We Can Afford to Be Fair.
By Editor
THEY who have the truth can always afford to be fair; while they who try to uphold error can never succeed by fair means. And therefore we are not at all surprised to see men resort to questionable methods when their prejudices lead them to prize success above an unwelcome truth. We always intend to be fair and candid. In our experience as a writer and editor, for many years, we have never, to our knowledge, been accused of misrepresenting the position of opponents. And we can say the same in regard to our fellow-laborers. Our position as advocates of unpopular truth has compelled us to appear as controversialists. While the mass of the religionists are against us, denying both our premises and our conclusions, no charge has ever been laid against us of obtaining our ends by unfair means. But we have very often had the unpleasant duty pressed upon us to point out the cavils and evasions, and sometimes the misrepresentations, of those who oppose us and our work. Perhaps no other truth of the Bible has received so much unreasonable opposition as the Sabbath. And perhaps next to the Sabbath would stand baptism. It is on this latter subject we have now to notice a marked instance. A friend in North Carolina has sent a pamphlet on "The Mode of Christian Baptism, By Rev. M. V. Sherrill, of the North Carolina Conference." We notice his position on the baptism of the eunuch, as a specimen of his method of reasoning, and because his treatment of this case is specially referred to as "effective" in the favorable notice of the work by "Rev. O. P. Fitzgerald, D. D., editor Nashville Christian Advocate." There is nothing in Mr. Sherrill's comments to indicate that he knows any better than to blunder on the use of language, especially on a translation from the Greek. But we are to suppose he did know better, from the recommendations given to his work by prominent men of his church. And such men as Dr. Fitzgerald certainly knew that his comment on the baptism of the eunuch was a misrepresentation of the position of all Baptists, and an abuse of the text. In our pamphlet on Baptism we pointed out the error of Professor Stuart on that text, with the remark that it was the only case in the Professor's essay on Baptism where his prejudice seemed entirely to get the better of his candor. The following is the paragraph we quote from Professor Stuart, with our remarks on the same, as found on pages 42, 43, of our book:— "If katabesan eis to hudor is meant to designate the act of plunging or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the eunuch; for the sacred writer says that BOTH went into the water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the eunuch." "These remarks are entirely uncalled for by the record; they are as unworthy of the man who wrote them as of the subject on which they are written. Going down into the water is a necessary prerequisite to baptism (but not to sprinkling); but no one ever claimed or even thought that katabesan eis to hudor expresses 'the action of plunging or being immersed.' We fear the idea sprung up in the mind of a theologian rather than of a critic; for almost the next sentence says 'kai ebaptisen auton,' 'and he baptized him.' This excludes every possibility of obscurity. "It is true that they both went down into the water, and this is always the case when immersion is practiced. The administrator and subject both go down into the water. But going down into the water is not and was not baptism. Does the record say they both went down into the water and were baptized? No. 'They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.' It is no part of candor nor reverence for the Scriptures to raise a dust over such plain and unmistakable testimony as this." On this case Mr. Sherrill says:— "The whole strength of the argument lies in assuming that 'down into the water,' means down under the water; and that 'come up out of the water' means from under the water. Such a translation would reduce it to a simple absurdity: And they went down both under the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he immersed him. And when they were come up from under the water, &c. You cannot get the eunuch under the water without getting Philip there, too; and if they were both under the water—covered up—they were already immersed—for that is one of the meanings of the terms—and it would be superfluous to add, 'and he immersed him.' How could Philip immerse the eunuch when they were both already under the water—covered up in the stream—immersed?" We do not believe there is an individual living who honestly thinks that those who believe in the immersion of the eunuch claim that 'down into the water' means 'down under the water.' But he says that that assumption is the whole strength of the argument for immersion! Yet it is never assumed—it is not believed. They both went down into the water; this is what the text says. And Philip baptized him. 'Under the water' is found in the word baptize, and this applies to the eunuch alone, as he was the only one who was baptized. We always regret the necessity of exposing such misrepresentations. We would far rather have to10do with those who are ignorantly blind, than with those who are willfully perverse. Indeed, we would far rather believe that an opponent were honestly ignorant whenever a perversion is found, but in such a case as the one now before us we see no chance for the exercise of that degree of charity.