On the Authority for the Administration of Baptism
A Discussion Between
C. C. BROWN, A.M. D.D., Pastor of the First Baptist Church Sumter, S. C.
and J. J. PORTER, A.M. D.D., Pastor of the First Baptist Church Joplin, Mo.
The Debate Was Held at the First Baptist Church Sumter, S.C., 1903
[The Sumter Discussion]
Preface
I beg to say, that I am indebted, especially, to Dr. T. T. Eaton, Dr. J. C. Armstrong, editor of the Central Baptist, St. Louis, Mo., Dr. G. A. Lofton, pastor Second Baptist Church, Nashville, Tenn., Dr. S. H. Ford: editor Christian Repository, St. Louis, Mo., and Dr. Dayton's work on Alien Immersions, in arranging my arguments for the discussion.This book will be a text book on the subject it presents. Both sides are set forth, and the best authorities that could be gathered are presented on both sides.
It will be observed that Dr. Brown's speeches are short, but this grows out of the fact that his manuscript arguments were short, and much that he said, in his spoken addresses, was not included in his manuscripts. His speeches are published as he revised them. My original manuscripts, which were all submitted in the spoken debate contained almost twice as much matter as the original manuscripts of Dr. Brown.
I made it a point to speak rapidly and get my arguments all in. The stenographer did not take my manuscript arguments, but noted them in his transcript. When they were inserted with my replies to Dr. Brown's speeches, this accounts for the length of my addresses. Also, Dr. Brown did not, in some of his speeches, use all of his time, but was generous in giving me all the time I wanted.
In connection with Mr. Alderman I send out this book in the interests of Baptist churches and for straight and regular baptism as taught in the New Testament.
J. J. PORTER, Joplin, Mo.
Introduction This discussion was arranged by Deacon D. W. Alderman, member of the Manning Baptist Church of South Carolinia, and Dr. C. C. Brown, pastor of the First Biiptist Church, Sumter, S.C. Mr. Alderman is one of the leading and wealthy Baptists of the state of South Carolinia, Dr. Brown is one of the most noted preachers and writers of his state.
Mr. Alderman engaged Mr. Porter of Joplin, Mo. to meet Dr. Brown in the discussion of the following proposition: "The Practice of Alien Immersion Subverts Baptist Principles As Taught In The New Testament." Dr. Brown wrote the proposition and submitted it for debate.
After some correspondence, Mr. Porter agreed to discuss the issues of the proposition with Dr. Brown, in an oral debate in the First Baptist Church, Sumter, S.C. Each speaker was allowed seven speeches. The opening address of each speaker was an hour each, and the others were a half hour each. Mr. Alderman employed a first class stenographer, who reported the addresses as delivered. He purchased Dr. Brown's manuscripts after Dr. Brown had revised them for publication, paying him one hundred and fifty dollars for them. Mr. Alderman employed Mr. Porter to edit the work and have it published.
In making the revission[sic] the colloquial phrases and breaks of construction, which naturally mark rapidly spoken discourses, have not been removed. It is due to say that a brotherly spirit prevailed through the discussion and much good was the result of the debate.
Dr. Porter's First Speech Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: "The practice of Alien Immersion is Subversive of Baptist Principles as Taught in the New Testament."
Brother Brown wrote this proposition and submitted it for debate. He assumed the negative and denies. I took the affirmative and assert.
It is, therefore, the doctrine contained in this proposition that we are to discuss. According to the rules of logic I am to define the terms ot the proposition.
1st. I define the word "Practice" to mean a frequent and customary performance of anything; that is to perform frequently or habitually; usage, to make a practice of a thing; to observe and usually follow.
So, then, the frequent and customary practice of alien immersion is subversive of Baptist principles. Or, the frequent or habitual practice of alien immersion is subversive of Baptist principles. Or to observe and usually follow the reception of alien immersion is subversive of Baptist principles. Or to make a practice of receiving alien immersion is subversive of Baptist principles.
2nd. I define the phrase, "Alien Immersion," to mean a baptism belonging to another government; one that has no legal place nor right in the government of Christ's churches. Or alien immersion is a baptism that is foreign, wholly different in nature, one estranged, adverse and hostile to the baptism belonging to the churches and instituted by Christ. So, then, the practice or reception of such baptism is foreign and hostile to the constitutional law and government
p. 8
of Christ's churches. It is to bring in a baptism that is wholly different in nature to the baptism Christ commited to His church. It is rightly named in the proposition as alien immersion. That is, another baptism far away from that baptism which the Holy Spirit locates between the one Lord and the one faith. That word alien, in its qualifying relation to baptism, is a stranger to the law of baptism. The home of baptism is found between the one faith and the one God. There is no place for an alien rite there. To put an alien rite there is to ignore Christ's law and do violence to His divine authority.3rd. I define the word, "Subversive," to mean to overthrow, to set aside, to destroy. So, then, the receiving of alien immersion, subverts, overthrows, sets aside and destroys Baptist principles. For a lawless rite to the extent it prevails, destroys the principles and rites, enjoined by law.
