Conclusion

To the quotations from the Christian Fathers, given in my last letter, I might add many more to the same effect. But these are sufficient. I have confined myself to these, because, with the exception of Cyprian’s letter (which Dr. Conant would very naturally not feel inclined to quote, to prove that baptizo should always be translated “immerse”), they are all copied from the volume to which I have referred, on “The meaning and use of baptizo” — published by the Baptist Union. The genuineness of the quotations will not, therefore, be questioned.

Whether “immerse” is, in any one of them, the proper translation, you, or any other intelligent reader, — whether acquainted with the Greek or not, — will be entirely competent to judge.

In no one of these passages do I find any indication that the writers regarded baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection; but, on the contrary, as meaning something entirely different. Where immersion is alluded to, it is only spoken of, not as required by the meaning of the word, but as an approved — or the most approved — method of ceremonial cleansing or purification. “The baptism of tears” is purification by tears. “The baptism of blood” is purification by blood. “The baptism of fire,” even, is purification by fire. “The baptism of the Holy Spirit” is inward purity through the divine power.

Whether they were right or wrong in these interpretations is not now the question. We may not be able, for example, to accept their exegesis of “the baptism of fire.” I do not find any evidence that this form of speech is ever applied except to a company of persons. It is employed only by John the Baptist; and in each case it is followed by a sentence that seems to be clearly explanatory of it. For example, in Luke 3:16, 17: “I, indeed, baptize you with water; but one cometh after me, mightier than I; he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” This seems to me plainly to mean — some of you will be saved; some of you will perish. The nation will be purified in both ways. Individuals are never spoken of as being baptized, or purified by fire. So that there is not a shadow of justification for any purgatorial interpretation of these passages.

And their interpretation of the Saviour’s words, “I have a baptism to be baptized with,” making it a baptism (or purification) by blood, I do not adopt.

But the quotations show beyond reasonable dispute that the writers understood baptism, not to require immersion, but to mean cleansing; and that is the point involved in this discussion. Admitting the claim of our Baptist brethren that immersion was generally practiced in the early centuries (succeeding the first) does not, by any means, make out their case. The important question is: On what ground did they put it? Did the Fathers maintain that the word baptizo so commanded? If they did, the fact would be something to the point; for it might be said, with a good deal of plausibility, that they probably understood the meaning of the particular words of the New Testament Greek as well, at least, as we.

Dr. Conant quotes sixty-one passages in his book. They are undoubtedly the strongest on the Baptist side that could be found. Much learning and labor have been expended upon this examination of the writings of the Fathers. Many men, on both sides of the Atlantic, have labored to strengthen the Baptist argument on this point: and we have the result, as compiled by Dr. Conant. Upon examining these sixty-one quotations, I have not found even so much as one of them that rests the claim for itnmersion on any such ground. Several of them refer to Rom. vi and Col. ii; but we are as competent to interpret these passages as they. If they understood the word itself as requiring immersion, it is strange that they did not say so. This is the ground on which our modern Baptists place the matter; and it is manifestly the only ground upon which it can rest firmly. If the word requires immersion, that settles the question; if it does not, that settles it. The Baptist Union regard this as so important that they for a long time carried on a separate Bible Society on purpose to see to it that this word was so translated into all languages. They annually expended many thousands of dollars with a view of giving all English readers a Bible with “immerse” in it instead of “baptize.” And if that is the equivalent expression for the original baptizo, then it should be so translated.

But, by the way, if the Latin Fathers did really concur in this understanding of the subject, why did they, with one consent, transfer the Greek word to the Latin text instead of translating by “immerse”? And if there was even a minority of them opposed to the transfer and in favor of a translation, why do we hear nothing from them? From our Baptist brethren of these days we have been hearing this complaint against our English version perpetually all our lifetime. If the Latin writers understood immersion to be a synonym of baptism, why did not they adopt it? For immersion, as we all know, is itself a Latin word, and the very one which these brethren are quoting the Latin Fathers to prove ought to be used in the translation of the New Testament Greek. Yet these same Latin Fathers themselves, with one consent, reject their own native-born “immersio,” and transfer the Greek baptismos! It is very much to be regretted that they so poorly understood the meaning of their own language or of the Greek!

It seems to me very clear, then, that an appeal to the Fathers of the first ten centuries subsequent to the Apostolic Age is against the Baptist theory and not in favor of it.

These letters are drawing to a close. I believe that I have answered every question that you have propounded. But as you desired me to give you in full the reasons which led to my change of views and of church relations, I ought to say a few words more, before I lay down my pen, or “sum up” the case, as the lawyers say, in conclusion.

