**&jr \ 
 
 \# # 
 
 ' 
 
 

 
 ,g>^>^o*^--Q*oc*o*<'' : 9 
 
 PRIVATE LIBRARY 
 OF 
 
 C. C. PIERCE. 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES 
 
 SKETCHES FROM REAL LIFE, 
 
 BY A PASTOR. 
 
 "Prove alHhings; holdfast that which is food." I Thess. v. 21. 
 
 CINCINNATI, O.: 
 
 O. W. LASHKR, PUBLISHER. 
 
 1883.
 
 Entered according to the Act of Congress in the year 1882, by 
 
 F. M. JAMS, 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
 
 BV 
 
 s/a 
 
 3T//-&. 
 
 PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 
 
 THE following sketches were first published in the 
 JOURNAL AND MESSENGER and immediately excited 
 unusual interest. From all parts of the country 
 from ministers and laymen, from the learned and the 
 unlearned began to come calls for their publication in 
 a more permanent form. Nothing that had appeared 
 for years, on the baptismal question, had produced 
 such an impression. The style of the author is 
 direct and incisive; everything is clear and carries 
 conviction. The sketches detail personal experiences 
 and deal with phases of the question not usually 
 presented in other works. The argument is illus- 
 trated by facts coming directly under the, author's 
 observation, and is made clear to the ordinary in- 
 tellect. The author is the esteemed pastor of the 
 Baptist Church at Mansfield, Ohio; his reputation 
 among his brethren is unquestioned, and, morally, 
 no man in the State stands higher. His ability as a 
 writer is fully vindicated in the following pages. 
 
 The demand for the republication has increased 
 from week to week since the completion of the series 
 in November last, and it is because he believes that 
 this book is better adapted to the ordinary reader 
 than any other with which he is acquainted, and be- 
 cause he wants to send it abroad to exert the strongest 
 possible influence for the cause of truth that the 
 publisher has purchased of the author the copyright, 
 and now puts forth the sketches in this attractive 
 form. 
 
 CINCINNATI, January 15, 1883. 
 (Hi) 
 
 682099
 
 AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 THESE sketches are not drafts upon the imagina- 
 tion. They are simple narratives of actual incidents 
 in the experience of the writer together with such re- 
 flections and arguments as seemed to him pertinent 
 and appropriate. There is in them no attempt at 
 fine writing. If the style is plain, compact and 
 earnest, so was the somewhat unique experience that 
 gave it birth. A man who has walked amid the 
 flames of a furnace may be excused, perhaps, if his 
 account of the adventure lacks the genial aimlessness 
 of an amusing fiction. 
 
 But however strong the desire to make the truth 
 of God evident to the reader of these pages, the 
 author is conscious of none other than the kindest 
 feelings toward those whose views and practices he 
 is obliged to condemn. He has written, not to de- 
 nounce nor to offend, but to convince, and if possible, 
 to win very dear brethren. His only desire is to 
 induce Christian brethren to walk together in that 
 unity so delightful and so enduring; the unity of 
 obedience to Christ as King. This is the only unity 
 of any real value. The unity of indifference, now so 
 popular in many quarters, is not born of a consuming 
 love of the truth nor does it tend to promote the 
 (iv)
 
 AUTHOR'S PREFACE. v 
 
 truth. "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, 
 then peaceable" peaceable through the truth, not 
 at the expense of truth. Such wisdom is from God, 
 enthrones God, honors him above all else, and lifts 
 the soul into the serene atmosphere of divine peace. 
 
 That these pages are free from faults and blemishes 
 the author dare not hope. That they treat the subject 
 exhaustively he does not claim. But that they treat 
 it with fairness and Christian candor he feels quite 
 assured. 
 
 In the confident hope that they will prove helpful 
 to earnest, inquiring minds, and that God will gra- 
 ciously use them to promote the "truth as it is in 
 Jesus," I send them forth, praying that the blessing 
 of God may rest upon every reader. 
 
 F. M. IAMS.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 No. I. "Only a Dedication," . . . .-'7 
 
 No. 2. " Vot's de Good of It ? " .... 18 
 
 No. 3. "Let Me Alone," 32 
 
 No. 4. Lint on the Nib, . ' .- ' V'"'- . . 45 
 
 No. 5. "Valid Baptism," 59 
 
 No. 6. My Resolution, . . . 73 
 
 No. 7. A Presbyterian Prophecy, .... 86 
 
 No. 8. Those German Scholars, .... 103 
 
 No. 9. "A Grand Book," Il6 
 
 No. 10. Letting Providence Decide, . . . 131 
 
 No. II. A Puzzled Preacher, 144 
 
 No. 12. " What can you Plead ?" . . . . 158 
 
 No. 13. "I Never Could Understand," . . .191 
 
 No. 14. The Final Test 214 
 
 (Vi)
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER I. 
 
 " If s only a Dedication" 
 
 In the autumn of 185- I accepted the unani- 
 mous call of the Congregational Church in the 
 
 village of T . I was then only a licentiate, 
 
 but the next spring, after due examination by a 
 Council called by the church, I was solemnly 
 ordained to the full work of the gospel ministry. 
 I entered upon the sacred duties of the holy call- 
 ing, not without many misgivings respecting my 
 ability to discharge them properly, and yet with 
 a joyous and earnest consecration of heart, in- 
 tellect and life to the great work. 
 
 A son of the grand old University of B , I 
 
 naturally carried with me into the sacred desk 
 
 something of the vigorous, indomitable spirit of 
 
 (7)
 
 8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 my dear old Alma Mater. I was an earnest 
 student of books rather than of men, and of ideas 
 rather than books. Nor did this produce a drift 
 of thought in the direction of the visionary, but 
 rather the reverse. My intense desire to do good 
 anchored me to the practical, while my profound 
 reverence for Bible truth made me an earnest 
 student of doctrines. As the result, my preach- 
 ing was at once plain, direct, argumentative and 
 practical. My dear people were constantly 
 drawn closer to me, and I heartily reciprocated 
 their confidence and affection, and we soon be- 
 came almost glued, as it were, into one harmoni- 
 ous, inseparable body. 
 
 We were enthusiastic Congregationalists. Hop- 
 kins, Bellamy and Dwight were our oracles, and 
 Plymouth Rock, once pressed by the sacred feet 
 of the immaculate old Puritans, was our beloved 
 blarney-stone, and I suppose we, half uncon- 
 sciously, pitied those poor, unfortunate churches 
 which have no Plymouth Rock to fall back upon, 
 nor any May Flower to boast of. 
 
 From the first I had frequent occasion to 
 baptize infants, and I always did it properly, 
 cheerfully and reverently, and to the edification 
 of all concerned in it. 
 
 Thus matters wore a pleasant aspect, and as 
 time moved on, life seemed one long, cloudless,
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. p 
 
 balmy June day, laden with the aroma of the 
 sweetest flowers, and enlivened with inspiring 
 harmonies. 
 
 But there came a change. In the progress of 
 my Bible study I soon found myself disturbed 
 by grave doubts respecting the scripturalness of 
 infant baptism. I saw clearly that the baptism 
 of believers was enjoined by our Lord, and that 
 the practice of the apostles accorded with that 
 injunction. 
 
 But that Christ required the baptism of babes, 
 or that the apostles practiced such baptism, was 
 not so clear. I tried to put away my doubts, 
 and sometimes I succeeded for a short time, but 
 they would not stay put away. Often, when I 
 least expected it, they would return in full force, 
 and give me no little trouble. At length I began 
 to look into our usual defenses of the practice a 
 little more closely, and I was at once surprised, 
 and not a little perplexed, at the evident and 
 numerous weaknesses in them. This greatly in- 
 creased my gathering doubts; and, as if to add 
 to my difficulties though she knew nothing of 
 them a good sister presented her young child 
 for baptism. I was in a most painful dilemma. 
 I could not well refuse to baptize the babe and 
 yet I did not dare to baptize it. By refusing to 
 baptize it I would probably offend and grieve
 
 IO BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 the entire church; but on the other hand, by 
 baptizing it I might offend and grieve my Master, 
 the great Head of the Church. For. a few mo- 
 ments I did not know what to do ; there seemed 
 to be no way out of the difficulty. But present- 
 ly a happy thought came to my relief. I told 
 the mother of the child privately that I had late- 
 ly come to have some doubts about infant bap- 
 tism, and that I desired her to delay the baptism 
 of her babe until the next communion season (a 
 period of two months), that I might have time 
 to examine the matter more fully. I also re- 
 quested her to say nothing about my doubts to 
 any one. These requests she readily granted, 
 and the baptism of the babe was postponed. 
 
 During the next two months I studied infant 
 baptism with great diligence, but with very little 
 success. I could not quite make up my mind 
 either way, and as the next communion season 
 was at hand, I was obliged to ask that sister for 
 another postponement of two months. This she 
 granted, and I went on with the investigation. 
 But I found my doubts increasing rapidly, and 
 at the next communion I told her I did not dare 
 baptize her babe then, and I desired another 
 postponement, which she readily granted. Con- 
 tinuing my examination of the subject, I now 
 became fully convinced, to my great dismay,
 
 BEHIND -THE SCENES. II 
 
 that infant baptism has no warrant in the Word 
 of God. But what could I do? If I gave up 
 infant baptism, I must also give up the work of 
 the ministry, to which I firmly believed God had 
 called me, or I must leave my people and be- 
 come a Baptist. I could not leave the ministry. 
 I must continue to preach the gospel, for that 
 duty was very clear and very urgent. But if I 
 rejected infant baptism, I could not remain a 
 Congregational minister. For, although we 
 boasted our liberality, and allowed the greatest 
 diversity of views among our members, we were 
 very exacting with our ministers. No man could 
 long be a minister among us, if he was known 
 to reject infant baptism or sprinkling. If I gave 
 up infant baptism, therefore, I must leave my 
 church and go to the Baptists. But I could not 
 do that, for, in my opinion, they were a narrow, 
 bigoted people at the best, and I hated their 
 horrible close communion. I was now in very 
 great distress. What to do I did not know. 
 
 Three things were becoming very clear to me : 
 I could not continue the practice of infant bap- 
 tism, for it was not scriptural ; rejecting it, I 
 could not remain in the ministry in a Congrega- 
 tional Church. In any event, I could not be a 
 Baptist. It was also evident that I must soon 
 do something decisive. I had secured another
 
 12 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 postponement of the baptism of that babe, and 
 if he was ever to have the benefit of infant bap- 
 tism, he must be baptized soon. 
 
 I now remembered having heard infant bap- 
 tism defended as a pious act of dedication an 
 act in which the parents and the church unitedly 
 presented the child to God, covenanting to bring 
 him up in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord. This arrested my attention and impress- 
 ed me favorably. In common with my brethren, 
 I had already come to look upon adult baptism 
 as chiefly a solemn self-dedication of the bap- 
 tized one to the service of God. I had been 
 taught that this dedication was indeed the only 
 essential thing in baptism. This put the whole 
 question before me in a new light. It no longer 
 appeared so much a question of baptism as a 
 pious act of dedication. I knew that, practi- 
 cally, all pedobaptists treat infant baptism as a 
 nullity, if it be not in more mature years fully 
 adopted and confirmed as his own act, by the 
 one to whom it has been administered. And 
 here, evidently, was the true explanation of that 
 fact They regarded the infant baptism not as 
 a baptism, but as a dedication to become a bap- 
 tism only when accepted as such by the grown-up 
 child. This is a beautiful and flexible arrange- 
 ment. I apply the water to the child in the
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 13 
 
 name of the Trinity; yet I do not baptize it, 
 but only dedicate it. In all true baptism there 
 must be the intelligent assen.t of the subject. 
 But the infant does not and can not give such 
 assent; and therefore, while he is dedicated to 
 God in the solemn formula of baptism, he is not 
 baptized. An essential element his own assent 
 is lacking. When, in after years, he gives that 
 assent, the church will for the first time treat 
 him as really baptized. Should he refuse such 
 assent, the church would refuse to regard him 
 as baptized. 
 
 It is plain, then, that I do not baptize him. 
 I only dedicate him, and he afterward takes that 
 dedication and makes it a baptism. The dedica- 
 tion is my act, and the baptism is his act. If the 
 dedication is proper I am all right, and if the 
 baptism is wrong it is his fault. 
 
 That this conclusion is correct must be con- 
 ceded by every pedobaptist. For the ceremony 
 of confirmation is the concluding act of infant 
 baptism that act which completes it and makes 
 it baptism if anything does. Until it receives 
 confirmation, the child is treated by the church 
 as unbaptized. The Lord's Supper and all other 
 church privileges are denied it, but at and after 
 confirmation they are at once accorded to it. 
 The only possible defense the church can set up
 
 14 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 for her conduct in the matter is, that the con- 
 firmation completes the baptism makes it valid 
 and thus entitles the child to all the privileges 
 of a baptized person. Either the child was bap 
 tized by, or in confirmation, or, having been 
 baptized before, it was basely and systematically 
 robbed of its most sacred religious rights by the 
 church. The truth is, that confirmation is vir- 
 tually a confession that an intelligent personal 
 assent is an indispensable element of baptism. 
 It is true this confession overturns infant bap- 
 tism, by recognizing an element in baptism which 
 is impossible to all infants. But the confession 
 is a true and healthy one for all that. 
 
 Here I found a door of hope. I could not 
 baptize an infant ; but I could and would dedi- 
 cate it ; and if, in after years, the infant chose 
 to convert the dedication into a baptism, that 
 would not be my fault. Accordingly at our 
 next communion service, I told my church, that 
 I could no longer consent to baptize infants, 
 but that I was entirely willing to dedicate them 
 to God. After stating my new views briefly, I 
 told the church that, if they could agree with 
 me to regard the service not as a baptism, but 
 simply as a dedication, we could still go on to- 
 gether; but if not, we must separate. I invited 
 any one who might desire to express dissent to
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 5 
 
 do so at once. I paused, but no one spoke a 
 single word. Then, accepting their silence as a 
 token of unanimous assent to my plan, I pro- 
 ceeded to dedicate that long postponed babe, 
 using the old baptismal service water, words, 
 and all not omitting a single thing. I said, "I 
 baptize thee, " etc., all the time meaning, I ded- 
 icate thee. This was certainly a very singular 
 proceeding in many respects, and I have often 
 wondered at it myself, but I saw nothing im- 
 proper in it at that time. Indeed, I felt very 
 devout and happy, and my people seemed to 
 feel so too which only indicates how unsafe it 
 is to take our feelings as a criterion of duty. 
 
 I am perfectly sure, now, that I acted consci- 
 entiously in the whole matter ; but the trouble 
 was with my conscience. It was honest and 
 active, but it was not enlightened. I verily be- 
 lieved that I was doing God service, and I re- 
 garded myself as really a person of some con- 
 siderable ability and shrewdness, since I had got 
 out of such an exceedingly tight spot in a way 
 so ingenious and creditable. Still, as I was not 
 without an occasional fear lest, after all, it might 
 not be exactly the right thing, I refrained from 
 boasting, contenting myself with a little private 
 rejoicing, that, after all, I could remain with my 
 dear people. And so for some years I went on
 
 l6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 dedicating the babes, often wincing not a little 
 at the stormy doubts which persisted in gather- 
 ing about me, more and more as time advanced, 
 and which did not cease their assaults until I 
 ceased to say, "It's only a dedication." 
 
 Indeed, I felt very devout and happy, and 
 my people seemed to feel so too which only 
 indicates how unsafe it is to take our feelings as 
 a criterion of duty. 
 
 And yet our feelings are not to be ignored or 
 despised. They have their legitimate uses uses 
 beautiful and beneficent. They are the "juices 
 of life," if the expression may be permitted, 
 converting otherwise dry and dreary wastes into 
 fertile fields, full of springing buds and ripening 
 fruits. They are the chief motive power in mul- 
 titudes of human hearts and lives, and, it may 
 be, an inseparable factor in all right moral action. 
 
 But our feelings, while they are grand servants, 
 helping us in a thousand ways, are miserable 
 guides. 
 
 The truth is, they have no eyes they are 
 blind and unaided by the mind, they are quite 
 as apt to go in a wrong direction as in the way 
 of right. If one has a mistaken idea of duty, 
 and lives up to that idea, he will feel happy 
 over it until he discovers his mistake. And if 
 that man makes feeling his test of duty and of
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. I/ 
 
 right, he may go on many years in positive 
 wrong-doing without knowing it ; or in the utter 
 and even contemptuous neglect of urgent duty 
 without so much as once suspecting it. 
 
 Nor is it enough that we be conscientious. 
 We may be very conscientious, and, at the same 
 time, be very far from right. The treacherous 
 Thug is conscientious, religiously so, in his foul 
 work of assassination. Saul of Tarsus was a 
 conscientious persecutor of the Church of God. 
 Doubtless, the grim judges of the Inquisition 
 were conscientious. It is not enough to say, 
 "I have the approval of my conscience " in doing 
 this or that. The Word of God is the supreme 
 rule of right, and we are safe only when feeling 
 and conscience are conformed to that divine rule. 
 
 I am perfectly sure, now, that I acted consci- 
 entiously in the whole matter; but the trouble 
 
 was with my conscience. 
 2
 
 1 8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER II. 
 
 "To pe sure you can; and if you can't, vofs de 
 good of it?" 
 
 ONE day, while pastor of the church in the 
 
 village of T , I was walking in the country, 
 
 at a distance of several miles from home. As 
 I was passing a plain, neat farm-house, the door 
 opened and a woman came out and hailed me. 
 She was the farmer's wife, a tidy German woman, 
 whom I had met not long before at a country 
 wedding. 
 
 Coming toward the gate, she said : "Pees you 
 
 de minister at T ?" I confessed that I was. 
 
 Then she asked anxiously, "Does you paptize 
 papies?" I acknowledged that I was in the 
 habit of doing so. Then she came to business 
 at once in these words: "Veil, den, I vants you 
 to come right in, and paptize my dree leetle 
 vuns." I told her how glad I would be to 
 comply with her request, were it proper to do 
 so. I then carefully explained the nature of the 
 ceremony ; that it was a covenant between the 
 parents of the children and the church, in which
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. Ip 
 
 they, together, gave the children to the Lord, 
 and agreed to train them up "in the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord;" whence it was neces- 
 sary that it should be observed in the presence 
 of the church, and that at least one of the par- 
 ents should be a member of the church. I in- 
 vited her to bring her children to our meeting 
 in the village, to unite with the church herself, 
 and then to have her little ones baptized. 
 
 I was astonished at the effect of my quiet 
 matter-of-fact words. "Ah, no," she cried, "it 
 pees a long vay to de town, and ve got no team. 
 It pees a long time pefore ve can come to de 
 town ; and maype de poor leetle tings die, mit; 
 no paptism, an den dey perish shoost like de 
 peasts of the field; dey got no soul, no immor- 
 tality, no eternal life, 'cause dey not paptized!" 
 
 It was a cry of anguish. All her mother heart 
 seemed compressed into her poor broken words. 
 Her voice was tremulous with feeling, and every 
 word seemed drenched in tears. 
 
 Evidently she was terribly in earnest, and re- 
 garded the baptism of her children as a matter 
 of the highest moment, involving their eternal 
 destiny. It was a fearful revelation to me. I 
 had read much about such distorted views of 
 baptism, but they had always seemed to me so 
 exaggerated and impossible that I had regarded
 
 2O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 them rather as the wild vagaries of crack-brained 
 theorists, than as the actual convictions of men 
 and women in real life. But here I was suddenly 
 confronted by an earnest, misguided mother, 
 pleading for baptism at my hands, to save her 
 own dear babes from eternal death. Was ever 
 any pagan superstition worse than that? I was 
 amazed, shocked, and, for a few moments, thor- 
 oughly upset. As soon as I could rally my be- 
 wildered wits, I tried to convince her that she 
 greatly overestimated baptism; that it had no 
 such saving virtue, and that her children would 
 not be lost for want of it, even if they should 
 die without it. But the training and prejudices 
 of a lifetime were not to be overcome in an hour. 
 I could make no impression upon her citadel of 
 superstition. At length, in very desperation, I 
 cried out: " Do you really think I can give your 
 children immortality, eternal life, by putting a 
 little water on them?" 
 
 Her answer came swift, strong, and utterly 
 confounding to all half-way pedobaptists "To 
 pe sure you can ; and if you can't, vots de good 
 of it?" 
 
 Finding that I could not change her views of 
 the efficacy of baptism, I declined to baptize her 
 little ones under any circumstances. 
 