4th. I define the phrase, "Baptist Principles," to be the doctrine, teaching of Christ, set forth in the New Testament. Or the law of Christ authorizing the constitution and government of His churches and the ordinances committed to them. Baptists have always been a free and independent people. They hold to the broadest liberty and freedom of thought. Their contention has ever been for the widest liberty in all matters of religion. They have no creed with any binding authority. The Bible and the Bible alone is the sole authority for Baptists in religious belief and practice. They have no propaganda that fixes and settles a religious teaching or practice. The divine authority of God's word does this. They have no infallible teachers nor churches. They hold to an infallible book, the Holy Bible. All that this book enjoins upon Baptists, they willingly receive. Each one is to study and interpret the word of God for himself.
p. 9
A Baptist church cannot add anything to the perfect law of Christ, nor take anything from it. That law is perfect, converting the soul and making the wise the simple. A church of Christ has no legislative function. It is under the law if Christ, and its mission is to do whatsoever Christ has commanded. The church is the ground and support of the truth as revealed in the word of God. As an institution it has no authority. Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth. By this authority He has commissioned His church to the performance or duty. The church is Christ's agency and is authorized by him in the performance of its mission. If it were asked why a church does this or that, its reply should be, that Christ has commanded it. Inasmuch, then, as a church is under the authority of Christ, and that this authority is contained in the Bible, it is, therefore of vital importance for it to know just what the will of Christ is as revealed in His law.That, I trust, is the object of this discussion. We all want to know what the authority of Christ is concerning the question involved.
Baptists are not afraid of free and open investigation in the light of the New Testament. They believe in proving all things and have no practice that they are not willing to have tested by the law of Christ.
To Baptists no teaching or ceremony is sacred except what their Master has enjoined. They believe in proving all things and holding fast that which is good. Tradition or the teaching of the fathers have no place among Baptists unless they are scriptural.
When state governments sought to fasten upon Baptists certain doctrines and practices in the dark ages they challenged discussion, and the right of any set of men to fix a creed and make it binding upon the individual conscience. They held that only the truth, in Christ Jesus, could make men free.
What we want to know in this investigation is whether
p. 10
or not the word of God sustains the proposition affirmed: "The practice of Alien Immersion is Subversive of Baptist Principles, as Taught in the New Testament."If the Scriptures teach that such a practice is subversive of New Testament principles, then every Baptist should abandon the practice, as well as all others who would be loyal to New Testament principles. If the practice of alien immersion subserves New Testament principles, then the practice is scriptural.
The burden of proof for the practice of alien immersion rests upon those who observe the rite. It is somewhat like the rite of infant baptism and the practice of open communion, it never existed until long after the last canon of Holy Scripture was closed. It belongs to the arena of apologetics. It rests entirely upon apologetic hypotheses. There is neither a direct precept or example in the word of God for it. Its advocates do not go to the Bible to find authority for its practice. They are forced to make the knd of apologetic arguments for its defense as the exponents do for infant baptism and mixed communion.
Their apologies consist in question of conscience, expediency and Christian liberty. Those Baptists who practice the rite of alien immersion are not agreed among themselves as to the reasons for the practice. In this they are like those who are in the practice of infant baptism. If there were any scriptural authority for the practice of alien immersion, the variety of theories for its observance would not exist. When Baptists depart from the regular precepts and examples of the New Testament they are at sea, without compass or chart.
We do not have to employ apologetics for the defense of the practice of baptism by a Baptist church. This practice is sustained by the direct teaching of the New Testament. When a person comes before a Baptist church and gives a credible profession of his faith, and is baptized by
p. 11
a minister of that church, no one questions the scripturalness of his baptism. Among Baptists it is universally admitted to be regular and orderly, and accordingly, authorized by the precepts and examples of the New Testament.Why not stop here? Why create division and contention by going far away and practice the baptism performed by aliens, who have neither precept nor example in the Word of God for the administration of the rite? Yet, it is claimed that alien immersion should be practiced by all Baptist churches. Though wanting in scriptural authority for its performance. As a Baptist, I say to the apologists of this rite, when you confess that the administration is alien, that it is foreign to the government of Christ's churches, that the Scriptures are silent concerning it, and that it is irregular and disorderly, that such a practice is subversive of Baptist principles, as taught in the New Testament.
The practice of a religious rite, necessarily, subverts New Testament principles or subserves them. How is it with the practice of alien immersion? I am here to affirm that the practice is subversive of Ba;ptist principles. Brother Brown denies. If he can prove that alien immersion is scriptural, then, it follows that the practice instead of subverting Baptist principles, subserves them. Can he do it? Will he do it? If he does my proposition is false and I am in the wrong, and will at once come over to his side, and will advocate and practice the rite of alien immersion. Yes, sir, convince me that alien immersion is in accord with God's word and I will preach it and practice it.
Any baptism that is enjoined by the Holy Scriptures shall have my hearty support. Here is the issue. What is the teaching of the law of Christ? Does that law authorize the practice of alien immersion? I hold that it does not, there fore, I refuse to enter into the practice of it. Brother Brown
p. 12
believes that it is authorized by the Scriptures, and hence, he is in the practice of it. He believes that the practice is subservient of Baptist principles, or he would not advocate and observe it.According to his position it would be right for every body to practice alien immersion. For, if it be lawful and right for one it is lawful and right for all. Then, the more alien immersion is practiced the more generally are Baptist principles subserved. If he is right and I am wrong, then Baptist principles will suffer no loss for Baptist churches to quit immersing, through their ministry, and let alien immersion be the prevailing practice. Such would not subvert Baptist principles, but subserve them.
