Part IX - SEVENTH EVENING
W.— “ON the last night I was here I did not retire to bed till after midnight, and then I courted sleep in vain. I heard the clock strike one, two, three and four, but I could not dismiss the subject of baptism from my mind. All our inter views passed in review before me. I was determined not to believe that the views I had entertained on the subject of baptism are erroneous. I reconsidered the meaning of the word from its use in the Bible; but those passages you quoted seemed to have inscribed beneath them, and underscored, NO IMMERSION HERE.
“I went to the significance of the rite. I said it must commemorate a burial. But I labored in vain to find a shadow of a foundation for such a view. The more I thought of it, the more I was amazed that I ever could, in the light of the New Testament, fail to see that baptism can refer to anything but the cleansing by the Spirit. The burial theory was so completely buried that I could find no trace of it.
“I then appealed to the recorded instances of its administration. The old familiar cases of the baptism of Jesus by John, and of the eunuch by Philip, seemed strange to me. The old landmarks had been removed.
“I looked to see John the Baptist, waist deep in water, immersing the multitudes that came to him. I tried to Persuade him to occupy that position; but he cast on me ii look of astonishment and entreaty, as if to say,’ Am I a God, that I could thus stand and immerse these thousands that come to me for baptism!’ and shed with sandals—standing in the brink of Jordan with hyssop branch in hand —he called to them around him to repent, and be baptized for the remission of their sins: and as they sometimes several in a group, the hyssop branch was dipped in the Jordan, and with one motion of his hand the wok nas done; the water in gentle spray, descended upon them.
I thought of the baptism of Cornelius, and of Paul anti the Philippian jailer and his household; hut nothing but images of the descent of water on them filled my vision.
‘‘The nest evening I went to see Mr. R. He had heard of my frequent interviews with you, and soon inquired how I was getting along on the subject of baptism. “I told him I was in great trouble. He wanted to know the nature of my troubles. I told him you had presented the subject in a light entirely new to me, and that I was wholly unable to meet your arguments.
“I then asked him ii he would go over the whole subject with me as you have done. His reply was that he would; but that one evening would be sufficient. He said he could bring any number of Greek lexicons that: would testify that the word means to immerse.
“He suggested that the best plan was for me to read a work on the subject by a learned Paedobaptist: Prof. Stuart on Baptism. He assured me that after reading the concessions of this able writer I would he satisfied.
“I told him I cared nothing about the concessions of any man, unless all on his side of the question would assent to them. What I was after was Bible truth.
“He said he did not see how the question could be considered from an exclusively Bible standing Point. This seemed strange after all I had heard them say on the subject, affirming that they only had the Bible on their side.”
P.--”I am glad you visited Mr. R., but am sorry he did not consent to a consideration of the subject as you proposed.
“It would give him pleasure to refer you to a few Creek lexicons as authority for his view on the classic meaning of the word.
“If you desire such a consideration of the subject, outside of the Bible, I would refer you a work by Dr. Dale, on the classic use of the word—a work of 400 or 500 pages—wherein he shows, in a most unanswerable manner by innumerable quotations from classic Greek writers, that the word did not mean to immerse.
“As to the concessions of Prof. Stuart, they are utterly worthless, as you very properly suggested to Mr. R., unless in a controversy with those who would make the same concessions.
“If his concessions are of a character to convince you they ought to have convinced the professor himself. The very fact that he was not convinced, shows one of three things:
“1. That the concessions are not as important and convincing as Baptist pretend; or-
“2. That the professor was so ignorant or stupid, or both, that he could not draw a legitimate conclusion from them; or—
“3. That he was very dishonest in holding one theory and practicing another. Thus you see in any case it would be very stupid in any one to allow himself to be influenced by them.
“This work by Stuart was republished by Graves, Marks & Co., a Baptist house in Nashville, Tennessee; and to show you how Stuart’s friends regarded his concessions, let me read to you an extract from a commendatory notice of the work: it is by G. S. Baker, formerly editor of the Christian Index, Ga. After speaking of the obligations under which the Baptist denomination is to Graves, Marks & Co., for republishing the work, he says,’Nearly twenty years ago I urged upon brethren to endeavor to have an edition of it brought out for circulation by Baptists, but was informed that it could not be done, as the author’s brethren in the church were very much displeased with him for its publication, and were buying up all the copies they could find in order to suppress it.
“This writer concedes that Stuart stood almost alone in his concessions; his friends were displeased with him for making and publishing them; they would not agree to them. Whence, then, their value in an argumentative point of view?
“Why, then, it might be asked, did the Baptists republish such a work for circulation among their adherents ?
“The answer is easily given. Because it would tickle and establish those already convinced, and influence the ignorant and unthinking; and especially because they have nothing better to put forth in favor of their assumptions.
“But let me ask, how does the matter stand with you now?”
W.—”I do not see that immersion can claim any authority or warrant from the word of God.”
P.-”The subject I intended to introduce this evening has, to my mind, great force independently of all other considerations. But, perhaps, it will not be necessary to call your attention to these facts, as you are already satisfied.”
W.-’’I am interested in the subject, and will be glad to hear anything you have to say on it.”