 I went home in a brown study, her bold, incisive
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 21 
 
 and rigidly logical question " Vofs de good of 
 ttf ringing in my ears at a fearful rate. And, 
 day after day, that same question "Vofs de 
 good of it?" would pop up everywhere, like 
 some irrepressible imp, meeting me at every turn 
 grinning at me from every nook and cranny 
 mocking at me in all possible ways but ever 
 growing bolder and more urgent and more im- 
 perious. I could neither escape it, nor banish 
 it, nor answer it. 
 
 At length I reluctantly confessed myself van- 
 quished, and gave up the practice of infant bap- 
 tism a practice which God has not enjoined 
 a practice which no man can defend, except by 
 the false pretense that there is in it some hidden, 
 saving efficacy some secret power to save the 
 soul. "Vot's de good of it?" sure enough. 
 Who can tell? What is the good of it? What 
 has it ever done? What of blessing has it ever 
 conferred on the church, the world or the fam- 
 ily? How has it ever benefited one of its un- 
 conscious subjects ? It has done evil enough 
 and the evil it has done is evident enough but 
 what good has it ever done? Ask history, and 
 she will point to the darkest of her many blood- 
 stained pages, and tell you these are the records 
 of its evil deeds. It brought the world into the 
 church, unregenerate, godless, impenitent. Jt
 
 22 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 introduced into the church the men who invent- 
 ed the Papacy, the men who contrived its ma- 
 chinery, the men who fostered its corruptions, 
 the men whose unholy ambitions developed its 
 fearful power. 
 
 It is not the child but the mother of the Pa- 
 pacy. It existed before the Papacy, and its 
 existence made the Papacy possible. It is the 
 mother and conservator of every State Church 
 on earth. It is the one thing indispensable to 
 every State Church. It keeps alive all State 
 Churches to-day, with all their festering cor- 
 ruptions. Take it away, and Romanism would 
 die in a single generation. Abolish it, and you 
 abolish Episcopacy in England and Lutheranism 
 in Germany. Abolish it, and you make perse- 
 cution for religious opinions forever impossible 
 among the professed disciples of Christ. Infant 
 baptism and persecution were absolutely insep- 
 arable for more than thirteen hundred years. 
 Only such churches as cherished infant baptism 
 have been guilty of the great sin of persecution. 
 And of all those churches only one, the Meth- 
 odist, can rise up and truthfully say, we have 
 never persecuted. That Church "retains" infant 
 baptism, but so carelessly and illogically, that it 
 has never had its legitimate influence on her 
 spirit and life, From the first, Methodism, with
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 23 
 
 a happy inconsistency, has practically ignored 
 infant baptism, while retaining it, insisting on a 
 converted membership in all her classes, thus 
 keeping herself, in a large measure, free from its 
 debasing influences. 
 
 The evil that infant baptism has done is writ- 
 ten in. letters of blood on almost every page of 
 the history of Christendom, and on myriads of 
 wronged human hearts ; but the good that it has 
 done is written where? Alas, echo answers 
 always and only where ? Go through the world 
 and search it out ; find it if you can ; measure 
 it soberly by the divine Word ; weigh it in the 
 scales of divine truth, and then publish it to the 
 ends of the earth. 
 
 But if you find no good, but only evil, and 
 that continually; if you find many thousands, 
 like that poor German mother, depending upon 
 infant baptism to save their children; if you 
 find scores of thousands trusting in their own 
 baptism in infancy to save them; if you find 
 multitudes thus blinded groping in the dark- 
 ness, and kept away from Christ by it ; if you 
 find it the chief prop of Romanism, of all State 
 Churches, of all ecclesiastical usurpations, tyr- 
 annies, persecutions and corruptions then be 
 assured it is not of God, but of antichrist, and 
 that no man can be innocent in the sight of Je-
 
 24 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 hovah who contributes by his influence to per- 
 petuate it. 
 
 "Vofs de good of it?" Suppose you go 
 through this land proposing this same question 
 in every church where infant baptism is prac- 
 ticed, and note the astonishing variety of re- 
 plies. 
 
 One tells you that it is a testimony to the good- 
 ness of human nature, that it certifies the holi- 
 ness of infancy, and assures us that the evil 
 within us is outweighed and overborne by the 
 good ; but another tells you that it is a solemn 
 witness to our depravity, assuming it to be so 
 great that even unconscious babes imperatively 
 need the washing of regeneration in the bap- 
 tismal laver, to put away the corruption of orig- 
 inal sin. You repeat the question, and you are 
 told by one that the baptism is a recognition of 
 the membership of the babe in the Church of 
 Christ, by virtue of its Christian parentage; while 
 another gravely assures you that the baptism 
 makes it a member of the Church of Christ, 
 into which, he tells you, no one, not even the 
 children of Christian parents, can enter without 
 being baptized ; while still another informs you 
 that the baptized babe is not in the church at 
 all. 
 
 You move on, a little confused, and repeat
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2$ 
 
 the inquiry, and one hastens to reply that the 
 baptism washes away original sin ; another that 
 it regenerates the child, and makes him a mem- 
 ber of Christ's kingdom, a subject of his grace, 
 and an heir of heaven; while another assures 
 you that it has no effect whatever upon the babe, 
 but expends all its force for good upon the par- 
 ents and the church. 
 
 This staggers you somewhat, but again you 
 move on, in a dazed sort of way, and reverently 
 ask: "Vofs the good of it?" A solemn voice 
 replies, "It secures to the babe all the benefits 
 of the covenant of grace;" but another voice, 
 equally solemn, assures you that it is not so, 
 that it has nothing to do with any sort of cove- 
 nant, gracious or otherwise, but that it is a di- 
 vine institution, "in the same sense that an ox- 
 yoke is;" but another voice, equally solemn, 
 interrupts, informing you that there is neither 
 covenant nor ox-yoke about it, but an aesthetic 
 an4 sentimental beauty, very pleasing to the 
 proud and happy parents. 
 
 This sunflower theology may puzzle you a 
 little, but go on and press your problem, and 
 other voices will greet you with replies far harder 
 to digest. One tells you that every babe that 
 dies unbaptized goes down into the pit ; that no 
 human being, young or old, dying without bap-
 
 26 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 tism, can be saved. Another assures you that he 
 rejects with loathing a doctrine so horrible ; but 
 that by baptism the infant is made a partaker of 
 the "covenanted mercies of God," so that his 
 salvation is, in a manner, thereby assured. 
 
 Thus the defense of infant baptism is a theo- 
 logical "Tower of Babel, " a veritable "confusion 
 of tongues," imperiling the peace and sanity of 
 every honest inquirer after the truth. Men of 
 views the most contradictory practice this un- 
 scriptural rite in search of benefits to the last 
 degree imaginary, and for reasons the most an- 
 tagonistic and irreconcilable. 
 
 If the subject were not so grave, it would be 
 very amusing to witness the deliberations of a 
 great convention of learned and pious pedobap- 
 tist divines, engaged in the awful task of fram- 
 ing a respectable and official reply to this little, 
 rustic-looking, but dangerous and monitor-like 
 problem, " Vof s the good of it?" 
 
 Long before they could agree upon a defi- 
 nite answer, there would be such a "Babel of 
 tongues " among them that the convention would 
 explode in "holy wrath," while the uncircum- 
 cised spectator would also explode, but in guile- 
 less merriment. 
 
 Just imagine such a convention in session, 
 engaged in the mighty deliberation. Here are
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2/ 
 
 Catholic and Episcopalian, Lutheran and Presby- 
 terian, Reformed and Congregational and Meth- 
 odist, conferring together about the benefits of 
 a practice common to all of them. 
 
 They are all ardent but discordant devotees 
 of infant baptism. The reverend chairman states 
 the question in words so brief, they might be 
 defined the soul of wit: 
 
 "My brethren Doubtless we all love infant 
 baptism dearly ; it is such a blessing to the little 
 dears. And we all practice it most reverently, 
 as is fitting in men so reverend. But we have 
 fallen on evil times. There are uneasy souls 
 abroad who question its utility, and they meet 
 us at every turn with questions hard to answer. 
 Pressed by them on all sides, we have met in 
 this great and wise convention to discuss the 
 matter freely, and, if possible, to frame a con- 
 clusive and official answer to this annoying prob- 
 lem, 'Vot'sdegood of it? Brethren, proceed." 
 
 "Vot's de good of it?" cries the Catholic 
 priest. "Why, sir, it is a saving sacrament. 
 It confers salvation, and without it, the dying 
 babe is certainly lost. If unbaptized, it is only 
 heathen, and its dead body can not have inter- 
 ment in a Catholic burying-ground, nor its soul 
 admission into heaven. This is the doctrine of 
 Holy Church."
 
 28 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 " Ah," says the Episcopalian, "you are right, 
 brother Catholic. I fully agree with you, in a 
 manner. Or rather well no, I don't. Of course, 
 the baptism makes the child a Christian and 
 saves it, and equally of course without the bap- 
 tism it is lost, and a person who is lost is only a 
 heathen, and has no right to burial in a Christian 
 cemetery. All that is true, as you say, and as 
 I profess to believe, but it sounds harsh, and our 
 people have a habit of reading and of thinking for 
 themselves. For this reason I do not agree with 
 you, but consider you very heterodox and super- 
 stitious in this matter; but it is all right between 
 ourselves." 
 
 "Of course," says the Lutheran, "you are 
 both right, and I agree with both of you. We 
 have the true Catholic doctrine in our creed, but 
 our people are a little peculiar, too, and we are 
 obliged, now and then, to pass a resolution in 
 our Synods, denying the evident import of our 
 creed on this subject, just to keep the peace in 
 our Church. But I fully agree with both of you, 
 and also with everybody else. It's a saving 
 ordinance, but there's no real good in it." 
 
 " Hold on," cries the Presbyterian, "you are 
 all three utterly wrong, and I can not agree with 
 you at all. Infant baptism has no saving virtue 
 at all, not a bit of it, and you ought to be
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2g 
 
 ashamed to pretend that it has. For my part, I 
 hold that it makes the babe a Christian, and a 
 member of the Church of Christ, and secures to 
 him all the benefits of the covenant of grace. Of 
 course, this amounts to the same thing as your 
 doctrine, but it is not expressed in such a plain, 
 gross way ; but the great difference is that my 
 doctrine is true, and yours is not. But, to tell 
 the whole truth, this infant baptism is a childish 
 thing, at best, and I wish we were rid of it." 
 
 "Oh, horrors!" cries the Reformed, "that is 
 too bad. Infant baptism is the seal of the cove- 
 nant, and its value can not be measured, for it 
 makes the babe a partaker of the divine grace, 
 and assures its final salvation. It is a most 
 blessed institution, the hope of the Church, her 
 nursery, as it were. I would not give it up for 
 all the world, but, of course, it is not a saving 
 ordinance. Nobody believes in saving ordinances 
 except the Baptists, who fight infant baptism all 
 the time, declaring there is no authority for it 
 and no virtue in it." 
 
 "Well," says the Methodist, "if you are go- 
 ing to give it to the Baptists that's all right, and 
 I will help you ; but as for infant baptism, Mr. 
 Wesley expressly says that it washes away 
 original sin, and of course we believe what he 
 says. I confess that it seems to me that what-
 
 3O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 ever washes away original sin must save the soul; 
 but then we do not hold to anything in particu- 
 lar on this subject. We think it is best to baptize 
 infants and run as little risk as possible. You 
 all lay too much stress on it. See here, we are 
 in the main agreed about infant baptism, but do 
 not make its virtues too prominent, or those 
 Baptists will get after us, and make it quite too 
 warm for us. Just be non-committal about it. 
 ' Retain ' it in your churches as we do, and let 
 every fellow find out l vots de good of it?' for him- 
 self." 
 
 "For shame!" cries the Congregationalist, 
 "such double-dealing is too bad. There is no 
 virtue in infant baptism, none at all ; but it is 
 useful, and would be a great deal more useful 
 than it is, if those Baptists would only let us 
 alone. It secures the benefits of the covenant 
 of grace to the child, and that virtually assures 
 his salvation; but of course he would be just as 
 well off without it. But it enables us to call him 
 a child of the Church, and if we can make him 
 believe it, we can keep him from going off with 
 the Baptists. But of late our people are giving 
 it up at a fearful rate, and we are likely soon to 
 become just like the Baptists in this matter. I 
 tell you infant baptism is a bother, and a con-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 31 
 
 stant puzzle, and I almost wish we had never 
 heard of it." 
 
 Now, this may seem like a caricature at first 
 glance, but the sober second thought will con- 
 vince you that it is painfully true to life, and it 
 absolutely does no injustice to our pedobaptist 
 friends, as they will confess, if they read up their 
 own authors faithfully. 
 
 Do not turn away and say, ' ' Oh, it is no 
 matter," and then give your influence to support 
 it blindly. Such conduct is unworthy a Christian 
 man. If you love Christ, you love the truth, 
 for he is the truth, and all truth is of him and 
 from him, and every several ray of truth leads 
 back to him. 
 
 It is our business as Christians to search for 
 truth as for hidden treasures, and, having found it, 
 to honor it and confess it, and show it to others. 
 It is truth, and truth alone, that can make us 
 free from error. If you are a Baptist, let your 
 Baptist light shine out brightly and widely ; and 
 if you are not a Baptist, muster up a little cour- 
 age and look into infant baptism for yourself, 
 and do not rest satisfied until you have answered 
 this crucial question, " Vofs de good of it? "
 
 32 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER III. 
 
 " Let Me Alone." 
 
 WHILE residing in the village of T , hav- 
 ing occasion to visit a distant city, on my way 
 home I stopped over Sabbath with an old friend. 
 There was a Presbyterian Church in the neigh- 
 borhood, and I attended worship there. After 
 delivering an able sermon to a large, intelligent 
 and appreciative audience, the pastor invited 
 such parents and friends as desired to have their 
 children baptized to bring them, forward. In 
 response to that invitation several persons arose 
 and approached the pulpit, carrying or leading 
 children of various ages, from the babe of three 
 or four weeks to the rather large child of ten or 
 twelve years. 
 
 Beginning with the younger ones, the pastor 
 proceeded to administer the ordinance in the 
 usual manner, and without any marked opposi- 
 tion, until he reached the last one, a bright boy 
 of some ten or twelve years. Several little girls 
 had, indeed, exhibited much fear, but under 
 strong parental influence they had finally sub-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 33 
 
 mitted to the rite, if not reverently, at least 
 tremblingly. Some little boys had exhibited 
 signs of great discontent, but after a few struggles 
 they had accepted the inevitable, with no more 
 tokens of aversion than they might have exhibited 
 if about to be vaccinated. Meantime the last 
 boy in the row watched, with an interest pain- 
 fully intense, every movement of minister and 
 child. 
 
 When his turn came he was almost wild with 
 fear. As the tall, venerable minister approached 
 him he tried to break away ; but his father held 
 him so firmly he could not. Finding he must 
 remain, he instantly changed his tactics, spring- 
 ing forward and kicking the minister's shins with 
 great vigor, crying with every kick : ' ' Let me 
 alone ! Let me alone ! " His father, having a 
 little girl in his right arm, found it very difficult 
 to manage the boy with one hand. Meantime 
 the boy contrived to plant several effective kicks 
 on the ministerial shins, so effective, indeed, 
 that the owner of the shins was glad to retreat 
 out of his reach. 
 
 Suddenly the father, with a facial expression 
 not in the highest degree saintly, jerked the boy 
 back several steps. The minister immediately 
 advanced with all boldness, with the sacred water 
 sparkling on the tips of his fingers, but just as 
 3
 
 34 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 he was about to apply it to the boy's head, 
 down went the head and up went the heels be- 
 longing to it, colliding with those dear, vener- 
 able shins in a most painful way, while the walls 
 in the sacred edifice resounded with the cry: 
 "Let me alone! Let me alone!" Again the 
 prudent minister beat a hasty retreat. 
 
 The father, a powerful man, was now thorough- 
 ly aroused. With a midnight frown and a mighty 
 wrench he brought that boy upon hi? feet. In- 
 stantly the minister approached, and bending 
 over (he was very tall) he managed to get some 
 two or three drops of water on the devoted head 
 of that belligerent boy, who, in impotent rage, 
 was kicking toward his ghostly benefactor, and 
 screaming his favorite scream : " Let me alone ! 
 Let me alone ! ! Let me alone ! ! ! " As the last 
 scream was solemnly and beautifully punctuated 
 by the official Amen, which ended and confirmed 
 the baptismal formula, and the minister, with a 
 serene, cheerful countenance, re-entered the 
 sacred desk to close the services, I felt well, 
 my feelings were considerably mixed. To be 
 perfectly frank about it, I had some rather un- 
 sanctified feelings just then. In the first place, 
 I always did sympathize with the "under dog," 
 especially when the odds against him were very 
 great. My carnal nature always would rise up
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 35 
 
 and demand fair play. Two men, and one of 
 them a minister, against one poor little boy did 
 seem too much, and I fear I inwardly rejoiced at 
 the boy's wonderful grit. 
 
 Another feeling was very strong upon me. I 
 was, for the moment, fairly ashamed of infant bap- 
 tism. "Is it possible," thought I, "that such 
 an institution is of God? Is it really his will 
 that children shall be forced by human authority 
 to accept the badge of a Christian profession 
 against their earnest protest?" However, I 
 soon comforted myself with the reflection that 
 this was an exceptional case ; and I persuaded 
 myself that very few ministers could be found 
 willing to proceed with the baptism under similar 
 circumstances. 
 
 But, after all, let me not be unjust. Wherein 
 was it really worse to baptize that boy against 
 his fierce protest than to baptize the helpless, 
 unconscious babe that could not protest, putting 
 upon it a yoke which, in after years, may be- 
 come a galling, intolerable burden ? 
 
 All over this land, to-day, are weary hearts 
 hindered from obedience to Christ, in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, by the specter of that christen- 
 ing received in infancy ; in some cases, perhaps, 
 at my hands. I know an earnest, devoted lady 
 a true disciple of the Master to whom her
 
 36 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 baptism in infancy has been for years a source 
 of deep sorrow. She can not speak of it with- 
 out tears ; yet she does not dare be baptized, 
 lest in so doing she may possibly do wrong. 
 And she is but one of thousands who suffer in 
 the same way and for the same reason. When 
 christened, they were not old enough to protest 
 as that boy did, but they were every whit as 
 grossly outraged as he. 
 
 And yet, let us be just ; for if infant baptism 
 is indeed of God, my friend did right in baptiz- 
 ing that boy, in spite of his kicks and screams. 
 If God says do it, then do it we must, whether 
 children are willing or unwilling. The will of 
 the child and the happiness of the man are never 
 to be set up against a command of God. And 
 when God says do it, what right has the parent 
 to say, no, you shall not do it? Can the will of 
 the parent annul the authority of God ? Why 
 should a minister desist from a duty which God 
 enjoins, even at the bidding of the parent ? Is it 
 right to obey a parent, rather than. God ? Where 
 has God given the parent power to set aside his 
 solemn ordinances ? Or where has he authorized 
 his ministers to waive the adminstration of those 
 ordinances at the behest of any parent ? Echo 
 answers, where ? where ? 
 
 Protestant ministers who defend infant baptism
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 3/ 
 
 as a divine institution, may well ponder these 
 far-reaching questions. I have a right to say to 
 them, ' ' Gentlemen, why do you disobey God in 
 this matter? If he commands you to do it, why 
 do you not do it? Some of you insist that when 
 Jesus said, ' Go, teach all nations, baptizing 
 them,' he meant baptizing all children, as well 
 as parents. But you do not do that. The home- 
 less bootblack on the street is a child, and as 
 much a member of the nation, as the proud scion 
 of the millionaire, yet you do not baptize him. 
 Why not ? In that wretched hovel is a sweet, 
 innocent babe, a daughter of poverty and woe ; 
 her father is a drunken outcast, and her mother 
 is an ignorant, irreligious, but almost broken- 
 hearted woman. If your construction of Christ's 
 words be the true one, he has commanded you 
 to baptize that babe as truly as the daughter of 
 your well-to-do deacon. Why have you not 
 done it ? " 
 
 Now, allow me to speak plainly. Either you 
 do not believe your own construction of our 
 Lord's words, or you are guilty of openly con- 
 temning his authority. This dilemma has just 
 two horns, as you perceive, and one or the other 
 you must take. Which do you prefer? If the 
 former, you are found guilty of bearing false 
 witness against the Master. If the latter, you
 
 38 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 are convicted of rank disobedience to his com- 
 mand. It matters little which one you take ; 
 either one impales you. As the boy is said to 
 have told the traveler respecting two very bad 
 roads, ' ' No matter, stranger, which one you 
 take ; you will soon wish you had taken the 
 other!" Now, gentlemen, look this matter in 
 the face squarely, and harmonize your practice 
 with your creed, if you can. It will not do to 
 throw the blame of a neglect of infant baptism 
 on the parent. That is very commonly done, 
 but without good reason. Ministers of the 
 gospel are certainly commanded to baptize all 
 who are proper subjects of baptism wherever 
 they labor in the gospel. The command is ex- 
 plicit: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them." 
 This can not mean less than that they shall baptize 
 all who are proper subjects of baptism, in the 
 place where they are teaching or preaching. If, 
 then, infants are to be baptized ; if they are 
 proper subjects of baptism ; if God actually re- 
 quires that they be baptized, the ministers are 
 commanded by our Lord himself to baptize them, 
 since they are commanded to baptize all who 
 are proper subjects of baptism, and from this 
 there is no escape. 
 