I think you see we have a clear cut issue. One that does one of two things, either subverts Baptist principles, or subserves them. This gives the question a rather serious turn. I did not form the proposition I am to discuss; it was written by one who believes in, and practices the alien rite. It puts me where I am to show and to seek to prove that my Brother Brown, and those who stand with him, teach and practice a rite that is subversive of Baptist principles, as taught in the New Testament. If I succeed in the proof of the proposition, that puts all who are in the practice of alien immersion in a business which is subversive of Baptist principles. And that if Baptist principles are scriptural, then the practice of alien immersion sets aside scriptural principles. That is a most serious thing for Baptists to do - to preach and practice a Baptism that subverts the principles of their churches; principles that they profess themselves to believe and teach.
If my proposition is wrong and contrary to the teach ings of God's word, alien Baptism is right, and I am found charging the practice of perverting New Testament principles. This puts me in a serious position. I see a Baptist church and its pastor in the practice of the alien rite, I say to them: "Brethren,your practice is irregular, disorderly,
p. 13
and therefore, unscriptural. It preverts the doctrine of your church." Now, that would be a bold thing for me to do; yea, a serious thing, but that is exactly what my proposition does. It affirms that the practice of alien immersion is subversive of Baptist principles, as taught in the New Testament. It is a baptism that does not belong to Christ nor his apostles. The baptism of the New Testament is not an alien baptism. That baptism was performed by the authority of Christ's law and in connection with the government of his church. During the days of Christ and His inspired apostles, there was one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Baptism belonged to those who continued in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread. In that era there were no different denominations with their conflicting creeds or doctrines. So it was not possible for the practice of alien immersion to exist. All Christians were under the government of the churches. The churches were one in government and doctrine. So there was no place for the practice of alien immersion, anymore than the practice of mixed denominational communion. Not until the authority of Christ was ignored and new denominational sects were founded, and both the ordinances, baptism and the supper perverted, was it possible for the question of alien immersion to arise. It is the offspring of those who went out from the true churches of Christ, and caused divisions and strife in his kingdom. It is the child of ecclesiastic denominations, whose name is legion. It is the immersion of those who have preverted the scriptural design of baptism and turned it from its rightful place in the system of Christian teaching. Baptists are not responsible for its existence. It is not of their faith. They have no church fellowship for these organizations that administer it. In the government of those who perform it, it teaches another gospel. Then why should Baptists be in the practice of it? Why should they substitute a foreign rite for the one that Christ has
p. 14
commanded them to observe? To the extent that they bring alien immersion into their churches, to that extent, they subvert their own teaching, and surrender all right to exist as distinctive churches. For, if Mormons, Romanists and others can perform Christian baptism according to the authority of Christ, they can do all other things necessarily done by a Baptist church. So, then, if alien immersion should become universal it would set aside Baptist churches and leave no place for their existence. And if alien baptism is scriptural why should it not become universal? If it is scripturally right for those who are not Baptists, and who oppose Baptist teaching, to administer baptism for Baptist churches, then they ought to do it. And, if they do not do it, they are not obeying the authority of the Scriptures. In order, therefore, for them to baptize for Baptist churches, according to the Scriptures, Baptists would have to quit baptizing themselves. For, if they do their own baptizing, then these, on the outside, can't do it. And so, by Baptists continuing to baptize prevent them from doing what the Scriptures enjoin them to do. Mark the issue, that one example proves the rule. That is, if the law of Christ authorizes one case of alien immersion, it authorizes them all. If it is not the duty of Baptists to baptize all who come into their churches, then it is not their duty to baptize any of them. If the Scriptures authorize the baptism of one by an administrator who is not a Baptist, then the entire service of baptizing is taken out of the hands of Baptist churches and scripturally committed to those who have no relation to the government of Baptist churches. So then, the practice of alien immersion destroys the principle that Baptists believe and practice of baptizing upon a credible profession of faith. For, it is clear, that if the Scriptures authorize those who are not Baptists to baptize for Baptist churches, they do not authorize Baptist churches
p. 15
to baptize for themselves.It may be claimed for those who are not Baptists that they have no scriptural right to baptize for Baptist churches. If that is admitted, then, it follows that only those can baptize for Baptist churches who are scripturally authorized to administer the rite. Then, where is the justification for the practice of baptism administered by those who are not authorized to administer it? To receive the baptism they perform, is not that practice an endorsement of a performance that was without any scriptural authority? Is a practice Scriptural when it makes void obedience to divine authority?
We are now at the point to consider whether or not there is any scriptural aurthority for anybody to baptize. If so, who are they, and what qualifications are required of them? No one can read the New Testament without seeing that somebody is to administer baptism. Christ has commanded baptism to be performed. The obligation to baptize rests somewhere and upon some body. One cannot baptize himself. Baptism is a positive institution, it is enjoined by positive law. To the law and testimony we come.
Who should baptize? That is largely the question involved in the proposition. With an open Bible can we determine who should baptize? Let an honest investigation answer the guestion.