The one other thing which I wish to say is that the views which I have here presented — the interpretation which I have contended for in these letters — seem to me to commend themselves to a sound Christian judgment as altogether fitting to the obvious nature and design of the ordinance of baptism and as harmonizing with the manifest spirit of our Christian religion.

Upon a matter like this I am fully aware that it becomes us to speak very discreetly. For we must always be careful not to sit in judgment upon the wisdom or fitness of any divine ordinance or appointment, lest we be found among those who accuse God foolishly.

But we cannot help thinking. And when it is a question of intrepretation, and when philology does not speak plainly and unequivocally, we may very properly throw these thoughts into the scale. To my own mind the philological argument presented in these pages is clear and unanswerable. But to others it may not prove so. It may simply leave them unsettled and balancing in doubt. Any one who occupies that position may very properly allow his sense of fitness to lead him to reject an interpretation which is not sustained by unanswerable proofs.

Some years ago, while I was still in the Baptist ministry, but after I had ceased to preach on baptism and in my own mind had ceased to insist on immersion, I met a Baptist clergyman, who was an entire stranger to my own thoughts, and who said to me: “Has it never occurred to you that the Great Head of the church, in establishing an ordinance for all time and for all latitudes and for all seasons of the year, would not be likely to give the church one that is so utterly unphysiological as immersion? Now, I have studied medicine, and practiced as a physician fifteen years and I know that what I say is true — it is contrary to all the laws of life and health either for the baptized, or for the administrator.”

I was at first quite startled to hear such words from a Baptist minister; but after a moment I confessed to him my own thoughts, and my own experience. For on several occasions, I had been ill for days after baptizing a large number of persons in the spring — following a winter of special revival.

Here is an ordinance for the world; for missionaries in all countries; for every convert, immediately upon his conversion; and one would naturally anticipate that it would be one to which he could give heed at any time of year, or in any locality where he might be. But, if our Baptist brethren have the right understanding of it, it is not. Many, I think most, Baptist ministers are obliged, from regard to their own life and health, as well as out of regard to the health of some of those converted to Christ, to postpone the baptism of those converted in winter until the coming of the spring or summer. Ministers in impaired health are not able to attend to it at all.

I was present in Spurgeon’s church in the summer of 1873, on the occasion of the baptism of ten or twelve persons. The pastor preached every Sabbath. He was present, and as well as usual, at the time of this baptism. But another minister performed the ceremony: and I was informed by a member of the church that the reason Mr. Spurgeon himself did not perform the ceremony was that his health would not justify him in doing it. Certainly his friend was not selected because of his special skill: for I have never seen immersion more ungracefully executed.

To me it seems an ungracious task to argue in favor of a ceremony of admission to a Christian church which the pastor of the church must get somebody else to perform.

So it might often happen that, in a large district of country, there would be found no facilities for immersion.

In the spring of 1864 I spent a month in traveling in Palestine. I was then a Baptist, and always expected to remain so. I did not travel out of my way to find water for baptism: but, as it was the month of March, and as the “latter rain” had just ceased, it would be a favorable time for finding suitable conveniences for immersion, if such there were. Yet, aside from the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee, I found only one or two places where immersion would have been practicable. It was not oftener than once in four days, on the average, that we could have baptized the eunuch, in that method, had we fallen in with him and had he so required.

And the Jordan was not one of these places. As we stood upon the banks of the furious, foaming, dashing river, and the words, “What will ye do in the swellings thereof?” naturally occurred to me, I replied inwardly, “I do not know: but certainly not undertake to baptize anybody by immersion, unless I wished literally to bury him. by baptism into death.” I would as soon have thought of performing immersion in the Niagara, half a mile above the cataract, as at the Fords of the Jordan, in the month of March, 1864. And in many other countries and localities it would be far more difficult to find facilities for immersion than in Palestine. Even in countries which are regarded as well-watered, it is not always easy.

I once had a little experience in this matter in my own pastoral work. Two persons wished to be baptized by immersion. It was June. A brook of some considerable size flowed through the town; but after diligent search for several hours we did not find any place within three miles where the water was of sufficient depth. We then determined to borrow the use of a baptistery, presuming that we could do so without difficulty, as there were two Baptist churches in the city. The authorities of both of them readily consented, but neither of the baptisteries was in order and neither of them could be repaired and filled without considerable expense and delay. We might have secured the use of a private bath, but none that was at all suitable in size; and, besides, the use of such a bath did not seem to us to be in harmony with the idea of a public consecration such as the ordinance implies. So we gave up the search; and as we were then engaged in building a new place of worship, and as we believed immersion to be valid baptism, and that this is one of those things in which every person should be fully persuaded in his own mind, we determined upon putting a baptistery into our own church. We did so; and after waiting a year the parties referred to were immersed. It was true, for several years after that, that our Congregational baptistery was the only place in that city of twelve thousand where immersion could be performed without special preparation, considerable delay, and no little expense. There are not a few other communities in which this mode of baptism would be found equally impracticable and inconvenient.