 If the infant, unconscious and involuntary, is, 
 indeed, a proper subject of baptism, then has the
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 39 
 
 minister no choice in the matter ; he must bap- 
 tize him, and the neglect or indifference, or even 
 the opposition, of the parent, can not excuse 
 him. Only such forcible interference as may 
 make the baptism of the child absolutely im- 
 possible to the minister, can excuse him for fail- 
 ing to attend to it. Of course, it would be far 
 more pleasant to have the hearty approval of 
 the parent in baptizing the child ; but if that 
 approval be wickedly or ignorantly withheld, 
 that does not justify the minister in disobeying 
 God, nor in robbing the dear little babes of what- 
 ever blessing, great or small, the baptism might 
 confer. The truth is, the Catholic priests seem 
 to be the most consistent friends of infant bap- 
 tism. Though they do not pretend that God 
 requires it in his word, even indirectly, yet be- 
 cause the Church requires it, and they regard 
 the Church as his representative and vicegerent 
 on earth, they spare no pains to enforce it, even 
 invoking the aid of the State to compel the 
 people to observe it. And, in this way, every 
 person in a Catholic country reaps whatever 
 benefit there is in it. And if God has really re- 
 quired it, who can blame these men for their 
 zeal ? Are they not rather to be honored and 
 commended for it ? Why should God be dis- 
 honored, and the dear babes be robbed of a great
 
 40 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 spiritual blessing by allowing a divine ordinance 
 to fall into disuse ? 
 
 Aye, there's the rub. Is it, after all, a divine 
 institution? Many years ago a venerable minister, 
 fearing I might renounce it altogether, wrote me a 
 very pathetic letter, pleading for it as a divine 
 institution. He insisted that God requires us to 
 baptize infants, but failed to set forth any script- 
 ural proof of such requirement, and then he 
 grew eloquent about its benefits as " a seal of 
 the covenant of grace." Yet, in less than one 
 year afterward, that same minister published 
 an article in the religious press, in which he re- 
 joiced that the members of pedobaptist churches 
 were no longer obliged to have their children 
 baptized, but were at liberty to do as they 
 pleased about it, neglecting it if they chose, 
 without incurring the censure of their church. 
 And still that minister remained an advocate of 
 infant baptism. Can a Christian man really 
 believe an ordinance to be of divine origin and 
 still in full force, and yet rejoice that churches 
 which profess to believe in it, do not censure such 
 of their own members as treat it with neglect ? 
 
 The fact is, gentle reader, infant baptism has 
 nothing divine about it. God never instituted 
 it, directly or indirectly. In the language of an 
 eminent pedobaptist writer, "Infant baptism was
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 4-1 
 
 established neither by Christ nor the apostles." 
 Superstition invented it, Romanism adopted and 
 maintained it, and priestcraft continues to cherish 
 it. That is the whole matter in a nutshell. It 
 is neither less nor more than a churchly pre-emp- 
 tion of the child. In it the church puts a mark 
 on the unconscious babe by which to claim it, in 
 after years, as her own. That is all the divinity 
 there is in it. The process is simple and trans- 
 parent. Baptize the babe when it is wholly in 
 your power, and in after years approach the 
 youth and say : "Ah, my young friend, you be- 
 long to us. We baptized you in infancy. You 
 are a child of our church. Come home to your 
 mother." 4 
 
 Here and there the scheme fails the youth 
 sees through it, or deep convictions of duty 
 oblige him to decide for himself, and let his 
 "mother" mourn her unrequited love; but 
 with tens of thousands it succeeds. This is 
 doubtless the utility which a prominent Congrega- 
 tional minister was thinking of, when, a few years 
 ago, in a sermon on infant baptism, after declar- 
 ing that there is no warrant of any sort in the 
 Scriptures for it, he said : "I still regard it as 
 a divine institution, jut as an ox-yoke is a divine 
 institution. It is useful, just as an ox-yoke is
 
 42 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 useful ; and its utility makes it a divine institu- 
 tion." 
 
 Well, it is an ox-yoke affair, only more so ; 
 for no humane farmer will yoke up the little 
 calves, and keep the yoke on them through life. 
 
 But granting this sort of utility the utility of 
 an old Romish trick of priestcraft it is un- 
 seemly in the Protestant Church. Look at it 
 soberly. Our Presbyterian brother denounces 
 Romanism, says it is antichrist, the mother of 
 harlots, a scarlet, red handed beast, and many 
 more uncomplimentary but truthful names he 
 applies to her; and his Congregational, Metho- 
 dist, Lutheran and Episcopal brethren of all 
 sorts, cry amen ; and then out they all march in 
 solemn array, and in the name of the Lord pro- 
 ceed to wrap an old rag, filched from the small 
 clothes of that same Romish antichrist, about 
 the brows of the dear babes. 
 
 Do not say I am ridiculing sacred things. I 
 am describing a wicked, inconsistent, and most 
 ridiculous thing, and describing it exactly as it 
 is. Mind you, I do not ask pedobaptists to 
 desist from their denunciations of the apostate 
 Romish Church ; but in the name of common 
 decency I insist that they should first return the 
 bit of old rag to its rightful owner. It is not 
 fair to denounce Romanism while you wear that
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 43 
 
 dirty Roman rag on your head. Put it away 
 and be consistent. Why should Protestants go 
 about wearing the old rags of Romanism ? Why 
 so many persist in doing it is one of the hopeless 
 conundrums of this age. 
 
 And yet, there is another feature about this 
 matter even more mysterious. 
 
 There are men and women who profess to love 
 Christ and his truth, thousands of them, who 
 will tell you promptly and decidedly that they 
 do not believe in infant baptism at all ; that it is 
 not of God; that it is false and foolish; that 
 they would not allow their own children to be 
 baptized under any circumstances ; and yet they 
 are members of churches which profess to believe 
 in it, and they habitually give their influence 
 and their money to aid in supporting it. You 
 can find scores and hundreds of such people in 
 every community Christians, by their own 
 confession, constantly and deliberately contribut- 
 ing to the support of a lie. Does this startle 
 you ? Well it may ; but it is a plain, undeniable 
 fact, which any one can observe for himself every- 
 where. 
 
 And in multitudes of cases this class of persons 
 contribute so large a proportion of the support 
 of their respective churches that, were they to 
 withdraw it, the church would be obliged to dis-
 
 44 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 band. In this way great numbers of pedobap- 
 tist churches are now kept up by people who 
 profess a firm confidence that pedobaptism is not 
 of God, while in the same place an evangelical 
 church, which rejects infant baptism, is neglected 
 and starved out. 
 
 It is a strange spectacle, indeed. Professed 
 Christians all the time stultifying themselves 
 forcing upon other children a solemn religious 
 farce which they spurn from their own doors ! 
 Have these people a conscience? Well might 
 the children cry out to them, " Let me alone"
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 45 
 
 NUMBER IV. 
 
 "Lint on the Nib" 
 
 WHEN I began my work as pastor of the 
 
 church in the village of T , I had not given 
 
 much thought to the communion question. I 
 had, indeed, heard some random talk about it, 
 chiefly denunciations of the supposed bigotry of 
 the Baptists, ^ut, aside from that, I really knew 
 nothing of the subject, and, as a matter of course, 
 I was a zealous open-communionist. I had just 
 one argument, I supposed, and it was extremely 
 short, but, to my untaught judgment, wonderfully 
 conclusive. I stated it to my church in very few 
 words, as follows: "Christ holds fellowship with 
 all Christians, whether baptized or not. He re- 
 ceives men into heaven who were not members 
 of our Church, nor of any other. Why, then, 
 should we refuse to receive such men and com- 
 mune with them around his table on earth? Is 
 the table holier than heaven? Are we better 
 than our Lord ? It is enough that the disciple 
 be as his Master. If, therefore, the Master has 
 received a man, and is holding fellowship with
 
 46 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 him, we, also, ought to receive him at the Lord's 
 table." 
 
 This seemed satisfactory to the church, and, 
 with their approval, I habitually invited to the 
 Lord's table all who loved the Master, and every- 
 body said: "How liberal that is! They are a 
 progressive people." 
 
 I was a member of an ecclesiastical conven- 
 tion a sort of hybrid affair, a cross between a 
 Congregational association and a Presbyterian 
 synod, composed of the pastors and delegates 
 of the churches of those two denominations, 
 within certain limits. By way of a little pious 
 fun, we christened the body with two very sug- 
 gestive titles, either one of which could be used, 
 according to the taste or pleasure of the party 
 using it. A Congregationalist could speak of it 
 as the "Congnettrial Convention;" and the Pres- 
 byterians could denominate it the "Presbyga- 
 tional Convention." And this arrangement 
 originating in sport, and rather mirth-provoking 
 in its nature had the greater merit of a certain 
 degree of utility, for it gratified the remaining 
 vanity of the dear brethren of both denomina- 
 tions, since it enabled them, each, to put his 
 own denomination before the other without giv- 
 ing any definite offense. Of course, a truly lib- 
 eral-minded man should not care a fig for his
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 4/ 
 
 own Church, any more than a generous, neigh- 
 borly man should care for his own wife and chil- 
 dren ; but, still, our poor human nature is fear- 
 fully set in its ways, and the best of men will 
 sometimes relapse into such utter, awful selfish- 
 ness as to prefer home to any other place in the 
 wide, wide world. And if the truth were known, 
 it would be found that many of our large-hearted 
 men leaders in our modern Christian liberality 
 are not, after all, quite free from the petty 
 weakness of a slight preference for their very 
 own dear Church homes. I am not accusing 
 them of any intentional wrong. In their edito- 
 rials, and sermons, and speeches, and resolutions, 
 they are no more liberal than they mean to be ; 
 but you know that even the stammering and slow 
 of speech find it much easier to preach and re- 
 solve than to practice. It should not surprise 
 you, therefore, when eloquent speakers, and 
 writers, and conventionists strike a key a little 
 too high even for their own advanced life. Let 
 us not condemn them unduly ; rather, let some 
 live Yankee invent -^cme ingenious plan by which 
 a liberal man can still be liberal to his heart's 
 content, and still put his own dear family and 
 Church/#.tf a little ahead of all others. But par- 
 don this digression, and return with me to our 
 dear old Congreterial Convention.
 
 4& BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Our convention met twice each year, and re- 
 mained in session about three days, occupied 
 with matters devotional, doctrinal, ecclesiastical 
 and literary. We had sermons, essays, speeches 
 discussions, and a good time generally. 
 
 It so happened, after I had been at T a 
 
 year or two, that the communion question was 
 somehow brought up in our convention, and 
 open-communion practice was rather pointedly 
 rebuked by some of the brethren. This did not 
 exactly please me, and I looked about with no 
 little interest to see who would arise and vindicate 
 open-communion. But I looked in vain. All 
 who spoke condemned it, and the rest evidently 
 approved all they said, and there seemed to be 
 but one opinion about it in the whole conven- 
 tion. 
 
 At last I could endure it no longer, and I 
 arose and told the brethren that I believed in 
 open-communion ; that my church believed in it, 
 also ; that we constantly practiced it, and that, 
 too, for the very best of reasons; and then I 
 launched my one conclusive argument at them 
 and sat down. 
 
 An aged Presbyterian minister, the venerable 
 and talented Rev. Mr. C., arose and replied. 
 He reminded the convention that he was a warm, 
 true friend of the young brother who had just
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 49 
 
 spoken ; and then turning to me, in a most af- 
 fectionate and fatherly way, he expressed his 
 great surprise and grief at the statements I had 
 so frankly made. Then, characterizing open- 
 communion as utterly unscriptural and thorough- 
 ly demoralizing, he paid his respects to my great 
 argument in a way not at all comforting to me. 
 He showed that the very first duty of the believer 
 is to be baptized, and thus make a public confes- 
 sion of his faith in Christ; and that while a man 
 neglects or refuses to do this, we have no right 
 to assume that he is a Christian ; that Christ him- 
 self sharply rebukes such men for claiming to be 
 his friends, while living in disobedience to his 
 commands, in those awful words: "Why call 
 ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I 
 say?" He next affirmed that the plain duty of 
 every baptized believer is to be a member of the 
 Church, submitting to her discipline, aiding in 
 bearing her burdens, and helping her in pushing 
 on her great work the evangelization of the 
 world. And then he solemnly affirmed that to 
 invite persons who were neglecting these great 
 duties to sit down to the Lord's table was, prac- 
 tically, to encourage them in their attitude of 
 disobedience to Christ, and to approve their 
 sinful neglect of his Church, and thus to be- 
 come, in some measure, partakers of their sins. 
 4
 
 5O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Somehow he seemed to be talking sound sense 
 and Bible truth all the time, and I inwardly pit- 
 ied my great argument, he seemed to compress 
 it so much and made it look so small. 
 
 After talking half an hour, he turned again to 
 me, begging pardon for saying so much, and 
 stating as his excuse that he had really forgotten 
 himself. But I begged him to go on, as I de- 
 sired to know and do the truth ; and, at my earn- 
 est solicitation, he did go on. He proceeded to 
 show that the Lord's table belongs in the Lord's 
 house (the church), and not on the sidewalk in 
 front of it ; and that it is a doubtful compliment 
 to the Lord to take his table out of his house 
 for the benefit of those who are unwilling to 
 come into his house. He thought it was lower- 
 ing the table, and the house, and the Master of 
 the house, at a dreadful rate. (And just be- 
 tween you and me, I thought that he was more 
 than half right. I know I would not thank any 
 one for taking my table out into the street, set- 
 ting it out there, at my expense, for the benefit 
 of a set of beggars who would not condescend 
 to come into my house; would you? If they 
 claimed to be my friends, I would reply: Then 
 let them show their friendship by coming into 
 my house; wouldn't you?) 
 
 He owned that a man ought to be a Christian
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 5 I 
 
 before he is baptized or joins the Church, and 
 that he had no doubt in his own mind that there 
 really were Christians outside the Church. (Then 
 I thought he had given himself away ; but I soon 
 found he had a way out of it. ) He said if we 
 thought a man outside of the Church was a 
 Christian, we could love him and fellowship him 
 as a Christian without inviting him to the Lord's 
 table. He said we did not go to the Lord's 
 table to express our Christian fellowship for each 
 other, but to commemorate his death ; and he 
 quoted that Baptist proof-text: "This do in re- 
 membrance of me. " Somehow he talked in such 
 a way that I would have thought him a narrow, 
 bigoted Baptist, had I not known that he was a 
 straight-laced and very strong Presbyterian. But 
 I very naturally discounted his arguments very 
 largely: First, because he was not a Congrega 
 tionalist, and, therefore, I could not expect him 
 to be quite as liberal as we were ; and, second, 
 because I very much doubted whether he did 
 really believe his own words, for it seemed to 
 me that, if they were really true, they proved 
 too much for a Presbyterian, and demonstrated 
 beyond any reasonable doubt that, after all, the 
 Baptists were right. In this I doubtless did my 
 venerable friend a momentary injustice, since, 
 in fact, there is really no difference of opinion
 
 52 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 about the Lord's Supper between true Presby- 
 terians and the Baptists; their differences in 
 practice resulting solely from their differences 
 respecting baptism. So true is this that, if a 
 sound, intelligent Presbyterian becomes con- 
 vinced that the Baptists are right about baptism, 
 he is, forthwith, a thorough-going Baptist with- 
 out changing his views one iota respecting com- 
 munion. 
 
 My friend, Rev. Mr. C. spoke one hour en 
 the subject; and as that seemed to exhaust his 
 side of it, and as I did not offer any reply, the 
 convention took up other matters. 
 
 But in arranging the programme for the next 
 meeting, the brethren appointed me to prepare 
 and read an essay on this question: "Is it right 
 for a minister of the gospel to invite an unbaptized 
 believer to the Lord's table?" I put on a brave 
 face to hide my misgivings, and told them to 
 come to the next meeting prepared to surrender, 
 and with a good-natured laugh we adjourned. 
 
 I have a philosophic young friend, who is in 
 the habit of observing: "You don't know what 
 is before you," and my experience with that es- 
 say illustrates the truth of his remark. I had 
 an idea, when the topic was assigned me, that 
 the brethren were getting me into a pretty tight 
 place, and that I had a particularly hard task
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 53 
 
 before me an idea which the event very fully 
 confirmed. 
 
 But I went about it vigorously, determined 
 to succeed, if it were possible, in setting aside 
 those Presbyterian-Baptistic arguments, for I 
 really dreaded them ; knowing very well that if 
 I could not do it, I would be in great danger of 
 becoming a straight-out Baptist, for I had many 
 and very grave doubts about our Presbygational 
 baptism, and they were constantly gaining upon 
 me. So I went to work on my essay under a 
 severe pressure from all quarters. To add to 
 the difficulty of my work, I found my one great 
 argument so badly damaged that I was almost 
 ashamed to use it; and, indeed, an exhaustive 
 search convinced me that I had but little ammu- 
 nition of any sort available for use. But that 
 only proved the necessity of making the most 
 of what I had, which I proceeded eagerly to do. 
 I took radical ground in respect to the rights of 
 the individual, contending that he alone must 
 be the judge of his duty, as he alone is answer- 
 able at the bar of Jehovah for what he does or 
 omits to do. I denied that the Church has a 
 right to require baptism as a condition of mem- 
 bership, or to enforce her opinions respecting 
 the qualifications of communicants at the Lord's 
 table. Of course, in its logical consequences,
 
 54 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 this would debar the Church from every act of 
 discipline. I winced a little at this, but I could 
 not escape it except by an unconditional sur- 
 render, and I was not prepared for that. Yet I 
 could not escape the fact that the Church is re- 
 sponsible for her own conduct as a Church, and I 
 was obliged to meet this question, as one of the 
 inevitable results of the admission of unbaptized 
 persons to the Lord's table and to membership 
 in his Church: ''What shall the Church do in 
 the case of any member who may be guilty of 
 a contimious neglect of baptism?" I could do no 
 less than to affirm it to be her duty kindly, yet 
 faithfully, to admonish the one guilty of such 
 neglect, and I was obliged to concede also that, 
 her admonition being disregarded, the Church 
 must proceed in due time to withdraw the hand 
 of fellowship from the offender. 
 
 Somehow I felt that this was a particularly- 
 weak spot in my argument, but I could not help 
 it ; the weakness was an inherent one ; it belong- 
 ed inseparably to the position I had felt myself 
 driven to assume, and I resorted to the only rem- 
 edy left me, heaping up a great pile of mere 
 words, to hide it, if possible, from observation. 
 Finally, I finished my essay and laid it aside, 
 feeling that, all things considered, I had made it 
 a success, But "we do not know what is be/ore
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 55 
 
 us;" at least, I did not, and I am glad of it. I 
 had my little hour of anticipated pleasure, and 
 then came the crash, and my laboriously-planned 
 essay, together with the cause it was intended 
 to promote, went up and out in smoke. 
 
 It happened in this way. A few days before 
 the meeting of our convention, I reviewed my 
 essay for the purpose of making verbal correc- 
 tions and improvements to put on the finishing 
 touches, as it were. While thus employed, I 
 determined to rewrite the entire paper, introduc- 
 ing in many places forms of expression more 
 elegant, pertinent and forcible. I began this 
 work at once, and had nearly completed it, when 
 I was interrupted by some derangement of my 
 pen. Supposing I had corrected it, I resumed 
 my writing, or attempted to, but my pen would 
 not work properly. Again I stopped, and ex- 
 amining the pen, I found lint on the nib, wedged 
 in, so to speak. While removing the lint, my 
 eye wandered over the unfinished page of man- 
 uscript before me, finally resting on the last 
 word I had written continuous in the question, 
 "What ought the Church to do in the case of 
 any member who may be guilty of a continuous 
 neglect vt baptism?" Continuous, thought I ; that 
 is rather an indefinite term. How long is it? 
 Baptism is an evident duty, enjoined by the ex-
 
 56 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 press command of Christ, sanctioned by his own 
 example, observed by his apostles, and binding 
 on all believers in all ages of the gospel dispen- 
 sation. It is certainly an imperative duty for 
 every Christian, enforced by the highest author- 
 ity. 
 