The authority to baptize does not belong to the world. Christ did not commit this heavenly banner of baptism to the world. This glorious symbol of the faith was not put into the hands of the enemy of the Redeemer's kingdom. His kingdom is not of this world. Men who mind earthly things, who have their portion in this life; men whose minds are carnal and at enmity against God, are not the men commissioned to carry the banner of our King and of His Gospel and His church. Such an idea transcends all rational belief. Baptism is to be administered in the name, that is
p. 16
by the authority of Jesus Christ. Wicked men do not, and have no right to perform any act in His name. Hear this law of God, Psalm 50:17,: "But unto the wicked God saith, What has thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth? Seeing that thou hatest instruction and casteth my words behtnd thee."The world has nothing to do with baptism, either as to its subject or its administrator. This point conceded, it follows, that the authority to baptize is restricted so that men of the world are excluded from the administration of the ordinance. Therefore, the practice of alien immersion performed by men of the world is subversive of the New Testament principles which forbid such administration.
The practice of such a rite takes the baptizing out of the hands of those to whom Christ has committed it, and puts it into the hands of those who are excluded from the administration of the ordinance.
If it is claimed that the practice of alien immersion rejects the administrator and his performace as being unscriptural, and that the candidate that received the administration of baptism at his hands has been scripturally baptized, that eliminates the administrator entirely from the issue and leaves the whole matter with the candidate. He can immerse himself. Why not if the administration of the right has nothing to do with scriptural baptism? The candidate can have baptism administered to him by an infidel, that would be scriptural baptism if the performance of the rite is no part of authorized baptism. To reject the administration of a rite, and say it is unscriptural, and at the same time receive the rite as scriptural is a little confusing, at least, to my mind.
New Testament baptism is as much depending on the baptizer as on the one to be baptized. If there is no baptizer there is no baptism; if there is no one to be baptized there can be no baptism.
It is a difficult thing to split a prinicple and receive
p. 17
half of it and reject the other half. That is what the practice of alien immersion does. All it requires is for the subject to believe in Christ and find some one to dip him in the water, it makes no difference who performs the act. This is recognizing the authority of Christ in requiring faith before baptism and immersion as the act, while it rejects His authority as to the performance of the act. How can an act be scriptural when it is lacking in scriptural authority as to its performance?Baptism being a positive ordinance, estab[l]ished by positive law, as such, it must be administered in the exact manner required by the law, and hence if not, it is not lawful baptism, and will be rejected by the great Law Giver. To change a positive ordinance in any particular is to destroy it and insult the Divine Law Giver.
So, then, I charge upon the practice of alien immersion that it sets aside the law of Christ in the administration of one of His holy ordinances and leave[s] the performance of that sacred rite to aliens, foreigners and the lawless. This, too, in the very face of the authority of the Holy Spirit, who said to the church, "Keep the ordinances as they were delivered unto thee."
Christ gave authority to John the Baptist to baptize. John's ministry was, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1). He was "sent from God" to bear witness of Christ, "that all men through him might believe." (John 1:6, 7). He was also "sent to baptize." Paul says: "John verily baptize[d] with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe on him, that is on Christ Jesus." (Acts 19:4). John was the first and only administrator authorized to baptize at this time. He received his authority directly from the Lord. Christ announced through the prophet: "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me." (Malachi 3:1). No one else baptized but John, he and he alone had authority to baptize. This fact was recognized.
p. 18
For, "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Now, if some one had gone to Jewish Priests and been baptized of them would Christ have accepted their baptism? Is it not a fact that when Christ sent John and authorized him to baptize that He likewise required all who were to receive baptism to go to His commissioned message to have the rite conferred upon them? If some of John's discipes had performed baptism, without special authority, such baptism would have been rejected as in the case of the twelve at Ephesus.In the very origin of baptism we have the administrator clearly set forth. The Divine Teacher asked the question, "The baptism of John was it from Heaven or of men?" By this He, Himself, recognized the authority in conferring baptism. Suppose some critic had said, "Valid baptism does not depend on the one who administers it. John's baptism does not need the authority of heaven to make it scriptural. Anybody can properly baptize as to that. The mere fact that one baptizes is no evidence that he has divine authority." The critic could not say whether John baptized by the authority of heaven or that his baptism was from men. He was somewhat like an alien immersionist, did not know whether or not there was any heavenly authority connected with the conferring of baptism.
The com[m]and was given to the administrator to baptize before it was given to any one to be baptized. The legality of the ordinance in the very beginning depended on the appointed and authorized baptizer. The only question ever raised when baptism was first conferred was a question concerning the administrator of it. If in the beginning the Lord put the baptizing of people in the hands of John, and gave him special authority to baptize, how is it and why is
p. 19
it that now anybody can baptize, and that the conferring of baptism has been taken out of the hands of the Lord's authorized ministers and put in the hands of aliens or foreigners and that legal baptism does not depend upon any divine authority for its administration? Where is the chapter and verse in the Divine Book of law that shows that a change has been made as to the authority of administering baptisms. In the beginning the only man that baptized was one called and sent by Christ. He administered the first baptism that heaven and earth ever witnessed. All that wanted to be baptized went to this one baptizer, and when a certain class refused the baptism of John, they, in so doing, rejected the counsel of God against themselves.Christ Himself went to John for baptism. Why did He walk a long distance to receive baptism at the hands of John? Why did He not set the example for some of our alien immersionist friends, and go to some Jewish Priest or Rabbi and let him confer baptism upon Him? That would have settled the question at once. For Christ's example is always in harmony with His teaching. But, ah sir, instead of doing that He set us the example, and that example is supported by all His teaching, by going to the only man in the world, at that time, who had the authority, of Heaven to baptize; His own commissioned messenger, and asked to be baptized of him. And was baptized of John in the River Jordan. The Holy Spirit approves the act. God, the Father, speaks out from Heaven and gives His sanction.
