The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-10-25
COMMUNICATIONS
To the Editor of The Spy.

To the Editor of The Spy.
Your report of DR.. Kings address on
"Methodism and the Baptist Church"
raises question that ought to be of
great Importance to every one who de-
sires to know the truth, for Christ has
said it is the Truth will make you
free" and with your kind permission 1
would like to reply to some of his
statements. Although 1 am not mem
Der of a Baptist church. By investiga-
tion of the subject a good many years
ago I arrived at the we'll founded con-
clusion in harmony with the greatest
scholars of this age, that baptism is
nothing but immersion, and that any
other substitute is a base counterfeit
and an insult to Christ who was i'm
mersed himself, and commanded others
to be.
I do not write therefore for the sake
of controversy but for the sake of truth,
believing that we have reached a time
| In the history of religious theology"
when men and women of thought
aspire to think, and to know for them
selves the truth. Now l gather from DIR.
Kings remarks, as reported in The Spy,
that he is in doubt as to which is right,
sprinkling or immersion, for he says
If immersion is true, then some of
us are terribly wrong" Now DR.. King
ought to know that the definition of the
word baptism, is immersion, and he
ought to know hat sprinkling is
ranterism and not baptism. and I would
direct DR.. Kings attention to John
| Wesley's notes on Romans, 6 CHI,
Buried with him." abiding to the
ancient manner of baptising by INNER
sion, the testimony of Mr.. Wesley
ought to have some weight with DR..
King, as I think he will admit that
! Wesley iG tho Father Of Cbtrnh JN1Tt
the Doctor might retort that Wesley
practiced infant sprinkling, yes, but
| that only showed his inconsistency. I
| find upon investigation that Wesley
was quite Calvinistic in his ideas about
infants, he said. If infants are guilty
| of original sin then they are proper
subjects of baptism; seeing, in the or
binary they cannot be saved, unless
this be washed away by baptism. 1t
has been already proven that this
original sin cleaves to every child of
man; and that hereby they are children
of wrath and liable to eternal damna-
ton" This diabolical doctrine implies
that If the infants original sin is not
washed away in baptism then it will
suffer Eternal Damnation," and one of
the Methodist hymns runs like this:
Now to this favored child be given
pardon, and holiness and Heaven" But.
what does the infant receive pardon
for? For original sin says Methodists,
and who committed the original sin?
Adam, says they. But the New
Testament command is to repent and
be baptized for the remission of sins
Now I would ask DR.. King is an infant
capable of repentance? or is it possible
for infant or adult to repent for the sin
of another man? They may suffer for
the sin of another, but repent for the
sin of Adam? Never-it is impossible
Now, DR.. King ought to know that
there is not one text in the Bible to
prove infant sprinkling, or immersion
either. Immersion is for believers only.
t is represented as being buried with
Him (Jesus) by baptism into his death,
Rom. ga. Buried with Him in bap-
tism, Col. PIP. And when they believed
Phillip preaching the Kingdom of God
and the name of Jesus Christ. they
were baptized, both men and women"
Rom. S:12. This is the only immersion
of which the Bible speaks, and it is a.
terrible wrong to palm off a counter
felt in Christ's name. 1 would say in
conclusion that 1 have known of a
great many who have been sprinkled.
but when the eyes of their under
standing was enlightened they were
immersed, but 1 have never known of
"a case where an immersed was
sprinkled. If these few remarks will
stir up some to investigate the sub
ject my object will be attained.
c. c. MANN.
Quinsigamond, Oct. %.