 How long, then, may the Church sanction the 
 neglect of it? How long may she innocently 
 acquiesce in a continuous neglect of it? One 
 year'? No, I dare not affirm that. A whole 
 year of known disobedience ! no, that will never 
 do. Well, may she not permit a neglect of it 
 for six months ? Here I paused and thought a 
 long time. Six months of known disregard of 
 Christ's command, sanctioned by his Church ! 
 No, no ; that must not be. That is altogether 
 too continuous. I dare not approve that. I know 
 it would be wrong. Well, then, say three months. 
 But I did not dare to say three months. But 
 surely the Church may wink at a short delay, 
 say six weeks ? Ah, my dear reader, I was in 
 a very tight place. What could I do? How 
 could I escape? Would God be well pleased 
 with six weeks of known and daring disobedi- 
 ence of his command? Would he be pleased 
 with his Church for winking at so great a sin ? 
 If I should counsel the Church to do this thing, 
 would he say to me: "Well done, thou good
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 57 
 
 and faithful servant ; thou hast been faithful over 
 a few things, I will make thee ruler over many 
 things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord?" 
 I saw clearly that that word continuous, which I 
 had used so carelessly, must go, and that with 
 it my whole essay must also go, and that as an 
 honest man I must eat a big batch of humble 
 pie, by publicly renouncing open communion 
 both in theory and practice. 
 
 I arose, and taking up my manuscript, I thrust 
 it into the flames. It burned very swiftly and 
 beautifully, and I had the comfort of knowing 
 that it was good for something. 
 
 In due time I attended the convention, and 
 gladdened the hearts of my Presbyterian and 
 Congregational brethren by confessing myself a 
 convert to close communion. My dear church, 
 after listening to my statement of my reasons 
 for proposing a change in our practice, cheer- 
 fully assented, and we were no longer open com- 
 munion in practice. It was, indeed, a great 
 change, and the passing years confirm in me 
 the conviction that it was a change in the right 
 direction; for, in substance, it was simply a 
 practical recognition of the divine law as su- 
 preme. 
 
 As I think of the means by which it was 
 brought about, I am astonished. In those youth-
 
 58 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 ful days I was very impetuous. I think I had 
 some genuine piety, but I know I was not with- 
 out a great deal of self-conceit and pride ; and, 
 like thousands of better men, I often used words 
 without weighing fully their import. And this 
 is not a slight fault, for words, though impalpa- 
 ble, are things almost living creatures, I some- 
 times think armed with mysterious, wonderful 
 power to wound, or to heal, to enlighten and 
 bless, or to darken and destroy. 
 
 No wonder the Master has said: "By thy 
 words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words 
 thou shalt be condemned." He who uses words 
 freely, handles keen-edged tools, and has need 
 of great wisdom and moderation, that he may 
 employ only fitting ones, and arrange them wise- 
 ly, kindly and well. 
 
 And he who writes has need of great circum- 
 spection. His pen is an instrument of power. 
 It will trace lines on his own heart not easily 
 effaced. For myself, I often have occasion to 
 recall with gratitude that crisis in my life, when, 
 in the providence of God, all its currents were 
 turned into new channels by "lint on the nib."
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. $9 
 
 NUMBER V. 
 
 " I do not for one moment admit that immersion is 
 valid baptism." 
 
 AFTER the tragic ending of my essay, I pre- 
 pared a brief paper, explaining the matter as 
 well as I could, and apologizing for the absence 
 of the expected but defunct defense of open 
 communion. In that paper I affirmed that no 
 person need delay baptism on account of the 
 diversity of views and practices respecting it, 
 since those who could not see the way clearly 
 to accept sprinkling, or pouring, could be im- 
 mersed, which all Christendom accepts as valid 
 baptism. This simple statement of a fact, which 
 at that time I had never heard controverted, 
 
 brought my dear old pastor, Rev. Mr. D , 
 
 to his feet in an earnest protest. "Sir," said 
 he, "I believe I am a Christian, though a very 
 unworthy one, and I do not for one moment 
 admit that immersion is valid baptism." I was 
 greatly amazed. I looked at him in utter aston- 
 ishment. I was greatly perplexed, too ; for, 
 knowing him intimately, I had never for an
 
 6O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 instant doubted his piety. Indeed, I had long 
 revered him as a very devoted Christian man, 
 and a faithful and fearless minister. But I also 
 knew facts in his history that seemed irrecon- 
 cilable with this strange, sweeping statement. I 
 gazed at him in silence some moments, hardly 
 knowing what reply to make. There was a 
 large congregation present. It was in his own 
 church, and I was standing in his pulpit, while 
 he stood near the center of the room. Every 
 eye seemed fixed on him, and the silent suspense 
 soon became painful. At last I said: " Bro. 
 D , may I ask you one question?" "Cer- 
 tainly," said he. "Bro. D ," said I, "if 
 
 immersion is not valid baptism, why did you lead 
 your own daughter, who had been sprinkled in 
 infancy, into the river and immerse her, saying : 
 ' I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?" If im- 
 mersion is not valid baptism, how could you do 
 that?" It was now his turn to remain silent, 
 which he did for some time, meanwhile ap- 
 parently engaged in an earnest study of the toes 
 of his boots. At last he looked up and said : 
 "I did it to please my daughter. I did not 
 regard it as baptism, but she did ; and I did it 
 to please her." 
 
 Just then a Presbyterian minister arose
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 6 1 
 
 said: "Sir, look at me. I do not admit that 
 immersion is valid baptism." I did look at him, 
 but having no personal kowledge of his practice 
 in respect to baptism, I contented myself with 
 
 this remark : " My dear Bro. L , I am sorry 
 
 for you." Yet I have since known persons 
 
 whom Bro. L had immersed. It is true, he 
 
 did not like to do it ; but when they said : "We 
 must be immersed, and if you will not immerse 
 us, we will go to the Baptists," he replied, "Oh, 
 well, rather than have you go to the Baptists, I 
 will immerse you." And he did. 
 
 I do not know of one evangelical church of any 
 denomination which will not receive a Baptist as 
 a baptized person. I do not say there is no 
 church that would refuse to receive him as bap- 
 tized, for this is a wide world, and there may be 
 a church, or a sort of one, somewhere in some 
 out-of-the-way nook or cranny, that would 
 actually refuse to receive an honest, upright Bap- 
 tist on his immersion, and would require him to 
 be sprinkled. If anybody on earth knows of 
 such a church, I would be glad to have him 
 publish the fact, together with the name and 
 location of the church, and its reasons for a course 
 so very singular. 
 
 It is said our Presbyterian brethren have been 
 known to depose a minister for immersing a
 
 62 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 person, and it may actually be true that they 
 have done so ; but I never yet knew a Presby- 
 terian Church to refuse membership to a Baptist 
 because he had been immersed, nor to require 
 him to be sprinkled as a condition of admission 
 among them. The truth is, that immersion, as 
 baptism, is like gold coin current everywhere, 
 in all the churches. 
 
 Almost as a matter of course, those who per- 
 sist in the practice of sprinkling do all they dare 
 do to discredit immersion, casting contempt 
 upon it, and, in many cases, refusing to admin- 
 ister it ; but I know of none who have the hardi- 
 hood to say that those who have been immersed 
 upon a profession of faith are not baptized. 
 Even my old pastor, who so stoutly declared, 
 " I do not for one moment admit that immersion 
 is valid baptism," was in the habit of receiving 
 immersed persons into his church as properly 
 baptized. 
 
 I have often been astonished at the hostility 
 manifested toward immersion by men who, at 
 the very same time, are in the habit of recogniz- 
 ing it as valid baptism whenever it knocks for 
 admission into their respective folds. And yet 
 the motive is usually evident. A young lady, 
 whose family are Congregationalists, became a 
 regular attendant at our church (Baptist), and
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 63 
 
 everything moved along very pleasantly her 
 family being among my warm personal friends 
 until she became an earnest Christian, and 
 applied for baptism and membership with us. 
 Then there was a commotion in the camp. Her 
 family positively forbade her uniting with the 
 Baptist Church. They would consent to her 
 being immersed, but not by a Baptist minister, 
 nor to join a Baptist Church. After many days 
 of unavailing pleading and tears, finding she 
 could not change their resolution, she reluctant- 
 ly went to the Methodist Church (there was no 
 Congregational Church in the town), and was 
 immersed by the pastor. I was present at her 
 baptism, as were many hundreds more, and the 
 manner in which it was conducted was an outrage 
 almost insufferable. 
 
 Arriving at the river bank, near the center of 
 the town, the minister instantly marched into 
 the water with a determined sort of stride, as if 
 he were impatient to the last degree and deter- 
 mined to get through with a disagreeable job as 
 speedily as posssible. He kept his hat on his 
 head, and, without waiting for a word of prayer, 
 or any religious services whatever, he led the 
 poor girl into the water, and, halting where it 
 was not more than two-thirds the proper depth, 
 he hurriedly uttered the baptismal formula and
 
 64 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 then fairly hurled her under the water, as if in 
 anger ; then, jerking her out, he led her to the 
 shore, and, without removing his hat, dismissed 
 the people with the briefest sort of a benediction. 
 
 And yet the weather was pleasant, and there 
 was plenty of time for the proper and decorous 
 observance of the ordinance. He evidently did 
 not intend to observe it in a decorous manner, 
 lest others might be impressed by it, and come 
 to regard it as the scriptural baptism. In other 
 words, he meant to heap contempt upon immer- 
 sion, which yet he received as baptism. 
 
 He intended to neutralize the influence of im- 
 mersion as much as possible by his method of 
 administration, and his desire to defend sprink- 
 ling prompted that intention. 
 
 And for the same reason the family of the girl 
 consented that she should receive immersion at 
 his hands rather than mine. They had been, and 
 continued to be, my warm friends ; but they 
 knew that immersion by a Baptist minister, in 
 connection with a Baptist Church, means some- 
 thing means a condemnation and rejection of 
 sprinkling and they had been sprinkled. Their 
 refusal of her request for permission to receive 
 baptism at my hands, and to unite with our 
 church, was neither less nor more than an im-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 6$ 
 
 potent effort to justify themselves in having re- 
 ceived sprinkling as baptism. 
 
 But they also knew that immersion by a 
 Methodist minister, in connection with the 
 Methodist Church, means only a concession to 
 the opinions and choice of the candidate ; and 
 they probably knew, also, that that Methodist 
 minister, like too many others, would take care 
 to make it mean just as little as possible, even 
 by way of such concession. Such motives, I 
 grant you, are not remarkable for their Christian 
 tone ; but such as they are, they are far more 
 common, and far more potent, than many good 
 people imagine. 
 
 A few years ago, Rev. Mr. B , a Methodist 
 
 Presiding Elder, was called to officiate in a Meth- 
 odist Church, in one of the beautiful interior 
 cities of Ohio, on a certain occasion when a large 
 number of persons were to be baptized. What 
 he did, and how he did it, I will tell you, as he 
 told it to me, and in substantially the same 
 words : 
 
 "It was our quarterly meeting, and being 
 Presiding Elder of that district, it was my duty 
 to preach, and knowing that there were a large 
 number of persons to be baptized that day, I 
 resolved to speak on baptism. You know that 
 by the rules of our Church we are required to 
 5
 
 66 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 give each candidate his choice of modes ; and 
 we immerse, sprinkle or pour each one, as he 
 may elect. I had some fear lest a few might 
 that day choose to be immersed, and I did not 
 want to immerse them, if I could, in any reason- 
 able way, avoid it. So I proceeded to show, as 
 well as I could, that sprinkling is the proper 
 mode, but I could not make it so clear as I de- 
 sired ; so I turned to immersion, and said all I 
 could think of to discredit the practice. I called 
 attention to the great inconvenience of it at all 
 times, and especially to ladies, and to the absolute 
 discomfort and danger of it in cold weather. I 
 enlarged upon this, describing the cutting of the 
 ice, the crowds shivering in the chilling wintry 
 winds, the poor Baptist preacher standing in the 
 ice-water, chilled to the very bones, his arms 
 encrusted with ice, and his teeth chattering with 
 cold, and the forlorn candidates struggling and 
 choking amid the floating ice, or trembling in 
 their frozen garments until the close of the service. 
 I then spoke of the manifest impropriety of the 
 immersion of ladies by gentlemen, and in a 
 promiscuous crowd, and related a number of 
 anecdotes to illustrate the great indecencies, al- 
 ways liable to occur on such occasions. 
 
 ' ' My sermon was received with a very marked 
 interest throughout, and I fancied no one would
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 6/ 
 
 care, in the very face of it, to ask for immersion. 
 But alas ! I soon found that this was only a fancy; 
 for a very large majority of the candidates 
 among the number many excellent ladies in- 
 sisted on being immersed, and I was obliged to 
 march at the head of that congregation to the 
 river and there immerse them. Well, I got 
 through it somehow ; but from that day to this 
 I have never preached on baptism, and I think 
 my call to preach upon it has run out.'' 
 
 This confession speaks for itself, and tells the 
 whole tale ; and for my part, I honor Mr. 
 
 B for his frankness in the matter. Yet he 
 
 told it to me as a capital joke on himself. He 
 did not seem to see anything morally wrong in 
 the part he had taken in the matter. And yet 
 he is a good man in my judgment, and in the 
 estimation of all who know him well. In respect 
 to baptism, he is simply blinded and warped by 
 the pernicious, unscriptural usage and views of 
 his Church. Doubtless, he entered that Church 
 in early life, or at least before he had examined 
 the question of baptism with anything like 
 thoroughness ; and having accepted things as he 
 found them, he was slowly, but surely, molded 
 into conformity with them. And as time passed 
 on he became fixed and firmly set in his niche 
 and notions, and when occasion required, he
 
 68 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 made the best defense of his practice that the 
 case admits of; for, ridiculous as it is, no man 
 can improve on it. 
 
 In the language of an old friend, a Congrega- 
 tional minister, addressed to me, "Don't you 
 know, sir, that every person we pedobaptists 
 immerse is just so much capital for the Baptists?" 
 This friendly reprimand was provoked by my 
 action in the case of two ladies, recent converts 
 under my ministry, who desired me to give them 
 the reasons why they should be sprinkled. I 
 refused to do so, bidding them study the Bible 
 for themselves, and telling them frankly that it 
 was enough for me to sprinkle them, if they 
 should require it at my hands. " But," said I, 
 "examine the matter for yourselves, and when 
 your minds are made up let me know, and I will 
 sprinkle you, or I will immerse you, whichever 
 you may prefer." 
 
 The ladies finally decided that, as I was willing 
 to sprinkle them if they desired it, I must regard 
 sprinkling as scriptural and right; and that, being 
 a minister, and engaged constantly in the study 
 of such matters, I must know all about it; and 
 that the weather being exceedingly cold, it would 
 be much more comfortable to be sprinkled ; and 
 so they requested me to sprinkle them, which I 
 did. But I had urged them to decide for them-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 69 
 
 selves, by the study of the Bible, and my friend 
 very justly regarded that as a risky business for 
 the friends of sprinkling, as indeed it is. I knew 
 that, when I did it, and I secretly hoped the 
 ladies would choose to be sprinkled, for I dreaded 
 to go into the water to immerse, fearing that I 
 could not do it ; but I was actually afraid to ad- 
 vise them to be sprinkled lest, after all, it might 
 be wrong. 
 
 Immersion not valid baptism ! That is strange, 
 indeed ; strange that any good man ever could 
 affirm it; stranger still if one single Christian man 
 could anywhere be found who actually believed 
 it. The truth is that immersion lies upon the 
 very surface of the Scripture text, while sprink- 
 ling, if it be there at all, is buried so deep that 
 even the most learned men can not find it. 
 A young lady, just converted to Christ, came to 
 her mother in great distress, saying, "Mother, 
 is sprinkling in the Bible?" "Certainly, my 
 daughter." Her mother was a Presbyterian. 
 "Mother, please find it for me." The mother 
 searched for it, but in vain. She said: ' 'Daughter, 
 I know it is there, but I can not find it. I will 
 ask our minister to find it when he comes." 
 In a few days he came, and the mother preferred 
 her request: "Is sprinkling in the Bible?" 
 "Why, of course it is," said he. " Well, my
 
 7O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 daughter asked me to find it for her, and I 
 thought I could, but after looking a long time I 
 could not. Will you please to find it for us?" 
 "Yes; hand me the Bible." She handed it to 
 him, and as he turned over the leaves he en- 
 gaged the mother in an earnest conversation 
 about other matters, until baptism was quite 
 forgotten, and then he rose and left the house. 
 The next time he came his attention was again 
 called to the subject, and once more he took the 
 Bible to look up sprinkling. But this time the 
 mother, fully aroused, was not to be eluded so 
 easily. She pressed him closely*, and at last he 
 rose and left, saying, "Yes, sprinkling is in the 
 Bible, but it takes a great deal of learning and 
 time to find it." 
 
 A gentleman, whose attention was arrested 
 by the fact that converted Indians are very apt 
 to become Baptists, inquired of one of them why 
 it was so. The Indian, after thinking a moment, 
 replied: " Well, I don't know, unless it is that 
 we poor Indians, being generally ignorant people, 
 are obliged to take the Book just as it reads." 
 Ah, that is the secret of it, and that, too, is one 
 of the best proofs that Baptists are right For 
 the dear old Bible is the book of the people, 
 written in the language of every-day life. Jesus, 
 sending John the tokens of his own Messiahship,
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. Jl 
 
 bid the men to tell him, ' ' The poor have the 
 gospel preached unto them. " And to-day one 
 of the best tokens of the divinity of the Bible is 
 the fact that the masses of the people, the 
 common people, can read it and understand it 
 for themselves without the intervention of scribe 
 or pharisee, priest or Pope. I do not decry 
 learning (God forbid), but I call attention to the 
 fact that the Bible speaks to the unlearned as 
 distinctly and clearly as to the most highly 
 cultured. It is the people's book, and so long as 
 it is in their hands and they are at liberty to 
 read it for themselves, the truth has nothing to 
 fear, and ultimate triumph is certain. 
 
 The time was when immersion, as baptism, 
 was on trial, and those who accepted it did so at 
 their peril ; but that day has passed away never 
 to return, and to-day sprinkling and pouring are 
 on trial, and the trial is going against them at a 
 tremendous rate. Already it is a difficult 
 matter to find competent men who are willing to 
 attempt their defense, while scores of their best 
 friends frankly admit that they have no case at 
 all. Here and there, perhaps, one may still be 
 found willing to rise up and say that immersion 
 is not valid baptism ; but even they actually re- 
 ceive it and treat it as valid in the most solemn 
 business of the Church. But, on the other
 
 72 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 hand, millions tell you in the most emphatic 
 manner possible that immersion is not only 
 baptism, but the only valid water baptism, while 
 other millions insist on immersion as the only 
 baptism satisfactory to them. Two hundred 
 years ago men were ostracizing Baptists for the 
 practice of immersion ; to-day the descendants 
 of those same men are hastening to put bap- 
 tisteries into their churches.
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 73 
 
 NUMBER VI. 
 
 "I will go to the bottom of this matter, and find 
 out the ttuth if lean; and wherever that leads 
 me I will cheerfully go" 
 
 AFTER a residence of several years in the vil- 
 lage of T my health failed, and I was obliged 
 
 to leave my dear people and enter a field where 
 my labors would not be so severe. Accordingly 
 I removed to the village of M , with the un- 
 derstanding that I should preach but once a 
 week, and that I should spend the most of my 
 time in the saddle in search of health. 
 
 Whtn I had been there some five or six 
 months, business called me to a distant city for 
 a few days. While there a friend, a Congrega- 
 tional divinity student, gave me a little anony- 
 mous book, filled with extracts from various 
 pedobaptist works on the subject of baptism. 
 
 As he handed it to me he laughingly observed 
 that he had not read it himself, but that the 
 Baptist brother who gave it to him would gladly 
 give him another, and that it might serve to 
 me and while away an idle hour. I put
 
 74 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 it in my pocket, and did not think of it agai./ 
 until some days after my return home. 
 