Here we have a baptism administered by a man who had the authority from Heaven, one that has stamped upon it, the Divine seal of God, the Father; of Christ, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. No alien element connected with it.
The practice of alien immersion is subversive of Christ's baptism. It sets aside the authority by which that
p. 20
baptism was conferred. It says that an alien could have baptized Christ as well as His own messenger. It declares that a baptism performed by the authority of men is as valid as that administered by the authority of Heaven. It says that there was no necessity for Christ to have traveled so far for John's baptism. Any priest or rabbi could have given right baptism, for lawful baptism depends upon the subject and not on the administrator. It says more, that when one is to be baptized he need not feel that he is at all responsible as to where he goes for baptism nor as to who confers the rite upon him.The next record of baptizing shows that Jesus baptized. (John 3:22.) "After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." (John 4:1,3). "When, therefore the Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)" Mark the statement. Jesus first made disciples and then baptized them. He did not do the baptizing himself, but commissioned His disciples to administer it. They were His authorized agents. What Jesus did through these disciples is spoken of as having been done by himself. This proves that no one had the right to baptize except by the special authority of Christ. If others had stepped in and baptized the converts of Jesus this would have set aside his authority in authorizing those special disciples to administer the rite. When he commanded certain ones to do his baptizing that forbade any others from doing it. There was no alien immersion connected with Christ or His ministry. There is no account of any of his disciples baptizing a single convert, during His entire earthly ministry, except by His special appointment and under His direct supervision. Why did Jesus so carefully guard the ordinance, and authorize certain disciples to perform it, if it is left free for any one to
p. 21
administer it? Let it be remembered, that He chose certain ones, as His agents, to baptize for Him before He sent out the twelve. Let it be remembered, that the ignoring of Christ's authority is the ignoring of Christ himself.To say that Christ, by authorizing certain ones to baptize, established a rule that hampers His ministers, and at times retards the progress of His kingdom, is to charge Him with folly. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what Brother Brown's proposition does. He admits that he is not an alien immersionist, except when occasions require him to be. There are times when he is regular and in the practice of baptism as a regularly authorized Baptist minister. But he finds occasions for setting aside the rule and enter the practice of receiving alien immersion. Today he may be no alien immersionist, stands by the authorized rule of Christ, for a regularly authorized Baptist minister to administer the rite of baptism, but tomorrow, an occasion m[a]y arise, when he leaps over the law of Christ and is an alien immersionist, by endorsing such an immersion, and by the practice of receiving it into his church.
Let me ask the question: If there are occasions when the practice of alien immersion is for the progress of the kingdom, and then are there other occasions when the progress of the kingdom demands that one is not to be an alien immersionist, and that it is best for a regularly authorized Baptist minister to administer the rite of baptism? Does the authority of Christ depend upon whatever the occasion may be? Here is an occasion for receiving alien immersion. Is the reception of such immersion scriptural, and does it become scriptural because of the occasion? Here is another occasion that baptism is received as administered by a regularly authorized pastor, does the mere occasion make that baptism scriptural? Or is it scriptural because Christ has authorized it?
Take an illustration: Out there is a Mormon church, the Mormon minister baptizes a convert and that convert
p. 22
enters the Mormon church. After some weeks, he comes to Brother Brown's church. He says he was a believer in Christ before he was baptized. Brother Brown and his church receive him on his alien baptism. The occasion makes it necessary for them to do so, the occasion is an opportunity for the expanding of the kingdom, not to receive the applicant would be to retard the progress of the kingdom. On this occasion Brother Brown is an alien immersionist.The next Sunday one comes before the church and confesses his faith in Christ and wants to obey him in baptism and become a member of the church. The church is about to require from him an experience or a credible profession of faith before receiving him for baptism. At this time the Mormon elder of the church out there arises and says: "It is not necessary for the church here to take any action in approving this person for baptism, nor is it necessary for the pastor to baptize him. Let me baptize him for your pastor and the church, and then you can receive him into your church." Brother Brown is not now an alien immersionist and tells him he has no right to come into his church and baptize anybody for the church. He says, "that is my business." But the elder says, "I baptized one for you the other week. He was a Mormon when I baptized him, and I baptized him into the Mormon church and into the Mormon faith, you endorsed the administration of that baptism and received it. If I can baptize in my own church for you, why can I not baptize in yours?" What will you say, brother?
At the close of Christ's ministry, He authorized His eleven disciples to baptize. This was a world wide commission. Let me read you the last and final authority given by Christ for baptizing. Matthew 28:16, 20, "Then the eleven disciples went into Gallilee unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to
p. 23
them and spake unto them, saying, All authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."Here is our authority for baptism. This commission was given unto the apostles, not simply as disciples, nor as a church, neither as ministers, but as the inspired founders and instructors of the churches for all time. It was given to them for the churches and not for the ministers as such. So it is binding upon the churches as the executives of Christ's authority, and that to the end of time. For the Divine Law Giver said, "And, lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world."
