Providence had thrown him, who were now prosperously established, and engaged in their benevolent work?[43]
Second, Pond suggests that Judson was not honest and open with his co-workers and not loyal to his home church.
Another remarkable circumstance respecting Mr. Judson’s change, is the concealment of his views from his missionary brethren. He certainly could not have renounced Pedobaptist principles without a struggle. He could not have been honestly brought to decide, that those ministers with whom he had ever associated were not regular ministers of Christ; that those churches with which he was connected, on which he was dependent, and to which he was under solemn obligations, were not regularly constituted churches of Christ; that his reverend father and most intimate Christian friends had never been baptized in the name of the Trinity, or rightly professed the Christian faith; yea, that he himself had constantly fostered that, which (pursued to what he deems its direct consequences) is “the most pernicious practice which ever infested and laid waste the vineyard of the Lord” — he could not possibly have been brought to such a decision, without a deep inward conflict. How strange, then, that the conflict never became visible! That it was neither observed by, nor revealed to, his missionary companions! Here is a band of brothers, going forth with the gospel to a land of idols, not only under peculiar obligations, but, it should seem, peculiarly disposed, to maintain an intercourse the most frank and open; and yet one of them passes through a scene of the utmost mental trouble; dissents from the church order of his ancestors, supporters, and associates; and is at length on the point of a complete separation from them, and has never made to them the slightest intimations of what had passed, and was passing in his mind!![44]
Third, Pond accused Judson of harboring resentment regarding a past reprimand he received from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions regarding Judson’s interaction with the London Missionary Society. The accusation was that Adoniram had overstepped his bounds as he negotiated for a partnership between the two parties. Initially, Judson had denied that a formal admonition was given, (though later in life he notes that mistakes were made for which he was sorry). Pond seized on this discrepancy and accused Judson of both bitterness and dishonesty.
It will be recollected by many, that soon after the intelligence of Mr. Judson’s change had reached America, it was hinted in certain circles, that this had been induced by resentment. He had received, previously to his leaving the country, a solemn reprimand or admonition from the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; and the affront occasioned by it had induced him to desert them. Rumours like these at length found their way into the East, and reached the ears of Mr. Judson.[45]
To substantiate his accusation, Pond quoted Dr. Samuel Worcester, the corresponding secretary of the American Board. Worcester was responding to the question concerning whether Judson actually received a formal reprimand from the Board.
In the beginning of the year 1811, Mr. Judson was sent by the Prudential Committee to England, for purposes distinctly specified in his instructions. In that mission, what he was instructed not to do, he did; and what he was instructed to do, he neglected. On his return, in July of the same year, he kept himself aloof from the Prudential committee, made no regular report of his doings, and assumed the management of matters in his own way.
Great dissatisfaction was expressed by every member present; and it became a very serious question whether Mr. Judson should not be dismissed. After deliberation, however, it was resolved, that he should be in a formal and solemn manner admonished. THE ADMONITION WAS ACCORDINGLY ADMINISTERED IN PRESENCE OF THE BOARD.
In the February following, his deportment was such, that it again became a serious and most trying question with the Prudential committee, whether he should be permitted to go. And it was not without great heaviness of heart, many fears, and particular but tender cautions, not to him only, but to the other Missionaries respecting him, that he was finally sent out.
The ultimate issue is with Him, to whose sovereign wisdom, and power, and goodness it belongs, to overrule the wayward dispositions and actions of men for the advancement of his own glory and kingdom.[46]
Pond then called for Judson to repent of his lying, to admit his wrongdoing, and to humble himself.
To deny the smallest particular, would be to contradict a body of men, which yields to none in America in point of respectability and worth. To quibble and equivocate on the meaning of certain words, would discover the opposite of an honest, humble spirit; and, instead of exonerating him, would in the estimation of the candid confirm his guilt. To pretend forgetfulness of the fact which he has denied would be perfectly unaccountable, and excite the suspicion of an attempt to impose upon the publik [sic]. In short, we see but one course which Mr. J. can dutifully pursue. He must retrace his steps. The credit of congregationalism does not require that he should return to his former sentiments; but the credit of religion does imperiously require, that he humble himself, and be willing to confess the truth.[47]
Pond continues to question Judson’s character by suggesting that “Mr. J. possesses naturally a proud, unstable, aspiring temper; and none need be informed, that mortified pride and cramped ambition are powerful stimulants of revenge.”[48]
Fourth, Pond accused Judson of plagiarism regarding his sermon on baptism. Judson had referenced the work of a Mr. Booth throughout his treatise.
In short, what part of the work is to be accredited to Mr. Judson, and what to Mr. Booth? There ought to be no foundation for questions like these. The very face of the Discourse should completely preclude them. There evidently is in this Sermon a great (not to say needless) parade of learning. We hope it was not Mr. Judson’s design to be accredited with all this learning himself; but we are sure a great proportion of his readers are in danger of mistaking the truth. If he is a modest man, he will wish therefore it should be stated, that nearly all his quotations and references, unless it be those of a very modern date, are transcribed, verbatim et literatim, from Mr. Booth and others; and that a great proportion of the learning displayed in the work is not originally his own.
We had the curiosity to spend an hour or two in comparing Mr. Judson’s Sermon with “Pedobaptism Examined.” We directly discovered between sixty and seventy quotations with their references, and nearly forty references where there were no quotations, which were manifestly transcribed from this learned work! These quotations and references must have cost Mr. Booth more labour than to write a folio. All the credit he has for them, is crowded into less than three indefinitely and equivocally constructed lines!!![49]
Finally, Pond stated that Judson was missing the entire point concerning the baptism controversy.
The question at issue in this part of the subject is not whether immersion is a valid mode of baptism: this we may admit. Nor is it whether this mode is preferable to all others; for we are willing that those who prefer immersion, even in our own churches, should be indulged. Nor is it whether immersion was frequently practised in the early ages of Christianity; this we have no necessity or disposition to deny. We do not say that neither of these points is questionable; but neither of them is the precise question in dispute. The point at issue is in few words this — Is immersion essential? Mr. Judson contends, that the idea of immersion enters into the very “nature of baptism; that the terms baptism and immersion are equivalent and interchangeable.” He evidently supposes immersion essential to the ordinance. This, then, is the point to which his reasonings ought to tend. Let him prove, what we deny, that immersion is essential to baptism, and the controversy is at an end.[50]
Pond’s attack on Judson was to be expected on all fronts. His book was distributed throughout Congregational and Baptist churches. No doubt it impacted Judson’s friends and family members alike. Because of this, the severity of the cost for the Judsons was extremely high. As they anticipated, it cost them more than financial support; it also called into question their personal integrity. No price can be greater for a minister of the gospel.