 Sitting in my study one day, somewhat wearied 
 with the labor of preparation for the next Sab- 
 bath, and wishing for something diverting to 
 read, I suddenly recollected the little book my 
 friend had given me. I got it and sat down to 
 read. Oh, horrors! Here was diversion with 
 a vengeance. The book was literally packed 
 with extracts from pedobaptist writers, contain- 
 ing the most damaging admissions of the correct- 
 ness of the Baptist views. My mind, already 
 sorely pressed with doubts about infant baptism 
 and sprinkling, was instantly greatly agitated. 
 
 If we were right, why did our champions 
 make such fatal admissions? Surely a man de- 
 fending his own practice would admit nothing 
 against it which he did not deem to be true. 
 But here were some of our greatest writers giv- 
 ing our cause away completely. Did they know 
 that we really have no valid defense? Did they, 
 after all, know that the Baptists are right? It 
 certainly seemed so. 
 
 But hold ! This is a book gotten up by some 
 Baptist, thought I, and he has garbled these 
 extracts, doctoring them up to suit his own 
 purposes. Doubtless he misrepresents these 
 writers, or, rather, makes them misrepresent
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 75 
 
 themselves by a skillful but dishonest arrange- 
 ment of their sentences. This notion gave me 
 a little relief. But just then my eye rested on 
 an extract from the "Systematic Theology of 
 Storr and Flatt," which began by stating that 
 the original baptism was probably immersion, 
 since the apostles could understand our Lord's 
 command in no other way than as enjoining an 
 immersion of the body in water. 
 
 That Storr and Flatt great Lutheran theo- 
 logians could ever have published such stuff, 
 was to me utterly incredible. I dashed the book 
 upon the floor, crying out in great indignation: 
 "I wish those Baptists could tell the truth." 
 Instantly I recollected that I had, but a few days 
 before, added the work of Storr and Flatt to 
 my library. I ran across the room and clutched 
 the volume whence the extract purported to have 
 been taken, and returned to my chair, saying, 
 as I did so: "I will expose that lie." Opening 
 the volume at the page indicated in the little 
 book, I sat many minutes fairly dumb with as- 
 tonishment. This is what I read in the great 
 work of Storr and Flatt. You will find it in 
 their Biblical Theology, vol. II., art. Baptism 
 page 290, edition 1826: 
 
 ' ' The primitive mode was probably by immer- 
 sion. The lisciples of our Lord could under-
 
 ?6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 stand his command in no other manner than as 
 enjoining immersion: for the baptism of John, 
 to which Jesus himself submitted, and also the 
 earlier baptism of the disciples of Jesus, were 
 performed by dipping the subject into cold 
 water. 
 
 "And that they actually did understand it so 
 is proved, partly by those passages of the New 
 Testament which evidently allude to immersion, 
 . . and partly from the fact that immer- 
 sion was so customary in the ancient Church, 
 that even in the third century the baptism of the 
 sick, who were merely sprinkled with water, was 
 entirely neglected by some, and by others was 
 thought inferior to the baptism of those who 
 were in health, and who received baptism, not 
 merely by aspersion, but who actually bathed 
 themselves in water. This is evident from Cyp- 
 rian (Epist. 69, ed. Bremar, p. 185, etc.) and 
 Eusebius (His. Ecclcs. L,, vi., cap. 43), where 
 we find the following extract from the letter of 
 the Roman bishop, Cornelius : ' Novatus received 
 baptism on a sick bed by aspersion (perichutheis), 
 .f it can be said that such a person received bap- 
 tism.' No person, who had during sickness 
 been baptized by aspersion, was admitted into 
 the clerical office. Moreover, the old custom 
 of immersion was also retained a long time in
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 77 
 
 the Western Church at least in the case of 
 those who were not indisposed. 
 
 "Under these circumstances, it is certainly to 
 be lamented that Luther was not able to accom- 
 plish his wish with regard to the introduction of 
 immersion, as he had done in the restoration of 
 wine in the eucharist. But it is evident that 
 there was a very important difference between 
 the two cases. 
 
 "After the restoration of the wine, the laity 
 could partake of both bread and wine in the cel- 
 ebration of the supper of our Lord. But, on 
 the contrary, if immersion had at that time been 
 restored, whatever course those who had been 
 baptized by aspersion might pursue, whether 
 they were contented with their baptism by as- 
 persion, or incurred the danger of disobeying 
 Christ's precept by being baptized twice, they 
 would have been harassed by doubts and fears, 
 which it would have been difficult, and, perhaps, 
 in most cases, impossible to remove. Hap- 
 pily, however, the change of the ancient custom 
 of immersion, although it ought not to have been 
 made, destroys nothing that is essential to this 
 ceremony, as it was instituted by our Savior." 
 
 Now study this long extract and note its amaz- 
 ing admissions, and then realize, if you can, my 
 situation. Here were at least five of our great-
 
 78 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 est pedobaptist scholars and theologians affirm- 
 ing all that the much-abused Baptists claim as 
 to what baptism is. Note their affirmations: 
 
 I. That Christ commanded immersion. 
 
 II. That his command could not be under- 
 stood by the apostles in any other way. 
 
 III. That Christ himself was immersed in 
 water. 
 
 IV. That his apostles really did understand 
 his command to enjoin immersion, and that they 
 obeyed it by immersing. 
 
 V. That immersion was the practice of the 
 whole Church in primitive times. 
 
 VI. That immersion continued the general 
 practice in the Western (or Romish) Church a 
 long time. 
 
 VII. That it was finally supplanted by sprink- 
 ling a change which ought not to have been 
 made. 
 
 VIII. That Luther desired to restore immer- 
 sion in baptism, but could not. 
 
 IX. That his failure to restore it is to be re- 
 gretted. 
 
 And now remember that these are the admis- 
 sions, or rather the affirmations, of five great 
 pedobaptist theologians, made in a standard 
 work on theology. They are the statements of 
 Drs. Storr and Flatt, published without a word
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 79 
 
 of dissent by Dr. Schmucker, aided by Moses 
 Stuart and Prof. Murdock. These are all men 
 of the greatest eminence, renowned for learning 
 and ability. They belong, it is true, to the last 
 generation, but they have few peers among the 
 men of to-day. And they affirm substantially 
 that the Baptists are right, and sprinkling is, in- 
 deed, an innovation, and an unfortunate one. 
 Do you wonder that I was overwhelmed, and 
 most thoroughly confounded ? At first I thought 
 an unconditional surrender was the only thing 
 left me, as an honest man. But presently I 
 considered that these great men might, after all, 
 be mistaken ; that possibly they had sold them- 
 selves for nought, and I resolved that they should 
 not sell me. I would examine the matter for 
 myself. But why should I ? Why not dismiss 
 the whole matter and keep right along in my 
 present practice ! If I was wrong, I was in re- 
 spectable and pious company. If it was a sin, 
 hosts of good men were guilty of it, and surely 
 I could stand it if they could ! Why think about 
 it ! But I could not help thinking about it. 
 
 Here were great men, whom the world revered 
 as good men, deliberately publishing a virtual 
 confession that, in the matter of a solemn Chris- 
 tian ordinance, they and their churches were 
 habitually disobeying the command of our Lord.
 
 8o BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Would their daring disobedience excuse me in 
 pursuing the same course? Could I plead their 
 example? And if at the last it should appear, 
 to their shame and confusion, that Christ docs 
 make a difference between those who obey him 
 and those who do not, would it gratify me to 
 be a partaker of their condemnation? If they 
 were, as indeed they seemed to be, blind lead- 
 ers, would their reputation prevent their falling 
 into the ditch? Could I afford to be a blind 
 follower of such blind leaders? But was I not 
 also, in a more humble way, a leader? Were 
 not many following me with implicit confidence 
 in my wisdom and integrity? What right had 
 I to abuse their confidence by a willing or will- 
 ful ignorance? Then the authority of my Lord, 
 was that to be set at nought, or to be lightly es- 
 teemed by his professed disciples? But then 
 came the thought, urged by so many as an ex- 
 cuse for a neglect to look into this matter, or, 
 having looked into it, for continuing to support 
 the practice of sprinkling contrary to the divine 
 command: "Oh, it is only an outward form, 
 anyway! " Only an outward form that is true, 
 but 'it is an outivard form that Christ himself com- 
 mands us to observe if these great pedobaptist 
 witnesses are correct. If he really commands 
 me to observe this outward form, then neglect
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 8l 
 
 of it is disobedience to his command. In reject- 
 ing the form he has enjoined, I reject his author- 
 ity. Am I ready to do that? If I do it, how 
 can I call him Lord? Will he not reply, "Why 
 call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things 
 which I say?" 
 
 Finally the struggle in my mind took form : 
 Suppose I can find aut the truth about this mat- 
 ter, what will I do about it? What ought I to 
 do about it? Suppose I learn that Jesus did act- 
 ually enjoin immersion, am I bound to obey 
 his injunction? Am I willing, in that case, to 
 reject sprinkling? 
 
 Over this issue I wrestled three days in ago- 
 nizing prayer. Then came a clear, settled, firm 
 conviction that it was my duty, at any cost, 
 thoroughly to investigate the whole question of 
 baptism, and to yield obedience to the expressed 
 will of Jesus, whenever I had clearly learned 
 what that will is, or cease to call him Lord. 
 And with that conviction of duty came also a 
 sense of consecrated strength, and a confidence 
 of divine help in doing it. 
 
 Then I firmly resolved that, "God being my 
 helper, I will go to the bottom of this matter, 
 and find out the truth, if I can, and wherever 
 that leads I will cheerfully go." 
 
 You wonder, perhaps, that it should have cost 
 6
 
 82 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 me a struggle so severe, and so prolonged, to 
 arrive at a resolution so evidently just and so 
 clearly demanded by every principle of loyalty 
 to Christ in every case of honest doubt respect- 
 ing duty. I have often wondered at it myself, for 
 I regarded Christ as King all that time. But my 
 situation was peculiar. I had long been accus- 
 tomed to hear baptism spoken of as a " mere 
 form;" its outward conditions as altogether in- 
 different ; its. form a matter of personal choice ; 
 and that, whatever Christ might have enjoined, 
 he was evidently -well pleased with those who 
 were sprinkled, since he constantly blessed them 
 and their labors in his vineyard. I had also great 
 personal interests at stake. I was a minister in 
 a denomination greatly endeared to me. The 
 thought of a possible separation from it was in- 
 tensely painful. I was pastor of a small but 
 lovely church. Our numbers had already dou- 
 bled since my settlement with it. Not one dis- 
 cordant note marred our perfect harmony. Our 
 prospects were very bright. I was bound up in 
 my church by ties exceedingly strong. Among 
 our own people I had a wide acquaintance, and 
 hosts of warm friends outside my own parish. 
 I was a young man, and not without that laud- 
 able ambition to enlarge my sphere of usefulness 
 which ought to animate the breast of every young
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 83 
 
 man. But that was not all, nor the greatest of 
 my difficulties. The outcome of a thorough 
 examination might be Baptistic, and I shrank 
 from the thought of becoming a Baptist. And 
 I dreaded, too, the idea of a change, lest I might 
 be called a turn-coat, and be regarded as a fickle 
 sort of man, unstable in my ways ; a reputation 
 well-nigh fatal to ministerial success, no matter 
 how little it may be merited. 
 
 These are the great influences that held me 
 back ; but, thank God, through his grace, they 
 were at last overcome, and I entered resolutely 
 upon the dreaded investigation and carried out 
 fully my solemn resolution, though it cost me 
 all the changes and sacrifices I so much feared. 
 For many weary months I studied, and thought, 
 and prayed ; examining rigidly every argument 
 for and against sprinkling and infant baptism. 
 I read scores of our own authors, and traveled 
 many scores of miles to confer with our ablest 
 champions. I resolutely refused to read a Bap- 
 tist book, or to confer with any member of any 
 Baptist church, or with any of their ministers. 
 In this way I sought to avoid the danger of 
 being influenced by personal feelings, or per- 
 sonal appeals. It was a rather one-sided plan, 
 I must confess, but it seemed the best thing for 
 me to do ; and I do not regret it. Day by day
 
 84 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 the mists cleared away. Day by day the truth 
 became more evident, and more firmly estab- 
 lished. At length I could no longer doubt. I 
 was fully, thoroughly convinced that we were 
 wrong and the Baptists were right. Reluctantly 
 I severed my connection with my dear people 
 and went out from among them, bearing with 
 me their benedictions, and most precious mem- 
 ories of their brotherly kindness. 
 
 And though the way was painful, I am glad 
 God led me thus. I am not harassed by doubts 
 whether I am doing right when I immerse one 
 who professes faith in the Lord Jesus. I can 
 confidently invoke the presence of the Master at 
 a baptismal scene, for I know by a blessed ex- 
 perience that he delights to honor his own or- 
 dinance, and to put a difference between that 
 which he has commanded and the invention of 
 men, which, with so many, has usurped its place. 
 Many years have passed away, bringing me en- 
 larged facilities for a more thorough study of this 
 subject, and, year by year, the evidence contin- 
 ues to accumulate, until I am amazed that I 
 could have had any doubt about it. 
 
 And yet men go on making sport of immer- 
 sion, and putting sprinkling in its place, just as 
 blindly as I once did. I pray that God may 
 lead them to test the practice by his holy word ;
 
 BEHIND THE SCENLJ. 85 
 
 for when a man resolves, "By the grace of God, 
 I will go to the bottom of this matter, and find 
 out the truth, if I can, and wherever that leads I 
 will cheerfully go, " he is sure to become a Baptist. 
 
 I am not a prophet, nor do I belong to the 
 honored family of the prophets, but I venture 
 the prediction that one hundred years hence no 
 one will pretend that sprinkling is baptism ; that 
 the practice of it will be unknown among evan- 
 gelical Christians ; that it will be a part of the 
 almost-forgotten rubbish of a less enlightened 
 past, which antiquarians will occasionally ex 
 plore, much as they now search the Catacombs 
 of ancient Rome, or the rock tombs of ancient 
 Egypt. And the preachers of that period will 
 occasionally allude to it, only to point a moral, 
 to demonstrate man's need of divine guidance 
 under all circumstances. 
 
 Now, do not turn up your classic nose and 
 say, "Oh, pshaw!" Just wait and see ; and if 
 it isn't so, just come and tell me ; and I will not 
 only concede the failure of my prophecy, but I 
 will also lament the wickedness of good men in 
 persisting so long in their disobedience to the 
 command of Christ, and their folly in preferring 
 an invention of men to an ordinance of God ; 
 and I will insist then, as now, that immersion 
 is the only valid baptism.
 
 86 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER VII. 
 
 " If you are determined to go to the bottom of this 
 matter, you will come out a Baptist ; there is 
 no help for that " 
 
 I HAD been engaged in the study of baptism 
 about four weeks, and daily our practice seemed 
 more and more unscriptural and indefensible. 
 I was in a sad plight. I did not dare to give up 
 the investigation, for a solemn vow obliged me 
 to continue it. And, besides, I desired most 
 earnestly to know and do the truth, and the 
 truth only. But to find the truth in this case, I 
 must search for it. It seemed to be buried be- 
 neath a vast heap of rubbish, which must be re- 
 moved. But, on the other hand, each day in- 
 creased the probability, in my mind, that I would 
 ultimately be obliged to give up both sprinkling 
 and infant baptism, and with them my church 
 and denomination, and go over to the Baptists ; 
 and it seemed impossible to do that. I was very 
 much in the condition of that mystical man who 
 is said to have caught a bear by the fore paws. 
 If the legend be true, the bear was in the act of
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 8/ 
 
 descending a tree. His hind feet had just touch- 
 ed the ground, while his fore feet were on either 
 side of the tree. At that critical moment the 
 endangered rustic caught those paws and held 
 them fast, the while crying lustily for help. But, 
 alas ! no one heard his cries, and no help came. 
 Time moved on, doubtless with leaden feet, in 
 the opinion of the rustic ; but without bringing 
 relief to the poor man. He did not dare let go, 
 and it seemed impossible to hold on a moment 
 longer. If the legend may be trusted, the man 
 was in a worse condition than the bear. How 
 that man got out of the scrape, would be a very 
 interesting bit of history, if only it were well 
 written that is, if he ever got out of it at all. 
 Here I was, grappling a problem which threat- 
 ened my overthrow, yet I could not let go my 
 hold. I am sure I earnestly desired help ef- 
 fective help and, at last, I thought it had surely 
 come. 
 
 I learned one day that Rev. Dr. S , an 
 
 able Presbyterian minister, had just arrived in 
 our town on a vacation trip, and that he intend- 
 ed to remain several days. I immediately sent 
 him an invitation to occupy my pulpit the next 
 Sabbath, and he accepted it, and then left town 
 on a short hunting trip, from which he returned 
 on Saturday evening. I did not succeed, there-
 
 88 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 fore, in getting a personal interview with him 
 until just before the hour of service on Sabbath 
 morning. I met him at the church, and request- 
 ing him to step aside for a few moments' conver- 
 sation, I told him about my trouble, saying that 
 I had made a solemn vow to go to the bottom 
 of the matter ; that I had been studying it earn- 
 estly and prayerfully, almost day and night, for 
 four weeks, and that the ground seemed to be 
 slipping away from under me, and that, unless 
 I could get help, I would be obliged to give up 
 sprinkling and infant baptism, and ended by ask- 
 ing him earnestly to help me. He listened calm- 
 ly until I stopped ; and knowing, as I did, that 
 he was a man of culture and of much ability, I 
 confidently expected immediate aid. 
 
 What sort of aid he gave me will appear from 
 his reply, which I give verbatim : 
 
 ' ' I am sorry to hear you talk so, for if you 
 are determined to go to the bottom of this mat- 
 ter, you will come out a Baptist; there is no 
 help for that, and I regret it, for I hate close 
 communion so. If you have studied this sub- 
 ject four weeks, you know more about it than 1 
 do, for I never studied it at all, and I never will. 
 I was born a Presbyterian, I was brought up a 
 Presbyterian, I have lived a Presbyterian, and I 
 mean to die a Presbyterian. Of course, we had
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 89 
 
 these subjects in the theological seminary, but I 
 gave no thought to them. I have never allowed 
 myself to entertain any doubt about the correct- 
 ness of our practice, and I never will. I think 
 I love infant baptism so well that I could not 
 give it up, even if I knew it to be wrong. As 
 for myself, I am resolved never to admit any 
 question about it; but for you, with your reso- 
 lution to go to the bottom of it, there is but one 
 result possible you must come out a Baptist. 
 I know enough about the matter to know that; 
 and I am sorry it is so, for I hate close com- 
 munion." 
 
 This strange, astounding speech seemed to 
 take away my breath, and my power of utter- 
 ance, for a few moments. I was amazed, grieved, 
 nay, almost stupefied by it. At last, regaining 
 in some degree my self-control, I said to him: 
 
 "My dear sir, how dare you talk in this man- 
 ner? You are a public teacher a minister of 
 the gospel and your people look to you for in- 
 struction in divine things ; and here is a question 
 dividing the people of God in a dreadful manner, 
 causing discord in families, and separating many 
 who otherwise would be firm friends, bringing 
 great scandal on the cause of Christ, and very 
 bitter grief to many Christian hearts and yet 
 you declare that you have never sought to know
 
 90 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 the truth about it, and that you never will. But 
 all this time you have taken sides in this contro- 
 versy, maintaining firmly before the public that 
 your side is right and the other side wrong, 
 when, in fact, for aught you know, your side is 
 altogether wrong! And your people are saying: 
 ' We can not be wrong, for Bro. S. is an edu- 
 cated man, and a good man, and he is confident 
 we are right.' 
 
 "And with this great responsibility on you, 
 you deliberately refuse to look into the matter. 
 You resolutely shut your eyes that you may not 
 see, and stop your ears that you may not hear. 
 By your own statement, you willfully shut out 
 the light, and make yourself, on this subject, a 
 blind leader. I ask you, sir, how you dare to 
 do this thing? How can you take this fearful 
 responsibility?" 
 
 He replied, quite unmoved: 
 
 ' ' Well, sir, I have taken this responsibility so 
 far, and I intend to continue taking it to the end ; 
 and if you do not choose to take the same re- 
 sponsibility, you will have to be a Baptist; that 
 is all there is of it." 
 
 Just then the church bell rang, and our inter- 
 view ended. We went into the pulpit together, 
 and in due time he unrolled his manuscript and 
 read a very beautiful sermon on "The Condi-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 9! 
 
 tions of Growth in Grace." In eloquent periods 
 he insisted that every Christian should keep his 
 mind open to the truth; no matter whence it 
 might come, no matter how unpopular it might 
 be, no matter how unpalatable it might be to 
 him. He dwelt, in glowing sentences, on the 
 necessity of candor and impartiality in the in- 
 vestigation of truth ; and heartiness in its recep- 
 tion when once its claim to be received had been 
 fairly vindicated. 
 