So far as my knowledge extends on the issues involved, Baptist agree on the following points:
1. There can be no baptism without a baptizer. That the baptizer or the administrator of baptism is authorized to administer the rite by divine authority.
2. We agree that John the Baptist was the first baptizer, and that he baptized according to the direct authority of Christ.
3. Baptists agree that Christ authorized his chosen disciples to baptize for Him as His agents.
4. We agree that Christ comamnded His apostles to baptize in all the world.
5. That Christ authorized His churches to baptize through His inspired apostles.
6. We agree that the Scriptures require an authorized administerator of baptism. If not, then anybody can baptize, and there is no limitation to the administrationship of the ordinance.
7. We also agree that all the recorded examples of
p. 24
baptism, in the New Testament, show that the rite was performed by those who had authority. Let me call your attention to all of these examples.1. All those baptized by John the Baptist.
2. Christ making and baptizing disciples through his authorized agents.
3. Those baptized on the day of Pentecost were immersed by those who were authorized to administer the rite by the great commission.
4. The men and women baptized in Samaria were converted under the preaching of Philip and were immersed by him. Philip was an officer in the church and a recognized evangelist.
5. In the case of the Ethiopian enunch, Philip, the evangelist, was the administrator of his baptism. He baptized him under the direct authority of the Holy Spirit.
6. The example of Paul's baptism shows that he was baptized by Ananias, who was commissioned to baptize the great apostle by direct authority from the Lord Jesus.
7. In the case of the baptism of Cornelius and those of his household the record
sshows that baptism was administered by the authority of an inspired apostle.8. The baptism of Lydia and her household was conferred by the inspired apostle Paul.
9. The same is true of the example of the jailor and his household. Paul, the inspired apostle, was the preacher and authorized their baptism.
10. Those baptized in Corinth received the rite from Paul, and Timothy, regular authorized ministers of the Gospel.
11. In the case of the certain disciples at Ephesus the baptism was administered by the inspired authority of Paul. In this example we have a former baptism set aside, because of some defect connected with it.
These are all the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament. There is not a single case where alien
p. 25
can be inferred. Ail these baptisms were regular and orderly, and not an alienist perfo[r]med one of them.My beloved, Brother Brown, may not agree with all these numbered statements as he is rather an unique Baptist theologian, but he will fail to find any Baptist authority that will desent from them. All the authorities he may introduce, not one of them, will disagree with these statements. I think I am safe in saying this, as I know about the authorities he will use. I may be mistaken, but we shall see.
Baptists agree as to the scriptural qualifications of an administrator of baptism.
1. He should be baptized upon a credible profession of faith.
2. He should have membership in a scriptural church.
3. He should be ordained or appointed by the church, to the official work of the ministry.
Dr. Jeter says: "The administrator should be pious baptized - a church member, called to the ministry, and authorized by the church to engage in the ministry - and duly ordained to the work. While there may be some question as to what constitutes valid ordination, there is almost universal agreement in our churches as to its necessity, in some form, in order to the administration of Baptism." (Ed. Religious Herald, Oct. 5, 1871.)
Brother Brown said, In a written letter, that he stands on this subject just where Dr. Jeter stood. If he stand by this statement, I have read, there will not be much room for a debate between us.
Dr. Jeter held that nothing was baptism but immersion. Most all of the pious Pedobaptists reject immersion. Then, they have not the scriptural authority to baptize, for Dr. Jeter says: "The administrator should be baptized." These Pedobaptist ministers, not having been baptized, therefore, they are not members of a scripttural church. To be a member of a scriptural church is an essential qualification
p. 26
to the administration of baptism, according to Dr. Jeter's position.There is no question or doubt as to the scripturalness of baptism when administered by one with the qualifications mentioned by Dr. Jeter. Alien immersion is another baptism. It is far away from a scriptural church and an authorized administrator.
To receive such baptisms eliminates a scriptural church and a scriptural administrator from the ordinance. It puts the sole authority into the hands of those to be baptized as to who and where the baptism is performed. Mark the chapter and verse that Brother Brown cites in proof of alien baptism.
For the accommodation of Brother Brown I will put the arguments into fifteen propositions. He can easily note them and file his objections.
Tell me if he does.
Let me restate the proposition: "The Practice of Alien Immersion is Subversive of Baptist Principles Taught in the New Testament."
1. It is a Baptist practice to require those to be baptized to come before the church and give a credible profession of faith in Christ.
Therefore, the practice of alien immersion subverts this principle. For a Baptist church has no voice concerning the immersion of those received on their alien baptism.
2. It is a Baptist principle to require their own ministers who administer baptism to be first baptized themselves. Therefore, the practice of alien immersion subverts this principle.
3. It is a Baptist principle to require those who administer baptism to be themselves members of a New Testament church. Therefore, the practice of alien immersion is subversive of this principle.
p. 27
4. It is a Baptist principle to require those who baptize to be ordained to the ministry.Therefore, the practice of alien immersion subverts this principle.
5. Church polity or order is held by Baptists as a principle.
For baptism is the link by which we are tied to all our eccesiastical relationship. It is the official door of entrance into churches, and when we go from our church to another our former baptism is the ceremonial ground of admit[t]ance.
Baptist baptisms connect us with Baptist churches wherever we take our membership.