P.—”I proposed to consider the question from what philosophers call an a priori standpoint.”
W.-”By which you mean what we might have expected or anticipated beforehand from the nature of things.”
P.-”Yes, sir; what we might have anticipated from the nature of the New Testament dispensation, as distinguished from the Old.”
W.—’’I do not believe that I understand how a conclusion can be drawn from such premises.”
P.—”Can you tell me what was the nature of the service required of those under the Old Testament dispensation?”
W.—”I know that the duties imposed were often burdensome. They had a multitude of rites, various ablutions and sacrifices to offer, which required great self-denial and labor on the part of the worshipers.”
P.—’ ‘And what is the peculiarity of the New Testament dispensation in this respect?”
W.—’’Very different. It is remarkable for the fewness of its rites, and the simplicity of its service.”
P.—”The difference between the two dispensations is very marked. We may take, as a fair example, the Feast of the Passover in the Old, and that which takes its place in the New the Lord’s supper. These will fairly represent the two dispensations in the peculiarities mentioned. What can you remember of the Passover as celebrated by the Jews before Christ came?”
W.—”I recollect it lasted seven days. All leaven was to be carefully excluded from their dwellings; and a lamb was to be provided for each household, which was to be slain, roasted, and eaten during the night.’’
P.-”And what can you say of that which takes its place in the New Testament dispensation?”
W.—’’The Lord’s supper is in great contrast with it. It is remarkable for its simplicity.”
P.—”The whole service of Judaism stands in as marked contrast with the service as instituted by Christ and his apostles. What was the particular rite, under the Old Testament, by which a man became, outwardly, a Jew?”
W.—”It was circumcision.”
P.-.-”Was it remarkable for its simplicity?”
W.—”By no means. I think it agreed very well with the whole ceremonial service of, that economy.”
P.—”That is the rite by which we become or are recognized as Christians?”
W.—”The rite which we are now considering; and I begin to see the point and force of your argument.”
P.—”How do circumcision and !immersion compare in point of simplicity?”
W.—”It would be difficult to see any great difference in this respect. On many accounts I think the odds are in favor of circumcision.”
P.—”But, reasoning from analogy, from the greater simplicity of the New Testament service in all things else, what would we have anticipated or expected in reference to the rite that was to take the place of circumcision?”
W.—”Most certainly that it would correspond with all other changes in its decidedly superior simplicity.”
P.—”Again, I would ask you how does immersion strike vou as a rite in the New Testament Church?”
W.—”I fully appreciate the force of the argument. I am surprised that it never suggested itself to my mind before. The church is called Christ’s body; and immersion, as a rite in the New Testament Church, so remarkable for the simplicity of its service, seems like a huge and useless excrescence on the body of Christ, destroying its proportions and marring its beauty, and renders deformed what would otherwise have been symmetrical. It is like a great fifth wheel to a wagon. It does not fit; it does not work. I scarcely know how to illustrate it; but immersion seems to be a foreign element, out of its latitude—wholly out of place. It is like a cog wheel taken from the gearing of a saw-mill and attached to a family sewing machine.”
P.—”I am glad you appreciate the force of this a priori argument. It was this that first led me to suspect the claims of immersionists, and to examine the word of God in reference to baptism.” “When I was about the age at which you received the sobriquet ‘William the Baptist,’ my zeal for immersion was not much below yours at that age. At a revival of religion in Salem, Ohio, during the winter of 184-, about seventy persons united with the Baptist Church. Among the converts was my oldest sister, about eighteen years of age. The weather was intensely cold, and the ice on the pond about twelve inches thick. The pond in which they were immersed was about one mile distant. I went to the ‘baptizing,’ as they called it, to see my sister immersed. A large opening was made in the ice, and there, under such circumstances, was the rite administered. It made a deep impression on my mind. I thought any one deserved great credit to discharge such a duty; and I think such a spirit of self-righteousness is one of the strong pillars of its support. “Although I have not since then seen the hymn sung on the occasion, yet I have a distinct recollection of one of the stanzas. It ran thus:
“‘Christians, if your hearts are warm,
Ice and snow can do no harm;
IF by Jesus you are prized,
Arise, believe, and be baptized.’
“Such things satisfied my youthful mind at the time.
“Subsequently I knew of occasions where they had to go eight or ten miles to perform the rite.
“On one occasion, when about twenty were to be immersed, a small pond was made for the purpose by building a dam across a small stream of water. Before half a dozen had been immersed, the entrance became very miry, and the water decidedly muddy, and soon it became difficult to determine which predominated, the water or the mud.
“In some localities, and in some circumstances, as in the case of the sick, it is a physical. impossibility to perform the rite by immersion.
“From such facts I was early led to wonder why a rite so Mosaic or Pharisaic in its nature, should mar the general simplicity of the church under the New Testament dispensation. This led me to examine the subject in the light of God’s Word, and thus I soon found that immersion finds no warrant in the Word of God.
“As a mode of baptism it is unscriptural, failing in a very important particular to do that for which baptism was instituted; that is, to symbolize the bestowment of the Holy Spirit, which can be accomplished only by the APPLICATION OF WATER to the individual.”