 My people drank in the sermon much as a 
 thirsty ox drinks in the cold water; thinking, 
 doubtless, "What an earnest, heroic truth-lover 
 is this! Would that we were more like him! " 
 
 And I listened, fairly dazed and overwhelmed. 
 "How can he point out the way so clearly,' 1 
 thought I, "and at the same time refuse to walk 
 in it himself! Does he not know that every sen- 
 tence he utters condemns his own practice? Is 
 he not an arrant, determined hypocrite? Oh, 
 God ! is there truth among men ? Can I ever 
 again have any confidence in men?" 
 
 It was, to me, a severe ordeal, indeed ; and I 
 was exceedingly glad when the service ended, 
 and I was at liberty to return home. But I car- 
 ried with me a burdened heart, and resumed my 
 studies in deep sorrow. 
 
 And, yet, as the days moved on, I found in
 
 92 BEHIND THE SCENES'. 
 
 my soul a growing purpose to meet the issue 
 manfully. I would "buy the- truth, and sell it 
 not." No matter what it cost, I would have it, 
 if attainable. Did not Jesus say, " If ye abide 
 in my word, then are }*e truly my disciples; and 
 ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make 
 you free?" Did he not pray, "Sanctify them in 
 the truth; thy word is truth?" Did he not 
 come into the world to "bear witness to the 
 truth?" Does he not declare of himself, "I 
 am .... the truth?" 
 
 Why, then, should I shrink from the truth, 
 and put my friendships among men above the 
 truth of God ? To do so were to confess my- 
 self disloyal to Christ, and unworthy of him. 
 No; I will not do it. Whatever may come, I 
 will be true to Christ ; true to the great trust re- 
 posed in me as a public teacher of gospel truth ; 
 true to truth, which alone is imperishable ; true 
 to my own conscience and to my own manhood. 
 Thus the very utterances intended to frighten 
 me away from the dangerous investigation served 
 only to show me more distinctly the importance 
 of it, and the urgent need of a fearless manliness 
 and impartiality in conducting it. As an imme- 
 diate result, I drew nearer to Christ, resting on 
 him more completely than ever for the needed 
 wisdom and strength ; and, assured of his favor
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 93 
 
 and guidance, entered into the examination be- 
 fore me with greater zeal and resolution than 
 ever. 
 
 Presently one of my brethren came to me 
 and said: t 
 
 ' ' I had a conversation with Rev. Dr. S 
 
 on our way home from church Sabbath morning, 
 respecting your case." 
 
 "Indeed," said I; "tell me about it." 
 
 "Well, "he replied, "I inquired whether, in 
 his opinion, there is any good reason why you 
 should be so troubled about baptism. 
 
 "He said: 'No, none whatever; the matter 
 is all plain enough.' 
 
 "Then I said: 'Bro. S , can sprinkling 
 
 and infant baptism be clearly proven from the 
 Bible?' 
 
 ' ' 'Certainly, ' said he, ' there is no doubt about 
 it at all.' 
 
 "That encouraged me greatly, and I said: 
 
 ' Bro. S , I am glad it is so ; and I want you 
 
 to give me the proof-texts, so that I can show 
 them to our pastor; for we love him and do not 
 want to lose him.' 
 
 "'Well, 'said he, 'the fact is, I am a little 
 rusty on this subject just now, for I have not 
 given it much attention for a long time, and 
 therefore I can not comply with your request ;
 
 94 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 but when I get home I will send you a book 
 which sets the matter in a clear light, and you 
 can hand that to your pastor and request him to 
 read it, and it will set him right. ' 
 
 "I charged him norVto forget it, and he as- 
 sured me he would not. I expect the book in a 
 few days, and when it comes, I will send it to 
 you immediately, and I want you to read it very 
 carefully ; for, my dear brother, we want you to 
 remain with us. We can not spare you." 
 
 I promised to read the book with great care, 
 as soon as possible, and he went away very hope- 
 ful about the result. In a day or two after this 
 interview the book came, and I sat down at once 
 to a diligent study of it. I had already exam- 
 ined a large number of books written in defense 
 of sprinkling and infant baptism, but this one I 
 had never seen. I gave it three earnest, search- 
 ing examinations, going over each sentence, each 
 time, with the greatest care, hoping I might 
 somewhere discover some ground of hope of a 
 final vindication or, at least, of a reasonable 
 excuse for our practice in baptism. Alas ! I was 
 keenly disappointed; the book was weaker than 
 any I had before read. It abounded in misin- 
 formation, false statements and transparent soph- 
 istry. 
 
 Taking my pencil, I wrote in a fly-leaf: "I
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 95 
 
 have read many defenses of our baptismal prac- 
 tices, all of them defective and inconclusive at 
 best, but this exceeds all others in weakness and 
 wickedness, abounding, as it does, in statements 
 which the author must 'have known were false 
 when he wrote them; and in pretended argu- 
 ments which he must have known were trans- 
 parent sophistries, at the very moment he penned 
 them;" and then returned the book to my friend. 
 Now I am not an accuser of the brethren, 
 but I venture this remark : That the mass of 
 our pedobaptist brethren are not very unlike 
 my friend, Rev. Dr. S . They would prob- 
 ably shrink from a plain avowal of the fact but 
 still it is a fact that they do not examine this 
 matter candidly, impartially and exhaustively. 
 Among the multitudes of pedobaptist brethren 
 whom I have the honor to know, more or less 
 intimately, I can not recall five who have ever 
 given this subject an honest, thorough examina- 
 tion. If a pedobaptist brother is indignant at 
 this statement, and disposed to challenge its ac- 
 curacy, let him stand up, and in the presence of 
 God solemnly affirm that he has himself given 
 it a full, candid and thorough investigation. And 
 if he can do that, then let him name four others 
 pedobaptist ministers who dare make the 
 same solemn affirmation for themselves; and
 
 g6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 after he has done that, then let him assail my 
 statement, if he deems it wise to do so. The 
 truth is, the strongest defense of sprinkling and 
 infant baptism that can be written by mortal man 
 will not bear an honest, critical examination, and 
 the long history of attempted defenses is only a 
 sad recital of so many able failures. 
 
 Learning in the dear school of an experience 
 so painful, the leaders of the pedobaptist forces 
 have adopted new and peculiar tactics tactics 
 admirable, perhaps, among the various devotees 
 of the pagan idols, but sadly out of place and 
 out of character among a Christian people the 
 tactics of indifference. 
 
 "Oh, it is no matter. One way is as good as 
 another." "No, I never took the trouble to 
 investigate baptism. It is not worth while. It 
 is only a form, anyway." "No, thank you, I 
 will not try to study this question. Sprinkling 
 will do just as well as immersion, and I like it a 
 great deal better; and I am satisfied." "No, 
 I don't care about baptism. It's only a form, 
 and I prefer the realities of religion." "Oh, 
 baptism is nothing. I do not think about it. I 
 believe in holiness and communion with Jesus. 
 That's enough for me. " ' ' Well, we are all going 
 to the same heaven, and it don't matter what 
 road we take, so we get there."
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 97 
 
 These, and a thousand more of similar tenor, 
 are the expressions which greet you from the 
 lips of the laity of pedobaptist churches when 
 you press the command of Christ upon them, 
 and insist that they ought to obey it in the only 
 way possible, by being duly immersed. And 
 they all mean just one thing indifference to 
 his command. And their pastors, as a rule, en- 
 courage this spirit of indifference, telling them 
 it really makes no sort of difference whether 
 they are sprinkled or immersed ; yet, at the 
 same time, taking care to favor sprinkling with 
 all the weight of their sacred office. 
 
 Now, these things are true beyond contradic- 
 tion ; they are not fancies, but sober, sad facts, 
 which I do not invent, but simply chronicle. If 
 any man says I am impeaching the characters of 
 good men, he is mistaken. I do not impeach 
 them ; but the facts for which they alone are 
 responsible, the facts of their own conduct 
 these impeach them. And I respectfully sub- 
 mit that Jesus himself impeaches them in these 
 solemn words, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, 
 and do not the things that I say?" 
 
 On a certain Monday morning the pastors of 
 the various churches in a certain city were chat- 
 ting together freely in the Ministers' Association, 
 when the Presbyterian minister introduced the 
 7
 
 98 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 subject of baptism by asking the Baptist minister 
 whether he would be willing to immerse a mem- 
 ber of the Presbyterian congregation, with the 
 understanding that the person so immersed would 
 become a member of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The Baptist minister, in reply, expressed a 
 desire to be neighborly ; but stated that he could 
 not afford to take in washing; yet he would 
 cheerfully lend his baptistery (the mill-race) to 
 his Presbyterian brother, who could then baptize 
 the candidate himself. 
 
 This brought on a general talk on the subject 
 of baptism, when the Methodist Episcopal min- 
 ister made this remarkable statement: "I have 
 long noticed that when any one of our ministers 
 undertakes to investigate this question of bap- 
 tism, he is sure to come out a Baptist." 
 
 There you have it. Investigation makes men 
 Baptists. Given an earnest man, intent on learn- 
 ing the bottom facts ; let him enter upon a vig- 
 orous search for the truth, and the result is ever 
 the same he comes out a Baptist. 
 
 Evidently, then, those who are determined to 
 persist in sprinkling and in the sprinkling of 
 infants and to build up churches adhering to 
 those practices, are obliged to discourage inves- 
 tigation. But this can not safely be done openly. 
 If you tell an American he must not investigate
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 99 
 
 this or that no matter what then he will sure- 
 ly arise and investigate that thing at all hazards. 
 You have trenched upon his liberty, or chal- 
 lenged his curiosity, and he will let you know 
 that he can investigate. No ; that will never do. 
 Open hostility to the investigation of this bap- 
 tismal question would explode every pedobaptist 
 church in America in ten years. 
 
 There is a better way. Treat it as a small 
 matter; the average American despises small 
 matters. Laugh at it as a ridiculous thing; the 
 true American has a keen sense of the ridicu- 
 lous. Turn away from it as a frivolous matter 
 as one who has far more urgent and earnest 
 work to do ; the typical American is an intensely 
 earnest worker. Continually speak of it in terms 
 of disparagement, as a thing of no importance 
 whatever, an affair of no interest any way, and 
 tell the people it is a matter of indifference to 
 you how it goes. Do these things, and multi- 
 tudes will say: "There, that's the talk. Who 
 wants to waste time on little ridiculous, frivolous, 
 indifferent matters?" Now, I say not one word 
 of the motives of our pedobaptist leaders; but 
 that in these last sentences I have faithfully por- 
 trayed their actual conduct in respect to baptism, 
 and the evident effects of that conduct, no sane 
 man, blest with two good eyes, two faithful ears,
 
 IOO BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 and an honest heart, will care to deny. And if 
 any man does deny it, let him remember that 
 facts are stubborn things; and that the facts 
 that I have described abound in every commu- 
 nity in this Christian land, and that they speak 
 in a voice no man can drown, and tell a tale no 
 man can disprove. And let him also remember 
 that he who fights against the evidence of facts 
 enters upon a hopeless task. He engages in a 
 bootless struggle and wages a foolish war, in 
 which his crushing defeat is only a question of 
 time. In his case, prudence is the better part 
 of valor. For him no valid defense is possible. 
 What, then, must be the motive underlying 
 this policy of indifference? Is it, as many claim, 
 a high degree of spirituality? But what sort of 
 spirituality is it that ignores the words of Christ ? 
 What is the nature and source of that spiritual- 
 ity which scorns to inquire after the true sense of 
 his words? How much of Christ is there in that 
 spirituality which openly brands his own ordi- 
 nance as a mere form ? which jeers at it as a small 
 thing? which pompously holds a faithful admin- 
 istration of it as a matter of ridicule? which 
 boldly proclaims obedience to his word a matter 
 of indifference? Is there one sane man who 
 dare pretend that such spirituality is inspired 
 by the Holy Spirit? Think you the Holy Spirit
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. IOI 
 
 prompts men to cast contempt upon a command 
 of Christ? I tell you, Nay. That spirituality 
 which moves men to treat the word of Christ 
 with indifference is not from above. The spirit 
 that generates it is from beneath. The Holy 
 Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them 
 to his people, that they may love them, honor 
 them and do them. It prompts to obedience 
 to Christ, to tender regard for his slightest wish. 
 It is another spirit that leads men to hold up to 
 ridicule a solemn ordinance, instituted by the 
 express command of our Lord. It is a spirit 
 far from holy that prompts men to treat that or- 
 dinance as a mere form, and its proper observ- 
 ance as a matter of indifference. "Try the spir- 
 its whether they are of God." A spirituality 
 that pretends to pit love against obedience, that 
 is too loving to obey, is simply a fraud. It 
 comes not from heaven, but from earth and hell ; 
 and its essence is neither less nor more than an 
 intense selfishness. These words may seem se- 
 vere, and they may burn in 59016 hearts, but 
 they are true ; and God give them pungency. 
 
 No; such spirituality as pleads for indifference 
 to a command of Christ is not, and can not be 
 genuine. It is a selfish counterfeit, and its great 
 purpose is to shield an indefensible practice from 
 an honest, searching investigation. It is the
 
 IO2 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 countersign of indifference, the only remaining 
 citadel of those figments of popery sprinkling 
 and infant baptism. The moat around that cit- 
 adel is the last ditch of pedobaptism, and the 
 leaders know full well that it is their last line 
 of defense. So long as men do not investigate, 
 the cherished inventions of men are safe; but 
 when they begin in real earnest to ask, "What 
 is truth?" then the days of those idols are num- 
 bered. 
 
 Aye ; there's the rub. Do not think for your- 
 self, my pedobaptist friend. It is dangerous; 
 for "If you are determined to go to the bottom of 
 this matter, you will come out a Baptist there is 
 no help for that."
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 03 
 
 NUMBER VIII. 
 
 * ' Well, that is the way all those German scholars 
 write on baptism, but we think they are mis- 
 taken." 
 
 ABOUT six weeks after I began the study of 
 baptism I received a most comforting letter from 
 
 Rev. Mr. S , a Presbyterian minister. He was 
 
 a very dear friend, and having heard of my 
 troubles he wrote me, expressing a profound 
 sympathy with me in my search after truth. He 
 said that, after all, my trials in respect to bap- 
 tism were nothing new in the experience of 
 pedobaptist ministers. He said that at some 
 period of his ministry almost every one of our 
 ministers encountered the same doubts which 
 were now harassing me. He said he had passed 
 through the same ordeal years before, and re- 
 membering his own sufferings at that time, he 
 greatly desired to be of some service to me. He 
 reminded me of the fact that he had a large 
 library, much larger than mine ; that he was 
 much older than myself, and that he was, there- 
 fore, in a position to give me real, substantial
 
 IO4 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 aid in my investigation. He then earnestly in- 
 vited me to visit him at his home, where we 
 could go over the whole subject together, aided 
 by the helps in his large collection of books. He 
 also desired me, if I accepted his invitation, to 
 send him immediately a brief statement of the 
 points upon which I was in doubt, that he might 
 review them and be the better prepared to aid 
 me on my arrival. He closed by assuring me 
 that he desired me to make my investigation 
 thorough, and that if, as the result of it, I felt it 
 my duty to go to the Baptists, I should go with 
 the earnest prayers of himself and all the brethren 
 for my prosperity, usefulness and happiness. 
 
 It was a noble letter, doing great honor to the 
 heart and the head of the writer. I read it with 
 great delight, and hastened to accept his gener- 
 ous invitation and proffered aid. I sent him a 
 statement of the doubts besetting me, and named 
 a time some weeks ahead, when I would visit 
 him, should a kind Providence permit. The 
 visit required a long journey one hundred and 
 fifty miles, mostly by .private conveyance. But 
 at the appointed time I started in high spirits, 
 feeling sure of relief, and in due time arrived at 
 the residence of my friend. It was a farm-house 
 in a most beautiful valley ; a lovely retreat. 
 
 The family gave me a hearty welcome and
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. IO$ 
 
 immediately called my friend. He was in the 
 field, superintending the labors of some work- 
 men. Coming to the house, he greeted me with 
 great warmth, making me feel entirely at home. 
 It was about eleven o'clock of the forenoon, and 
 he begged to be excused an hour, as his pres- 
 ence was needed in the field to give further 
 directions to his men. 
 
 "After dinner," said he, "I will be at your 
 service constantly, as long as you may need 
 me." 
 
 Of course I excused him, but being anxious 
 to improve every moment in study, and having 
 been tendered the free run of his library, I begged 
 him to name the best author on baptism, that I 
 might study him until the dinner hour. In re- 
 sponse to this request he assured me that the 
 very best work in his library was Christian 
 Knapp's "Systematic Theology." Entering 
 the library I soon found the book, and turning 
 to the article on baptism, I was instantly almost 
 paralyzed with astonishment. For this great 
 pedobaptist scholar and theologian began by 
 affirming distinctly and positively all that the 
 Baptists claim, and continued by proving the 
 truth of those affirmations. In a word, his article 
 on baptism is substantially the same as that of 
 Storr and Flatt, which is quoted largely in
 
 IO6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 another part of these sketches. To sum it all 
 up, Christian Knapp assured me that the original 
 baptism was the immersion of the body in water, 
 and that the change to sprinkling is a matter of 
 regret. And chis is the best author in defense 
 of sprinkling in the library ! And what is the 
 sum of his defense? Why, this and this only 
 that a change has unfortunately been made, 
 but that to set aside this invention of men and 
 return to apostolic practice involves too much 
 trouble. It was a plain confession that sprink- 
 ling has no warrant in the word of God ; that it 
 is, indeed, nothing less than rank disobedience 
 to the command of Christ ; but that, all things 
 considered, it is better to continue to disobey 
 the Master than to face the difficulties sure to 
 arise among the brethren if we return to the 
 practice of the baptism he commanded immer- 
 sion. 
 
 Presently my friend returned from the field. 
 I met him at the door, greatly agitated, and at 
 once told him what I had found in Christian 
 Knapp. And this was his reply: " Well, that 
 is the way all those German scholars write on 
 baptism, but we think they are mistaken." If I 
 was astonished before, I was fairly confounded 
 now. This was help with a vengeance. How 
 long, at this rate, would 't take, to vindicate the
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. IO/ 
 
 apostolic character of sprinkling ? All the pedo- 
 baptist writers of Germany confessing it an in- 
 vention of men! All of them agreeing that 
 Christ enjoined immersion ; that the apostles and 
 primitive Church practiced it ; that it continued 
 the practice of the whole Church for many ages! 
 All of them affirming that it was supplanted by 
 sprinkling, not only without divine authority, 
 but against the example and the plain, explicit 
 command of Christ ! 
 
 It is true that my friend had said, " We think 
 they are mistaken." But had he not just in- 
 dorsed Christian Knapp, one of these same 
 German scholars, as the best authority on bap- 
 tism in his library? What could it all mean? 
 
 I was greatly perplexed, but I decided to keep 
 quiet and wait for further developments. I did 
 
 not have long to wait. After dinner Mr. S 
 
 informed me that on the receipt of my paper 
 containing a statement of the points on which I 
 was in doubt, he began to look into the matter, 
 but very soon found that he had grown rusty on 
 the whole subject, and that he could not do 
 justice to it. He had, therefore, taken the 
 
 liberty to hand my paper to Rev. J. H , a 
 
 Presbyterian minister residing in the next village, 
 some two and a half miles distant. He informed 
 me that Rev. J. H was a very venerable
 
 IO8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 man over seventy years of age ; that he was 
 also a man of very fine culture and fervent piety. 
 He also assured me that he was thoroughly 
 posted on the whole question of baptism, having 
 just completed a full examination of it, to satisfy 
 himself that he was really a baptized man. He 
 also informed me that this was the third time 
 
 since he entered the ministry that Rev. J. H 
 
 had thoroughly investigated the whole matter to 
 satisfy his own doubts, and that now he was fully 
 satisfied and firmly established in the belief that 
 sprinkling and infant baptism are right and en- 
 tirely scriptural. He ended by requesting me to 
 go with him to see Rev. J. H , who was ex- 
 pecting me and would cheerfully render me all 
 needed aid in searching for the truth. 
 
 I went with him and received an introduction 
 to the aged and venerable gentleman. I found 
 him a person of the most prepossessing appear- 
 ance, a man of large stature, - commanding 
 presence, a fresh, ruddy countenance, pene- 
 trating eyes and snowy locks. I soon discovered 
 that he was a fluent talker, and that he was very 
 fond of talking. After a brief general conversa- 
 tion Mr. S departed, inviting me to return to 
 
 his house in the evening. 
 