But, when one enters a Baptist church upon baptism received from a Pedobaptist church he is still ceremonially related with that church by succession, and this succession connects him with Rome. For all Pedobaptists are ceremonially related to Rome, because of the fact, they received their baptism from Rome in the beginning of their organizations.
Brother Brown will shy at the idea of Baptists claiming relation with the New Testament churches in the days of the apostles, through their baptism, but he will contend for alien baptism that connects him with the church of Rome in a ceremonial sense.
6. It is a Baptist principle to require those who baptize to be ordained to the ministry. Therefore, the practice of alien immersion subverts this principle.
For, if Pedobaptists can scripturally administer baptism for Baptist churches they can likewise administer the Lord's Supper. If they can scripturally administer both ordinances for Baptist churches there is no scripture nor reason for denying them the right of communing in our churches. No one can, logically, be in the practice of alien baptism and not, at the same time, be committed to the practice of open communion.
p. 28
7. It is a principle with Baptists that Baptist churches are the only scriptural churches.Therefore, the practice of alien immersion is subversive of this principle.
For any church that can scripturally administer baptism is a New Testament church. To admit that alien immersion is scriptural baptism is equal to admitting thlrt Pedobaptist churches are scriptural churches.
I want Brother Brown to mark this proposition, and tell us if he believes that Pedobaptist churches and Disciple churches are scriptural churches. You note the fact 1f he does it. Here is a vital issue. Will he meet it? In the remaining time I have, Mr. President, let me restatd the arguments and conclusions submitted in this, my opening speech.
I do this to more readily oblige Brother Brown. He has so far made no notes of what has been said. Here is an other opportunity for him to note and answer the issues of my argument. I pray that he may do so. If my arguments and conclusions are unscriptural, I want him to show it.
1. Baptist churches have a uniform regular way of securing or administering baptism tfor those who are admitted to membership. This is the normal, scriptural way. Even those churches which accept alien immersion, practice this normal, uniform method. Any other way is exceptional and irregular. The regular way is, with us, the righi way. It needs no extended argument to prove that if we depart from the regular and resort to the irregular at this point, there will be a disturbance through the entire polity of the church to the extent that this question of baptism is related to other matters. If alien immersion amounts to anything, it introduces irregularity to that extent.
2. The best that alien immersionists can do is to confess that they are trying to justify an exception - an exception
p. 29
tion tha:t is so far contradictory of their own custom and subversive of their own principles. They admit that some convert has ignored the regular and scriptural order in procuring baptism, and then they ask the church to commit another acknowledged irregularity so as to cover up or mend the irregularity committed by that convert. The burden of proof rests on alien immersionists, by their own admission. Further more, the irregularity which they introduce, abrogates the rule which they have heretofore followed and which they have sought to justify by Scripture.3. That receiving alien immersion is subversive of Baptist principles, it is only necessary to make the easy supposition that the number of regular baptisms is decreased and of irregular baptisms increased until the irregular becomes the rule and regular the exception, or until all become irregular. In such an event the whole policy of the Baptists would be changed.
Such a condition may be now only a supposition, but as a supposition and a possibility, it uncovers to us the surrender of priciple that is hidden under the practice. All the principle is surendered in adopting one such alien immersion.
4. Let me examine the structure and procedure in a Baptist church in the matter which affects its control of baptism. The church organizes itself, following carefully the word of God, so as to be in a situation to maintain ordinances and discipline; it furnishes itself with a full set of officers to carry on the functions of a church; it examines, in its official capacity, every applicant for baptism, assuming that some safe guarding of tne ordlnance and of church membership is necessary; it inquires to see that the candidates gives evidence of conversion, so as to preserve the principle of a converted membership; it assures itself that the candidate understands the significance of immersion; it ascertains whether he is in harmony with Baptist doctrines; it has its own ordained preacher already examined
p. 30
and appointed as qualified, to administer the immersion. Suppose now that a church thus organized and acting, opens its doors and begins to receive any number of members who come from elsewhere demanding that their immersion, received in other connections and under radically different conditions, be received without challenge. The change will be subversive of the principles formerly accepted. To receive an alien immersion does the following:(1.) It leaves to parties clear outside the church the responsibility and right of saying what are the qualifications of baptism. The applicant may come from a body that believes in sprinkling also, or that does not hold to believer's baptism alone, or that advocates baptismal regeneration. For a Baptist church to admit such a set of facts as sufficient, has put disapproval on its own careful organization and procedure.
(2.) The church surrenders its obligation to know for certain what the candidates doctrinal views are, or at least it admits that correct doctrinal views are not prerequis[i]te to the ordinance. Even an immersion performed for remission of sins or for the dead must be accepted under this new rule.
(3.) The church surrenders the right to keep baptism in its proper relation to the other practices and beliefs of the thurch. It has consented to locate baptism far off from church membership, for it is not required that the applicant must have been a member of an evangelical or any other body The place of baptism has a meaning.
(4.) Some of the grossest heresies of the centuries have had at their heart a perversion of this ordinance. The church must not desert the place where heresy loves to enter the ranks of loyalty.
