00B.24 Chapter 17--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 9

XVII. "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies"

No. 9 The editor of the Methodist Herald continues to offer arguments which he thinks will show that immersion was not the baptism practiced in the New Testament. He is not yet arguing affirmatively for pouring or sprinkling, but is content to try to find some circumstance that would show that immersion was not possible or practicable. In his issue of September 9 he discussed the baptism of the jailer, and in the issue of September 16 he discusses household baptisms. As he endeavors to prove that the jailer was baptized in a house, the argument in both of these issues of that paper is just the same. He introduces Saul and attempts to show that he was baptized in the house of Judas on the street that was called "Straight" in the city of Damascus. He introduces Cornelius, who. with his house, he assumes, was baptized in a room of his residence. Then he discusses at length the case of the Philippian jailer, and last of all he makes an astounding assertion about the origin of immersion. We shall notice these cases separately, but only briefly. THE CASE OF CORNELIUS In discussing Cornelius, the editor again stressed the fact that the Holy Spirit "fell" upon Cornelius, and he quotes the apostle Peter as saying that this was a fulfillment of the promise made by the Lord that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. He tries to prove that this was a case of baptizing by "falling" or by "pouring." This argument has been answered in a previous article, and it is only necessary to state that when these people were baptized in the Holy Spirit they were completely overwhelmed by the Spirit and passed under his control. The Holy Spirit was poured; and if the act of pouring is baptizing, then the Holy Spirit was baptized. That Cornelius was baptized in water or with water is made clear by Peter’s statement: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" The editor correctly says that this means, "Who can object to these being bap­tized?" There is nothing here to indicate how they were baptized; but we know what the word "baptize" means, and therefore we know that the details or necessary circum­stances of an immersion are simply not mentioned as they are in but few cases. They were baptized, and that tells the whole story. THE CASE OF SAUL

Saul was in the house of Judas fasting and praying in blindness. Ananias came to him and entered into the house where he was. Then Ananias commanded him to "arise, and be baptized, . . . calling on the name of the Lord." Editor Swift infers that this simply means, "Stand up, and be baptized in your tracks, right here in this room." But, of course, that inference is not justified. It has no ground at all. If Saul had been baptized right there in that room, and if such a baptism could be performed by pouring or sprinkling, there would have been no need for him to arise. He could have been baptized while lying down or standing on his knees just as easily as he could while standing erect. In fact, Methodist preachers usually have their candidates to kneel down to receive sprinkling. The fact that Saul was commanded to arise indicates that he had to do some­thing that could not be done while in a prostrate or kneel­ing posture. To assume that after he arose he stood still or did not move out of the house is a groundless assumption. It is a glaring fallacy in reasoning. To see the absurdity of such an inference, let us take this illustration: Editor Swift ate the meat today which he purchased yesterday. But the meat which he purchased yesterday was raw meat. There­fore, Editor Swift ate raw meat today. Because the details and circumstances of cooking the meat were not narrated in the first statement, we assume that this cooking did not take place at all. This is exactly the same reasoning the editor is guilty of. The word "arise" is used dozens of times in the Scriptures, and it always prefaces some action that would necessitate the getting up from a sitting or kneeling posture. "Arise, and walk"; "Arise, let us go hence"; "Arise, go over this Jordan"; "Arise, and go into Damascus." These are a few samples of the way that word is used. THE CASE OF THE JAILER The editor thinks he has positive proof that the jailer was baptized inside of the prison. This story is found in the sixteenth chapter of Acts. Anyone who will read it carefully will see that the editor again draws an unjusti­fiable inference. The circumstances forbid such an infer­ence. Paul and Silas were in an inner prison or dungeon before the earthquake came; but after the doors had been thrown open and their stocks had been loosed, no one knows where they were, except that they were somewhere inside the prison building; that they had not come out into the corridors no one can prove. W e might infer that they had. but we do not have to infer anything in order to learn the truth. The thirtieth verse plainly says that the jailer ”brought them out. ” Our editor says he brought them out of the inner prison into the outer prison. But for this state­ment he has no proof in the world. The natural conclusion from the language would be that he brought them out of the prison. Then the thirty-second verse declares that Paul and Silas spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all "that were in his house." Now, if the editor could find this expression, "in his house," connected with baptism, he would shout with a voice like the voice of many waters that the baptism took place inside o f his house. Why shall we not then say that this speaking took place inside of the jailer’s house? But the editor will not have it that way, because that would spoil his picture. For if this speaking was done in his house, then the thirty-third verse says he "took" them and washed their stripes and was baptized. Then the thirty- fourth verse says after this had been done he brought them into his house. So we know if when they spoke to all that were in his house, they were speaking inside of the house, they went out of the house for the baptizing, because after this ordinance they were brought back into the house. Now we see the facts, which are: first, they were brought out of the prison; second, they spoke to all that were in the jailer’s house: third, the jailer then took them and they were bap­tized: fourth, the jailer brought them into his house. Is it not clear that the baptizing took place somewhere out of the house? But the editor argues that Paul would not go out of the prison the next morning until the magistrates came down and brought him out. He says this shows clearly that Paul would not have gone out of the prison during the night. But here again is a very obvious fallacy. When Paul went out of the prison during the night, he was still a prisoner and still in charge of the jailer. He was not released, nor was he attempting to escape. When the magistrates sent the jailer word to let them go, Paul refused to leave the prison or to go out from under the jailer’s keeping, because by so doing he would have admitted that his imprisonment was just, and that he was glad enough to escape without any manner of apology or redress. When the magistrates came down to let him go, their action was an acquittal and an apology. Paul was not necessarily locked in prison any more after the earthquake. The language does not demand it. All that is demanded by the language is that he was still a prisoner and that he refused to accept liberty without an apology. THE ASTONISHING STATEMENT The following statement is so groundless and astonishing that we give it in full:

Immersion is not in the Bible; it is merely read into it through the imagination of some people. Immersion was never heard of until two hundred years alter Christ was born, when it was intro­duced by Tertullian (A.D. 215) in the form of triune immersion who believed that washing the body cleansed the soul. Even Bap­tists baptized by pouring and sprinkling in the beginning of their organization as a church (1609), and not until 1641 did they begin the practice of immersion. Roger Williams, who started the Baptist Church in America, was baptized by pouring. He had been bap­tized in infancy and came to believe in adult baptism, but the records seem to be clear that he was baptized by pouring. Both Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell, founders of the Christian Church, were baptized by affusion before they came to America.

Because Tertullian introduced trine immersion in the second century the editor tries to make it appear that im­mersion itself had not before been practiced. It has already been stated in these replies that all church histories, Bible dictionaries, and encyclopedias agree in saying that the apostolic baptism was immersion. The Greek word means "immerse," according to the lexicons, and the practice of early Christians was immersion, according to all authorities; and yet, in the face of this. Editor Swift asserts that im­mersion was not heard of until two hundred years after Christ! This editor must be ambitious to gain the reputation of being the insane man of the Methodist Church.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary says: "The language of the New Testament and of the primitive fathers sufficiently points to immersion as the common mode of baptism."

Fisher’s Church History says that the New Testament baptism was immersion.

Mosheim’s History makes the same statement, and with these all authorities agree.

John Wesley says the ancient manner of baptism was by immersion. John Calvin made the same concession. In their most scholarly work, "The Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul," chapter 13, Conybeare and Howson (Epis­copalians) made the following clear statement: "It is need­less to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged be­neath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism (though perhaps necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important passages of Scripture."

These are a few of the many authorities that could be quoted to offset the editor’s assertion. His statement about the Baptists is not accurate; and if Roger Williams, Thomas Campbell, and Alexander Campbell were all sprinkled, they later learned better and were immersed. Does Editor Swift want his readers to understand that these men were satisfied with sprinkling for baptism and that they were never immersed? If he did not wish his readers to arrive at this conclusion, why did he refer to the fact that these men were sprinkled? It certainly cannot help his cause to know that these men, who were sprinkled, later repudiat­ed it and regarded it as no baptism at all and were them­selves immersed, and preached and wrote and debated against sprinkling as a gross perversion, a Roman Catholic relic, and a sinful substitute for what the Lord required. Will Editor Swift be honest enough to tell his readers that these men repudiated sprinkling and became the leading opponents of that doctrine and the greatest protagonists of immersion that the whole world has ever known? We shall see.