 Rev. J. H occupied an arm-chair in the 
 
 middle of a very pleasant sitting-room^ with his
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. ICK) 
 
 feet resting on a stool. I sat upon a hassock at 
 his feet, and, looking up into his genial face, I 
 said : "I come to you as a child comes to his 
 father, seeking instruction. In me you have a 
 willing pupil, anxious to be convinced that our 
 practice respecting baptism is right and scrip- 
 tural ; but anxious above all things to find out 
 the truth and do it, even though it should require 
 great sacrifices at my hands." 
 
 In reply, he commended my desire for instruc- 
 tion in the truth and promised me the fullest 
 satisfaction, telling me he had not a vestige of 
 doubt that our views and practices were right, 
 nor did he doubt his ability to convince me fully 
 of their entire correctness. 
 
 He then launched into a general talk on the 
 subject of sprinkling and the baptism of infants, 
 continuing, without interruption, three hours and 
 a half. He then stopped, saying he was weary, 
 but if I would return the next day he would 
 discuss the subject more fully. Thanking him 
 for his kindness, and promising to call on him 
 in the afternoon of the next day, I rose and re- 
 turned to the residence of Rev. Mr. S . 
 
 The next afternoon I called on Rev. J. H , 
 
 according to promise. At five o'clock I resumed 
 my seat on the hassock at his feet, asking him 
 to answer three questions, as soon as convenient,
 
 IIO BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 assuring him that if they were satisfactorily dis- 
 posed of, I could get along with all other matters 
 related to the subject, and remain cheerful and 
 contented in the pedobaptist ranks. He agreed 
 to reply to them directly, and resumed his talk. 
 
 At six o'clock I ventured to interrupt him, 
 and remind him of his promise to reply to my 
 questions. 
 
 He bade me be silent, saying I need not 
 imagine he could not answer them ; that he would 
 do so presently. 
 
 He talked on until seven o'clock, without 
 making any allusion to my questions, and then 
 I ventured once more to call his attention to 
 them, and to request some definite reply. 
 
 Somewhat impatiently he bade me keep still, 
 that he would reply to my questions in a short 
 time ; and again I subsided, and he talked on. 
 
 At eight I again called his attention to the 
 questions I had submitted, and which he had 
 promised to answer, and earnestly besought him 
 to gratify me by an immediate reply to them. 
 
 With great impatience he told me I must not 
 presume to dictate to him, that he would answer 
 my questions in a short time ; but that mean- 
 time I must permit him to take his own way. 
 
 I bade him go on his own way, and assured 
 him that I would not interrupt him again.
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. Ill 
 
 He then resumed his talk, talking on until 
 half-past twelve o'clock, but without even attemp- 
 ting any reply to my questions. About twelve 
 o'clock he gravely informed me that baptizo 
 might properly enough be translated to drown. 
 
 That was a little too much for my self-control, 
 and looking him firmly in the eye, I said : 
 
 "Are you willing, reverend sir, to risk your 
 reputation as a scholar on that statement? " 
 
 " Well, no," said he, "you needn't take it so 
 seriously. I was only half in earnest." 
 
 At half-past twelve he informed me that he 
 had nothing more to say on the subject ; that if 
 I was not convinced by what he had already 
 said, I probably could not be convinced at all, 
 and ended by intimating a desire to know how 
 his talk had impressed me. 
 
 I replied that the desire was a natural and 
 proper one, which it would give me great pleasure 
 to gratify. 
 
 " You have certainly proved yourself a fluent, 
 shrewd talker," said I, "and have given evidence 
 of a thorough acquaintance with the subject; and 
 you have talked, in all, ten and one-half hours, 
 but in all that time you have not produced 
 one valid argument for your cause, not one 
 argument worthy the name. You have dealt 
 in witticisms, sophisms, evasions, and all man-
 
 112 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 ner of tricks, cute and sharp in many instances, 
 but all of them too transparent to deceive a 
 man of honest heart, open eyes, and an earnest 
 purpose to find the truth. 
 
 "A cause which can not produce one sound 
 argument in a talk of ten hours and a half by a 
 champion so devoted and so eloquent, must be 
 very weak and doubtful, indeed. I came here 
 earnestly hoping to be convinced that our bap- 
 tismal doctrines and practices are right ; but your 
 address has almost convinced me that they are 
 wholly wrong, and that the much-abused Bap- 
 tists are really in the right." 
 
 I had risen from my hassock, and was stand- 
 ing in front of him, looking at him with great 
 earnestness, not unmingled with some degree of 
 indignation at the manner in which he had trifled 
 with me, for no man feels flattered at the dis- 
 covery that another has endeavored to dupe 
 him. 
 
 He was greatly excited and deeply angered by 
 my plainness of speech, and replied with crush- 
 ing severity: 
 
 ' ' The Lord always knew there would be some 
 people gotten up on a scale so narrow and bigoted 
 that they could not be anything but Baptists, 
 and so he instituted the Baptist Church for their 
 benefit; and it is plain that you are one of that
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 113 
 
 number, and so you will have to go and join 
 them." 
 
 ' ' Since you acknowledge that the Lord insti- 
 tuted the Baptist Church," I replied, "you will 
 do well to be careful how you fight it." 
 
 This ended the discussion, and we went into 
 his library and selected an armful of books on 
 baptism, which I took home with me to examine, 
 afterward returning them to him by express. I 
 studied them very thoroughly, but it was of no 
 use. The truth became every day more evident, 
 and I was obliged to accept it, or prove myself 
 false to my solemn vows, and false to my Lord. 
 My Bible, honestly construed, was a Baptist 
 Bible, and I could not make it countenance 
 sprinkling or justify the baptism of unconscious 
 babes. 
 
 I therefore tendered my resignation as pastor 
 of the Congregational Church, assigning, as my 
 reason for doing so, the decided change in my 
 views respecting baptism. It was sorrowfully 
 accepted, and I soon became identified with the 
 Baptists. 
 
 Years have passed since then years of con- 
 stant Bible study, and of faithful, earnest toil in 
 the Master's vineyard. They have brought with 
 them varied experiences and great changes, and 
 8
 
 114 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 enlarged views of Bible truth and of Christian 
 duty. 
 
 I am rapidly turning gray, and very soon men, 
 judging by my whitened locks, will begin to call 
 me old ; but my Bible (Authorized Version of 
 King James) is still a Baptist Bible. And I have 
 long since learned that God owns his own ordi- 
 nance, when administered in his own way, as he 
 does not own the sprinkling of infants or of 
 adults. 
 
 Those German pedobaptist scholars still con- 
 tinue to write in defense of immersion, as the 
 real, original and scriptural baptism, and their 
 example seems somewhat contagious, for French, 
 and Scottish, and English and American pedo- 
 baptist writers are coming, more and more every 
 year, to do the same thing. 
 
 And yet brethren, like my friend, Rev. Mr. 
 
 S , "rusty" brethren, are of the opinion that 
 
 they are mistaken. And this is only too natural, 
 for there is no other confidence quite so immov- 
 able as the confidence of willful ignorance. 
 
 Such rusty minds will continue rusty to the 
 end, for they are entrenched in their own firm 
 resolve to remain as they are. If you do not 
 care to let in the sunlight, close the blinds, shut 
 out the golden beams, and rejoice in the glimmer
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 115 
 
 of a tallow taper ; but know assuredly that the 
 sun will flood the earth with light, clothe it with 
 verdure and beauty, and fill it with life and love- 
 liness, despite your tallow taper and your closed 
 shutters. 
 
 Shutting out the light of truth does not pay 
 any better than shutting out the light of the sun. 
 It can have only one result. Sooner or later it 
 must bring moral blight. God is the God of 
 truth, and those who would be his must love 
 the truth, and welcome it, and walk in the light 
 of it. I accuse no man, but to me it is a strange 
 thing that so many cling persistently to prac- 
 tices, in the name of the Lord, which are not 
 required by his Word nay, which are known, 
 beyond any reasonable doubt, to be neither less 
 nor more than the inventions of men. 
 
 Religious conservatism, within proper bounds, 
 is a good thing; but when it prompts men to 
 cherish error and reject the truth, it has become 
 a foe to all true piety and Christian growth.
 
 Il6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER IX. 
 
 ' ' Why, sir, I am surprised to hear you speak in 
 suck terms of that book. If s a grand book, 
 sir: a grand book. It has no equal. Its 
 arguments are altogether unanswerable :" 
 
 ' ' Well, to be honest about it, I must confess I have 
 not read the book myself. I formed my opin- 
 ion of it from the testimony of others. 
 
 A MONTH or so after I began the earnest study 
 of baptism, I called to see the pastor of the 
 Congregational Church in a neighboring city. 
 He was not at home, so I left word with his 
 wife that I was in trouble, and that if he had 
 any light on the subject of baptism, I desired 
 him to let it shine for my benefit as soon as pos- 
 sible. In a few days he sent me a new work 
 on the subject, from the pen of a celebrated di- 
 vine, and I hailed it with great joy, for I had 
 heard much about it, and I hoped to find in its 
 pages the needed light and relief. 
 
 So I entered at once upon the study of it. 
 At the outset, the author, with his characteristic 
 candor, declared that all previous defenses of
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 1/ 
 
 sprinkling were failures, and that if the classic 
 sense of baptizo is to be accepted as the New 
 Testament sense of it, there is an end of all dis- 
 cussion, and any defense of sprinkling is simply 
 impossible, since the word in classic Greek al- 
 ways means to immerse. Hence, unless it can 
 be shown that in the New Testament Greek it 
 has another meaning, we might as well surrender 
 at once, and confess that, after all, the Baptists 
 are right. 
 
 But the author knew a better way than that. 
 He had made a remarkable discovery a discov- 
 ery destined to overthrow the Baptists utterly, 
 and settle the controversy forever. By some 
 means he had found out a fact hitherto univer- 
 sally overlooked, namely, that, in the New Test- 
 ament Greek, the word baptizo, with all its de- 
 rivatives, is used in a sense altogether foreign 
 to its meaning in the classic Greek ; that, while 
 in the latter the word always means to immerse, 
 in the former it never means to immerse, but al- 
 ways means to pttrify. 
 
 Had I been less eager to find some sort of 
 defense for sprinkling, the very audacity of the 
 author might have put me on my guard. It 
 would, doubtless, have seemed very strange that 
 a fact so important had been so long overlooked 
 by such a vast throng of earnest, able, critical
 
 Il8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 students of the Bible. It would have seemed 
 almost incredible that the hosts of lynx-eyed 
 controversialists had for generations failed to 
 notice a fact so vital, and so easily observed. 
 Indeed, had I not been extremely anxious to 
 find it true, I must have regarded it with sus- 
 picion, as in a high degree improbable ; a state- 
 ment to be labeled, "Important, if true," and 
 to be received only when established by the most 
 satisfactory evidence. 
 
 But I must confess that I hardly thought of 
 these and correlated considerations. On the 
 contrary, I swallowed the whole thing at once, 
 rejoicing that at last I had found relief, and that 
 I had got out of the current in which I had been 
 drifting, and landed safe and sound on the pedo- 
 baptist shore. So, with a light heart, I plunged 
 into the study of the book, not so much to dis- 
 cover the truth or falsity of the author's erro- 
 neous pretensions, as to learn the fact he assert- 
 ed for myself, and to prepare myself successfully 
 to assert and defend it. But, alas ! for our plans, 
 our hopes, our weaknesses! especially if they 
 are pedobaptistic. A great poet says : 
 
 "The best laid plans o' mice and men 
 Gang aft agley,"
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 19 
 
 and I found his words even more truthful than 
 poetic. 
 
 The book a large one was ah utter failure. 
 The writer said many beautiful things. The 
 book was full of pen-pictures, entertaining, elo- 
 quent, pathetic, but destitute of argument. The 
 grand postulate with which the writer opened so 
 boldly was not proven. That was bad a wet 
 blanket to my fever of hope but that was not 
 the worst of it. Long-continued and searching 
 study of the book convinced me that it was en- 
 tirely false. The writer proposed to prove that 
 the word baptizo, with all its derivatives, is used 
 in the Scriptures in the sense of to purify ; but 
 instead of proving that, he proved that it is not 
 so used. How shall I describe my disappoint- 
 ment, the deep humiliation and bitterness of it? 
 I can not do it. It was crushing. 
 
 But, after a little, I gathered new courage to 
 go through the book again, in the faint hope 
 that I might yet find some different result. So 
 I plodded through it again and again, only to 
 be more firmly assured that the author had not 
 only failed to establish his proposition, but had 
 fairly proven exactly its opposite to be true. 
 The Baptists could hardly desire a better vindi- 
 cation of their views than this book, the su-
 
 I2O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 preme effort of one of their most talented op- 
 ponents. 
 
 I turned from it, almost sick at heart, yet not 
 willing to confess myself vanquished. So I 
 gathered about me the works of many other 
 authors in defense of sprinkling and infant bap- 
 tism, and continued my laborious investigation. 
 
 While thus engaged, Rev. G. S , the Con- 
 gregational pastor, who sent me the book which 
 I had found such a painful, yet splendid failure, 
 came to visit me, and aid me in my study. He 
 was a lovely man, a very dear friend, and I gave 
 him a most hearty welcome. Of course, our 
 conversation was of the one theme which then 
 so imperiously challenged my attention bap- 
 tism. 
 
 I showed him a letter from Rev. Mr. C , the 
 
 Presbyterian minister who, years before, had 
 lectured me so vigorously and so successfully on 
 the unscripturalness and destructive tendency of 
 open communion an incident elsewhere de- 
 scribed in these sketches. He read the letter 
 in great astonishment, for it was a lengthy and 
 pathetic warning against the Baptists because of 
 their offensive close communion. He who had 
 so energetically pictured the wickedness and 
 folly of open communion, and had so heartily 
 supported and commended close communion as
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 121 
 
 scriptural and wise, now bewailed my tendency 
 toward the Baptists ; not because their views of 
 baptism were wrong, for that he did not affirm, 
 but because of their " bigotry" in teaching and 
 practicing the very same principles he had urged 
 upon me, and which he himself had never ceased 
 to defend and practice. 
 
 My friend could hardly believe the evidence 
 of his senses, as he read that remarkable letter ; 
 but he knew the handwriting and style of the 
 author too well to doubt the genuineness of it. 
 
 I proposed this question: "If close commun- 
 ion is scriptural and right for Presbyterians and 
 
 Congregationalists,as oar friend, Rev. Mr. C , 
 
 so eloquently maintains, and as we all believe 
 and teach, how can it be unscriptural and wrong 
 for Baptists?" My friend agreed with me that 
 it was not fair to condemn in Baptists that which 
 we approved as right in our own practice. And 
 
 although he was a warm friend of Rev. Mr. C , 
 
 he did not hesitate to condemn his letter as an 
 unmanly and unworthy attempt to influence me 
 by an appeal to my prejudices. 
 
 I knew my friend was very anxious to learn 
 what influence the book he sent me had exerted 
 upon my mind ; but I carefully refrained from 
 any allusion to it, preferring that he should in- 
 troduce the matter in his own way.
 
 122 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 At length, as we were seated at the tea-table, 
 he could wait no longer, but bluntly inquired 
 what I thought of the book which he had for- 
 warded to me. 
 
 I told him it was well written ; that the author's 
 style was lively and entertaining, and that no 
 one could deny that the book was readable. 
 
 "But," said he, "what do you think of the 
 argument? Isn't it convincing ? " 
 
 ' 'The argument !" I replied; "why, my dear 
 sir, I didn't find any in the book. As I told 
 you, the book is .lively and entertaining, the lan- 
 guage is very fine, and there are many eloquent 
 passages in it ; but there is no argument there 
 not a bit of it. As an argument, it is an utter 
 failure; doing great discredit to its author." 
 
 "Why, sir," he replied, "I am surprised to 
 hear you speak in such terms of that book. It's 
 a grand book, sir a grand book. It has no 
 equal. Its arguments are altogether unanswer- 
 able." 
 
 Now I knew my friend had never read the 
 book at least, that particular copy of it for 
 when it came to me most of the leaves were 
 uncut. So I quoted a passage from pages where 
 I had cut the leaves, and inquired his opinion 
 of that.
 
 15EIIIND THE SCENES. 123 
 
 "Tell me candidly, my friend, do you think 
 that a sound argument ? " 
 
 ' ' Well, no ; there is no argument in that. But, 
 surely, you did not find that in Dr. B.'s book, 
 did you?" 
 
 "Yes, sir; I found it in his book, on pages 
 so and so, just as I give it to you." 
 
 Then I proceeded to quote another passage 
 from pages where I had cut the leaves, asking 
 his opinion of that, and, as before, he respond- 
 ed by condemning it as altogether unsound, but 
 suggesting a doubt whether it was really in the 
 book. To this doubt I responded as before, 
 naming the pages where he would find it. Then 
 I named another passage, and another, and still 
 another, each of which was disposed of in the 
 same way; the evident embarrassment of my 
 friend increasing rapidly meanwhile, until at last 
 he could endure it no longer. 
 
 "Well," said he, "to be honest about it, I 
 must confess I have not read the book myself. 
 I formed my opinion of it from the testimony 
 of others." 
 
 Then we reviewed the book together, and he 
 heartily indorsed my opinion, that, as an argu- 
 ment, the book is an utter failure. 
 
 But my amiable friend was not discouraged 
 by the evident failure of the book he had relied
 
 124 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 upon so ignorantly and yet so confidently. He 
 entered into a general discussion of the subject, 
 endeavoring to convince me that, after all, sprink- 
 ling is all right, as a social and climatic neces- 
 sity, and our conversation continued until two 
 o'clock in the morning. 
 
 He called my attention to the fact which I 
 could not deny that baptism is only an out- 
 ward form. But when I reminded him that 
 back of that outward form is the command of 
 Christ enjoining it, and inquired by what author- 
 ity I could set aside his command, he had no 
 reply to offer. 
 
 He assured me that sprinkling is much more 
 convenient than immersion, and I was obliged 
 to confess he was right about that. (To tell the 
 whole truth about it, he had struck a tender 
 spot, for one of the chief reasons why I so much 
 dreaded to give up sprinkling and accept immer- 
 sion was this very consideration of convenience. 
 Immersion seemed an almost intolerable cross, 
 from which I shrank with great dread day and 
 night.) 
 
 But when I reminded him that Christ knew as 
 much about the inconvenience of immersion as 
 we did, and begged him to tell me whether the 
 plea of inconvenience could be relied upon as a 
 valid excuse for a neglect of duty, or for a dis-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 12$ 
 
 obedience to a command of Christ, he was silent. 
 
 When he urged the greater popularity of 
 sprinkling, I was obliged to admit it ; but when 
 I inquired whether it would be safe to plead 
 that popularity against the authority of Christ, 
 he was again silent. 
 
 Indeed, he soon agreed with me, that while 
 it would be pleasant, in this matter, to follow 
 the multitude, it would be safer, and far more 
 Christ-like, to obey the Master, and do as he 
 commands. 
 
 He called my attention to the Arctic regions, 
 and told me that immersion would not be pos- 
 sible there on account of the intense cold. I 
 replied : First, that we do not live in the Arctic 
 regions, and therefore we can not plead the cli- 
 matic condition of those regions as an excuse 
 I for not doing our plain duty here ; and, second, 
 that the narratives of Arctic explorers contain 
 accounts of persons getting into the water amid 
 the ice-floes, and remaining there much longer 
 than would be needful for immersion, and that 
 without the slightest injury. He conceded that 
 this answer ended the Arctic argument, and, as 
 a candid Christian man, he gave it up. 
 
 He then called my attention to a certain Rev. 
 
 Dr. B . He said that the doctor was once 
 
 a prosperous, honored Presbyterian minister,
 
 126 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 but he became troubled about baptism, and final- 
 ly joined the Baptists, and that he had stood in 
 the water so much, baptizing converts, that his 
 lower limbs were paralyzed, and he was a help- 
 less cripple. 
 
 "Well," said I, "if I could be assured of 
 such success in my ministry if God would only 
 give me such a multitude of converts I would 
 not hesitate a moment longer, but go and join 
 the Baptists at once, and suffer the loss of my 
 limbs gladly." 
 
 "Ah!" said my friend, "it is of no use to 
 talk. You are sure to become a Baptist. It is 
 only a question of time. I bid you godspeed 
 in doing whatever you may decide is your duty. " 
 
 This ended our discussion ; and the next day 
 he returned home, and I returned to the study 
 of the great question of duty. 
 