(5.) The acceptance of alien immersion is a consent by the church to discredit its own ordained ministry and is a virtual repudiation of that ordination. If preachers of any and all denominations may perform baptism for us,
p. 31
they may perform any other official act, and surely our laymen must then be allowed to go out and administer ordinances when and where they like.(6.) If the rule of accepting alien immersion is adopted, then all such immersions must be accepted. It will not do to say in reply that we will accept only those which conform most nearly to the Baptist idea. Not one of them conforms to ours; and we have surrendered our right to pass upon them. Every such immersion must be received, as far as the immersion is concerned. The door, if opened at all, is open to all. In this vicinity are Mormons, all of whom are immersed. Against their immersion no one can object who favors alien immersion. Nor can he consistently object to their doctrines, for he has abandoned the only place where he had the right to forbid water that these should not be baptized; the time to object and to examine has passed.
(7.) The a:cceptance of alien immersion commits to individuals the whole decision of what baptism is, what its significance, its form, the time and circumstances and agent of its administration, and compels the church to accept as valid whatever the individual may choose to call his baptism.
(8.) Those who accept alien immersion lose sight of the fact that baptism is a declarative public, teaching act, and that it belongs by its very form to the outward and organized phase of Christianity. Possibly one might believe that God accepts the ignorant but loyal intention of a Pedo-baptist when he is sprinkled; but he surely cannot insist that all the formal and external significance of the ordinance have been preserved; that feature is all lost. Now while the requirement of an ordained Baptist ministry may be classed among the formal and physical conditions of the ordinance, nevertheless, if the merely formal and physical condition of the ordinance, were worthy of inauguration by the Master, the obligation rests on us to preserve that
p. 32
formal service in every part. Faithfulness in little things is proof of loyalty to Him. Let it be a ceremony, it is His ceremony.How much time have I, Mr. President? "About twelve minutes." Well, I will wipe my specs while these points strike in on Brother Brown. He seems to be a fine listener, but makes no notes. This remaining ten minutes I will take in putting some plain questions to him which involves the issues in debate. He will be under obligations to answer these questions according to the rules of logic. I promise him that I am willing to adopt the Socratic method and answer every question he may ask that
bares[bears] on the investigation of the proposition.1. Have ministers of other denominations scriptural authority to baptize? Such as Roman Catholics, Mormans, or any of the Pedobaptist connections? If they have, what other thing can a Baptist minister do that they can't do? If they can do, scripturally, all things that Baptist ministers can do, what is the use of Baptist ministers?
2. Admitting that alien immersion has been practiced in the past, does that make it scriptural for Baptists to practice it now?
3. Does alien immersion rest on the basis of a lost authorized administrator?
4. If alien immersion is scriptural, why is it that Baptist churches vote to appoint, set apart or ordain ministers of other denominations who come into their churches. Why not accept of the ordination they received from their former churches? Do Baptist churches reordain ministers who change their membership from one Baptist church to another Baptist church? Is it not a fact that there is no Baptist church in South Carolina that would endorse the ordination of a preacher, received from a Pedobaptist church? Is there a Baptist church in tbe state that would allow such a preacher to baptize for it before it gives him regular ordination?
p. 33
5. Who is a proper person to hear and receive the profession of faith of a candidate for baptism? Where and to whom would you advise a believer in Christ to go for baptism, to a Baptist church? or to a Catholic priest? or to a Mormon elder? or to a disciple who himself has not been baptized? or to an infidel? Or would you advise him to baptize himself? Now, if it make no difference where or by whom he is baplized, what would you tell him to do?6. Is the administration of baptism authorized by the law of Christ, or is it left free for any one who may choose to perform it?
7. If there is no law restricting the administration of baptism, is there any law restricting the Lord's Supper? These are the only ordinances of the New Testament. If baptism is open and free for any one to administer it, why is it that the supper is not open and free for any one to administer it?
8. Would it be scriptural for a minister of another denomination to baptize converts in and for this church instead of the pastor? If not, why not?
9. Does the practice of receiving alien immersion endorse the official act of the administrator as being in accord with the authority of the New Testament?
10. Into what order or doctrine does the administration of alien baptism initiate? What design does the administration of the rite set forth?
11. If alien immersion is scriptural should it not be encouraged? If it is scripturally, regularly and orderly administered, is it not the only baptism authorized in the New Testament?
12. If alien immersion is scriptural is it not as lawful as the baptism administered by a Baptist church, through its pastor? Then, does it not follow that Roman Catholics, Mormons or any body else can confer as scriptural baptism as a Baptist church can?
13. Should the church correct an irregular and
p. 34
disorderly baptism or practice the reception of it? Which subserves Baptist principles the practice of irregularity and disorder or the practice of order and regularity?14. Does the law of Christ require of those who baptize to have been baptized themselves? What authority is there for one who repudiates the command of Christ to be baptized himself to administer baptism to others? Would you encourage a man to baptize who refuses to be baptized himself? What do you say, Brother Brown? Ah! he sees the point and is like the man at the wedding feast without the wedding garment.
15. Is the administration of alien baptism in obendience to Christ and the acknowledgement of his authority?
16. Who is to decide the proper administrator of baptism, the candidate or the church or some outside party?
17. If the candidate may decide the performance of his baptism, why may he not decide the act and the design!
------------
The end of Dr. J. J. Porter's first speech. The title has been altered slightly; it originally appears as:
"The Sumter Discussion
On the Authority for the Administration of Baptism"
The entire document is here: https://repository.sbts.edu/handle/10392/7083=============== [From a small pb book located at the SBTS Library Archives, Adam Winters, Archivist. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
============== More on Baptist Baptism
Baptist History Homepage