Onerous rites and burdensome ceremonies do not seem at all to accord with the genius and spirit of our Christian faith. Our understanding of baptism makes it a ceremony which every disciple may observe and every pastor may perform — suitable for every assembly of believers, in every clime, and at every season.

And as a little bread may represent to us the strength which Christ alone can impart, and a little wine may typify his blood shed for us, so may a little water in its purity symbolize to us the cleansing power of God’s Spirit and grace.

He who had the water of separation sprinkled upon him was touched by that water iu only a few spots; but he was not “cleansed in spots”! — the cleansing was entire and complete. And those to whom the prophetic promise comes, declaring “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,’ are assured that they are thus (in symbol) “cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

The mode in which the water of baptism shall be applied is not prescribed any more than the mode of eating the bread in the Lord's Supper; both are left to our own freedom. But when, under the Dispensation of Moses, cleansing was to be symbolized, it was, as we have seen, chiefly by sprinkling — never by immersion. And for various reasons we prefer this mode of baptism. But we would not insist upon it for anybody else. The command is not to “sprinkle,” nor to “pour upon,” nor to “immerse,” but to “baptize.” Were we obliged to employ any other word than this in our English version, it would be difficult to decide as between “cleanse” and “purify.” But our translators did wisely in following the example of the Latin versionists for fifteen hundred years in transferring the word for which we had no exact English equivalent and thus giving us a sacred term forever consecrated to the sacred ordinance.

That, in this use of it, it is a general term, expressive of symbolic cleansing with water, and not a specific term, requiring immersion, I have endeavored to show you on various grounds: —

1. Because such a modification of meaning is common to many of the Greek words which are used in the New Testament and harmonizes with all the wellknown laws of language.

1. The command to baptize cannot be understood in the classic sense of baptizo, which involves no necessary thought of water at all — this being, however, an essential thing in the Christian ordinance.

1. The Septuagint use of the word proves conclusively that long before the time of Christ baptizo had come to express to the Jewish nations the general idea of water cleansing without reference to the mode of its application, and especially, and beyond all possible question, when the mode was by sprinkling alone.

1. This meaning best harmonizes with all the various cases of the administration of the ordinance recorded in the New Testament.

1. It is absolutely demanded by the exigencies of several passages in which baptizo is used in reference to other religious purifications.

1. It harmonizes best with all the regimen of the verb and with the various prepositions used in connection with it.

1. So, also, it best accords with the different allusions to the ordinance, such as the “washing of regeneration,” and especially with all references to its spiritual import.

1. The figurative use of the term, in speaking of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit, and of fire,” demands this interpretation.

1. There is no passage in which the word is found that may not be explained in harmony with this interpretation, while many of them are quite difficult of explanation upon any other.

1. The teachings of the Christian Fathers, even of those who preferred immersion, plainly show that they regarded the ordinance as one symbolic of cleansing and not of burial and resurrection.

1. This interpretation renders it possible, as the other does not, to fulfill the Great Commission in all countries, in all places, and at all times.

1. It best harmonizes with the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, which is preeminently a religion of heart and life, and not of onerous rites and outward ceremonies.

Such is the view to which I was irresistibly led by a reëxamination of the whole subject, commenced, and for a long time prosecuted, for the purpose and with the confident expectation in the beginning of triumphantly vindicating my belief as a Baptist.

I have not, during these years of reinvestigation, read a single volume on the pædobaptist side, and never in my life more than one or two. Perhaps if I had I might have made the argument stronger still. But I have preferred to reëxamine the whole subject independently; and that reëxamination convinced me of my mistake in holding that immersion was the only baptism. I could not do otherwise than yield to the unconquerable force of the argument against me.

Only those who have gone through with it can understand how much of a trial it is to sunder denominational connections after they have been long and pleasantly maintained. But to continue them when a change of opinion has intervened upon the very doctrines that divide is ordinarily an occasion of chafing and strife, which are more to be deplored than friendly separation. And with all due respect for old and long-cherished friends one cannot honestly continue to profess to believe what he does not any longer really believe. Allegiance to what one sees to be true must be supreme. You remember the saying of one of old: “Plato is my friend, Socrates is my friend, but much more is the truth my friend.”

Parted by differences of sentiment here, we wait for the fuller reunion in the home above where there will be but one Lord, one faith, and the one baptism of light and love, whereby we are all baptized by one Spirit into the one body of Christ.