 My friend fell into an error only too common 
 commending a book he had not examined, 
 and indorsing an argument he had not tested for 
 himself. He formed his opinion from the testi- 
 mony of others. It was not a wise method, as 
 the event proved ; but it was, and is, the method 
 of multitudes. How few examine these matters 
 for themselves ! The pew looks to the minister; 
 the minister looks to some great doctor; the 
 doctor looks to the denomination, and writes
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. I2/ 
 
 as he best may in defense of its practice. And 
 who constitute the denomination ? Why, the 
 pews and pulpits that are looking to the doctor 
 for guidance and instruction. 
 
 And when the doctor has written his defense 
 of the views and practice of his denomination, 
 the word passes along down the line that it is a 
 most triumphant vindication of the truth. A 
 few read it, and the rest form their opinion of it 
 from the testimony of others. This is neither 
 an accusation, nor a caricature, but a plain state- 
 ment of an undeniable, though not very compli- 
 mentary, fact, in the history of Christian life 
 and doctrine. 
 
 Nor are we to imagine it to be confined wholly 
 to the various sects of pedobaptists. It is an 
 evil not altogether unknown in Baptist circles. 
 Far too many people are Baptists for no better 
 reason than that their fathers were, or that some 
 friends are a very poor reason, indeed. 
 
 How much better were it to do as did the 
 noble Bereans, search and see whether these 
 things are so! It is the opinion of many good 
 people that the Baptists are apt to give too much 
 time and thought to these controverted ques- 
 tions. In some cases that may be true very 
 likely it is true here and there ; but, as a rule, it
 
 128 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 is not true. The masses of Baptist people, and 
 even of Baptist ministers, are not as well posted 
 in these matters as they ought to be. If every 
 Baptist were at all times ready to give a reason 
 for the peculiarities of his faith and practice, the 
 truths underlying them would speedily receive 
 a far wider recognition than they now do, and 
 the period of their ultimate conquest of the 
 Christian world would thereby be greatly has- 
 tened. If they are worth contending for at all, 
 they are worth contending for very earnestly. 
 If it be not wrong to make them the basis of a 
 separate organization, it is not wrong to study 
 them thoroughly, and to propagate them vigor- 
 ously and victoriously. 
 
 Some people seem to imagine that all churches 
 are alike, that there are no real differences be- 
 tween them ; and, doubtless, this is true of cer- 
 tain classes of churches. It is difficult to detect 
 any important issue at stake between the various 
 denominations of Presbyterians, or between the 
 various kinds of Methodists, or between the Con- 
 gregationalists and Presbyterians. And it is real- 
 ly a sad thing that brethren differing so slightly 
 are yet so zealous to maintain separate organi- 
 zations, with distinct and often antagonistic inter- 
 ests, often producing painful and scandalous col-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 29 
 
 lisions, and unseemly rivalries and antagonisms. 
 What is this but to divide the Church of God 
 needlessly? and what is such needless division 
 but schism ? 
 
 Some people tell us such divisions are a good 
 thing; but Jesus does not agree with them, for 
 he prays earnestly that his people may all be 
 one. The apostles did not think so, for they 
 vigorously denounce schismatics, and bid us re- 
 ject them. Let no one be deceived. Those 
 who maintain needless divisions in the body of 
 Christ are schismatics, guilty of a very great of- 
 fense against our Lord and his Church. And 
 if Baptist Churches are not based upon and de- 
 manded by the divine Word, they are schismat- 
 ics, and ought to disband. 
 
 But if their existence is required by that Word, 
 then all other churches are schismatic, and ought 
 to dissolve. Or, in more general terms, every 
 denomination ought clearly to justify its own 
 existence by the authority of the Word of God, 
 or cease to exist. No man can deny this except 
 by calling in question the authority of the divine 
 Word ; but, if it be true, then the faithful study 
 of denominational peculiarities of doctrine and 
 of practice, is a plain, imperative duty. It is 
 not enough, in controverted matters, to consult 
 9
 
 I3O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 one's neighbor, and form an opinion from the 
 testimony of others. As honest Christian men, 
 we are bound to search, and see, and know for 
 ourselves.
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER X. 
 
 ' ' TJiey are a wicked family, arid they want the 
 babe baptised because tJiey imagine that will 
 save it. What shall I do f If I go down 
 there and baptize it, I shall only confirm them 
 in their mistaken views respecting the saving 
 efficacy of baptism ; but if I do not go, I shall 
 offend them, and that I can not afford to do, 
 for they are rich." 
 
 1 ' Well, I will walk down that way, and let Provi- 
 dence decide the matter for me. " 
 
 WHILE I was investigating baptism, and after 
 I had reached the conviction that, whatever 
 might be true of sprinkling, I must wholly desist 
 from the practice of infant baptism, I exchanged 
 pulpits with the pastor of the Congregational 
 Church in a neighboring city. 
 
 At the close of the morning service, Rev. 
 
 Mr. R , a Congregational minister, who had 
 
 charge of an academy in that place, came to me, 
 saying that he was in great doubt respecting 
 duty in an urgent case, and desired advice. 
 
 He said he had received a message just before
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 the morning service began, from an Episcopal 
 family in the city, informing him that the 
 youngest member of the family, a dear little 
 babe, had been fearfully scalded, and that they 
 desired him to come and baptize it. 
 
 "And," said he, " I do not know what to do 
 about it. What is your opinion as to my duty 
 in the matter?" 
 
 "Well," I replied, "perhaps you will not 
 think my advice of much value when I tell you 
 that I have decided to baptize no more babes ? 
 I am fully convinced that the practice is wrong, 
 and, of course, my advice is to decline to do 
 anything about it. " 
 
 "Oh, well, "said he, "I believe in infant bap- 
 tism, of course. I have no doubt about its 
 propriety, as a rule, but this case is very peculiar. 
 They are a wicked family, and they want the 
 babe baptized because they imagine that will 
 save it. What shall I do? If I go down there 
 and baptize it, I shall only confirm them in their 
 mistaken views of the saving efficacy of baptism; 
 but if I do not go, I shall offend them, and that 
 I can not afford to do, for they are rich." 
 
 I repeated my advice that he should decline 
 to baptize the babe, assuring him that I deemed 
 that the only safe course. But he was not will- 
 ing to accept such radical counsel. He seemed
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 133 
 
 altogether irresolute and unwilling to act in any 
 direction, and notwithstanding the urgency of 
 the case, he continued to discuss the matter in a 
 rambling, desultory sort of way. 
 
 At last he intimated that the babe might 
 possibly be out of its misery and beyond the 
 need of baptism, and added, "Well, I will walk 
 down that way, and let Providence decide the 
 matter for me." 
 
 Accordingly he moved off in the direction of 
 the afflicted home, which was over half a mile 
 distant. I remained near the church door, look- 
 ing at him with strange emotions. He seemed 
 determined to give Providence plenty of time to 
 decide the matter for him, walking quite as slowly 
 as a healthy, able bodied man could walk on 
 such a beautiful autumn day, and on such excel- 
 lent pavement. 
 
 At length he disappeared around the bend in 
 the street, and I returned to my stopping place, 
 wondering what the issue would be, and pitying 
 the bondage of my friend, and, it may be, in- 
 wardly rejoicing that I was about ready to re- 
 nounce forever a practice of such doubtful 
 character, by which a good man could be so 
 hampered, and, as it were, compelled to walk a 
 race against death the slowest winning. 
 
 After the evening service my friend came to
 
 134 UEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 me in excellent spirits. "Well, Bro. R ," 
 
 said I, "how did Providence decide?" 
 
 "All right," he replied. " When I reached 
 the house, the dear babe had just departed, and, 
 of course, that settled the matter." 
 
 This incident made a deep impression on me ; 
 especially did these words of Mr. R im- 
 press me: "If I go down there and baptize it, 
 Ishallonly confirm them in their mistaken views 
 respecting the saving efficacy of baptism. " Did 
 not his going down there, under the circum- 
 stances, have precisely that effect ? They could 
 not know the mental protest under which he was 
 acting. They knew nothing of his hesitation 
 about the propriety of the baptism in that family. 
 They were in ignorance respecting his delay in 
 starting. They had not seen him loitering by 
 the way, in the hope that on his arrival the babe 
 might be at rest. All these things were unknown 
 to them. He had, indeed, arrived too late, but 
 for that he had apologized in apparent sorrow. 
 His presence was evidence of his willingness to 
 perform the service desired. It was also proof 
 that, in his judgment, that service was both right 
 and necessary. They had a right henceforth to 
 quote his response to their request as an endorse- 
 ment of their views of infant baptism, and he 
 could challenge that right only by a confession,
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 13$ 
 
 at once insulting to them, and damaging to his 
 own reputation as a man of thorough integrity. 
 
 I do not doubt that he was afraid to baptize 
 the babe, lest he might thereby confirm that 
 wicked family in their mistaken views of the 
 saving efficacy of infant baptism. But he lacked 
 the manly decision and courage to take the only 
 step by which he could escape such a result a 
 kind but firm denial of their request, and an 
 honest statement of the true reason for it. 
 
 But hold. Let me not be too severe. It was 
 not altogether a lack of courage. He was an 
 advocate of infant baptism a man of mature 
 years and broad scholarship. How could he 
 deny the saving efficacy of a practice, which, 
 after all, can be defended on no other plea? 
 Imagine him saying to that wicked family, "No, 
 I can not baptize your babe. You think there 
 is a saving efficacy in such baptism, but that is a 
 great mistake. You rely upon baptism for sal- 
 vation, but it can not save you. In it there is 
 no saving virtue. If I were to baptize your 
 babe, the baptism would do it no good. It is a 
 mere idle ceremony, very pretty and sentimental, 
 but of no real use. Under other circumstances 
 it would give me pleasure to apply it to your 
 babe, but you take it altogether too seriously. 
 You think it really means something that it
 
 136 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 will make your babe a partaker of the benefits 
 of the covenant of grace, and thereby save it 
 that it is really circumcision in another form, 
 and, therefore, necessary, lest your babe be cut 
 off from all inheritance with God's people, and 
 that it is essential to the putting away, or wash- 
 ing away the stains of original sin. I admit that 
 we are continually affirming these very things, 
 and many others like them, in our attempts to 
 defend infant baptism from the assaults of the 
 Baptists, but then we do not really believe them 
 ourselves. I beg you, do not be offended with 
 me. I am in a very difficult spot. I do not 
 want to go back on infant baptism, for it is a 
 very useful contrivance, by which such of our 
 children as live to mature years are pre-empted, 
 as it were, for our own churches, but otherwise 
 it is of no value whatever. As I have said, you 
 take it altogether too seriously, and rest upon it 
 for salvation ; and I dare not baptize your babe 
 lest I encourage you in a delusion so deadly. I 
 therefore beg you to excuse me from baptizing 
 your babe, and please do not be offended with 
 me, for I can not help myself; and, indeed, I 
 desire your favor and patronage, for you are rich 
 and influential." 
 
 Now that would be a very strange speech, I 
 grant you, but for thousands pf Protestant min-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 137 
 
 isters who practice infant baptism it would be 
 an honest speech, or at least as honest as the 
 case would admit. But what would a ' ' wicked 
 family" be apt to say in reply? 
 
 It is often claimed by Baptist writers that 
 every possible plea for infant baptism involves 
 the idea of a saving efficacy in the rite, and it 
 would be difficult for the most ardent friend of 
 the " institution" to name a half dozen pleas in 
 its behalf that are not fairly open to this charge. 
 Indeed, our pcdobaptist friends of the more 
 evangelical denominations are sadly in want of 
 some plea for the practice which clearly does 
 not involve the idea of sacramental salvation. 
 There is one such plea, as I happen to know. I 
 never saw it in print, but having heard it urged 
 by more than one intelligent, cultured pedo- 
 baptist minister, in defense of his own conduct 
 in baptizing certain babes, I am very generously 
 inclined to give all our pedobaptist friends the 
 benefit of it. 
 
 Some years ago, while I was pastor of the 
 
 Baptist Church in the city of M , certain 
 
 friends members of the " Disciples " Church 
 came to me with certain well-founded complaints 
 against pedobaptist ministers in our city ; com- 
 plaints valid against a large share of the ministers 
 of pcdobaptist churches everywhere,
 
 138 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 At the next meeting of our Ministers' Associa- 
 tion I said to the brethren: ''Our 'Disciples' 
 brethren have a grievance of considerable mag- 
 nitude. They complain of your conduct, in a 
 certain matter, as wanting in a manly consist- 
 ency." 
 
 Instantly all were alert, two asking in the 
 same breath : 
 
 " Why? What is it? What have we done?" 
 
 "Well," I replied, "they assure me that 
 whenever a babe is likely to die unbaptized, you 
 rush off and sprinkle it an act which plainly 
 says that you believe in the saving efficacy of it; 
 but when they affirm that you believe baptism 
 to be essential to salvation, you go back on your 
 own actions and say you do not believe any such 
 thing ; and they complain that in this matter 
 you are lacking in a manly consistency." 
 
 For a few moments there was an expressive 
 silence in our midst; for several of the brethren 
 had very recently sprinkled dying babes, and 
 the facts were well known. The pastor of the 
 Congregational Church was the first to break the 
 solemn silence. 
 
 "Well," said he, "I might as well own up. 
 
 Mrs. sent for me in great haste to baptize 
 
 her babe, which was about to die, and I did it. 
 Of course I knew there is no saving efficacy in
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 139 
 
 baptism: I knew it would do the babe no good 
 whatever ; but the mother wanted it done, and 
 I did it to please her." Then, after a moment's 
 silence, he added: "Well, I am resolved that 
 I will never do so again ; never." 
 
 Then the pastor of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church said: 
 
 ' ' I was sent for, not long ago, by Mrs. 
 
 under similar circumstances, and I went and 
 baptized the child. Of course I know as well as 
 any one that there is no virtue in baptism to 
 save the soul not a bit of it but I did it to 
 please the parents." 
 
 Then another pastor made a similar explana- 
 tion of his own conduct, giving the same plea, 
 that "he did it to please the parents." Now I 
 submit that this plea for infant baptism does not 
 involve the idea of saving efficacy in it. On the 
 contrary, it expressly discards all such notions. 
 And it is certainly an amiable plea "I did it 
 to please the parents." A minister, no matter 
 even if he were a Baptist, could not easily go 
 farther in amiability than that. He knows the 
 child, even in the presence of death, is just as 
 well off without it ; and it can do the little sufferer 
 no good "not a bit of it" in any way; and 
 he, poor man, may be fairly overrun with work; 
 but he drops everything at once, and off he goes
 
 I4O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 to baptize that dear little dying babe. Now, if 
 it were an adult, a penitent believer, that called 
 for baptism, other motives might induce even a 
 very busy Baptist minister to drop everything 
 else and administer the ordinance, even amid 
 the snow and ice and the chilling blasts of mid- 
 winter. In fact, hundreds of Baptist ministers 
 have gone out in the very worst weather to bap- 
 tize people who were in no apparent danger of a 
 speedy death. They have meekly stepped down 
 into the freezing water, apparently surrounded 
 by very many discomforts ; but they did it only 
 because God required it of them. I do not 
 believe one of them would ever do it "just to 
 please the parents " of the candidates, or to 
 please any other friends. They are not amiable 
 enough for that. In this peculiar kind of ami- 
 ability our pedobaptist pastors excel. Not only 
 do they often sprinkle babes "just to please the 
 parents," but not infrequently they have been 
 known to immerse people, and even such people 
 as had been sprinkled in infancy, for the sole 
 purpose of pleasing them. They certainly de- 
 serve their reward for an amiability so compliant. 
 Indeed, I think this plea, " I did it to please 
 the parents," ought to be used a great deal more 
 freely by pedobaptist ministers. The Baptists 
 could not charge that it implies a saving efficacy
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 14! 
 
 in the rite. It is short and crisp as well as 
 amiable. Everybody can understand it at once. 
 It needs no labored explanation or learned de- 
 fense. Then it is so definite in locating the 
 authority in the matter with the parents, and in 
 putting the responsibility upon them, that it 
 leaves nothing more to be said. It classes infant 
 baptism along with rattles, marbles and other 
 toys, which one may or may not give to the 
 child of his friend, just as the parent may fancy. 
 Of course the parents must feel highly flattered. 
 They are people to be "pleased." Here are 
 grave and reverend pastors with no more sacred 
 duty than just to "please" them. Here is a 
 religious rite made entirely subservient to their 
 pleasure. If they like it all right. It shall be 
 artistically arranged at their bidding ; but if they 
 do not like it, they need never have it in their 
 houses. If they desire it for their little ones, it 
 is a very beautiful Bible ordinance, which they 
 can not prize too highly; but if they are preju- 
 diced against it, they may spit upon it and kick 
 it out of sight, for it is only a bit of the rubbish 
 of old-time church usages, you know. 
 
 Here is flexibility for you ; just the sort, too, 
 that the pedobaptist pastor needs now in every 
 community. Take any pedobaptist pastor you 
 please, Presbyterian, Congregational or Meth-
 
 142 BEHIND THE 
 
 odist, and while some of the members revere 
 infant baptism as a Bible ordinance, others of 
 them can hardly endure it at all. Jones and his 
 wife say: " It is a blessed thing. So sweet, so 
 beautiful, so sacred ! " And they have all the 
 little Joneses duly christened ; and when the 
 dear pastor calls there, the talk is largely of this 
 beautiful, sentimental rite, and of the "children 
 of the church." But there is Bro. Miller. He 
 abhors the whole thing, and his wife says: "No 
 minister shall ever sprinkle a child of mine." 
 And when the dear pastor ends his visit at the 
 residence of Bro. Jones, and enters the home of 
 Bro. Miller, he leaves infant baptism outside to 
 take care of itself. Now, see how this plea helps 
 him out. If he affirms that infant baptism is 
 really a divine institution, he will feel obliged to 
 defend it at Bro. Miller's and he will hardly fail 
 to get into trouble; while Bro. Miller and his 
 family, if he should become urgent in pressing 
 them to obey it, will Almost certainly go off and 
 join the Baptists. But it is only a something to 
 be done, or to be left undone, ' ' to please the 
 parents." So, at Bro. Jones', he pleases the 
 parents by descanting upon its beauties ; and at 
 Bro. Miller's he pleases the parents, and indeed 
 the whole family, by quietly ignoring it alto- 
 gether. Sarcastic? No, sir. Simply true to
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 143 
 
 the actual condition of things in thousands of 
 pedobaptist churches to-day. If any man doubts 
 it, let him open his eyes and look about him a 
 little, and he will doubt it no longer. Demoral- 
 izing ? Yes, but not more so than infant baptism 
 itself. Not more so than any other defense of 
 it. It does demoralize many men, but it also 
 demoralizes infant baptism by degrading it into 
 a mere bauble which intelligent and honest 
 parents will soon learn to detest. 
 
 But no matter what may be the tendency, or 
 the result of this plea, it is the only practicable 
 one left to those devotees of infant baptism who, 
 in their hearts, do honestly discard the figment 
 of sacramental salvation. If they retain infant 
 baptism at all, it must be simply as a mere 
 matter of taste, or as a well-understood expedient 
 to retain their hold upon the children and in due 
 time draw them into the same fold with them- 
 selves. With these good people it is a time of 
 transition and doubtful measures, but they are 
 growing toward the truth and the light, and every 
 year they become more evangelical, and in ex- 
 actly the same ratio infant baptism declines 
 among them. And the day is not far distant 
 when they will cease to sprinkle babes, even "to 
 please the parents."
 
 144 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER XI. 
 
 1 'How can a man write as this man does, and still 
 continue to practice sprinkling?" 
 
 WHILE pastor of the Baptist Church in the 
 village of O , I received a call from the pas- 
 tor of the Presbyterian Church, of a somewhat 
 remarkable character. 
 
 He was a quiet, pleasant gentleman, rather 
 cool and reserved in manner, and a little inclin- 
 ed to have his own way; but honorable and 
 noble, generous and kind. In his way he was 
 something of a philosopher, taking life pleasant- 
 ly and smoothly. He used to say, laughingly, 
 that ' ' while it may be wicked to get angry, yet 
 a little holy indignation is sometimes quite nec- 
 essary. " But in all our acquaintance I had never 
 seen him indignant at anything, until that par- 
 ticular day already alluded to, when, to my great 
 surprise, he was deeply agitated, and evidently 
 very much offended. Without waiting to be 
 seated, or even to remove his hat (he was usu- 
 ally a polite man), he cried: "Sir, I called to 
 ask you a question, and I want a direct answer
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 145 
 
 yes or no and I will not be put off with any- 
 thing else." 
 
 It was a beautiful day, a day that Italy might 
 possibly equal, but certainly could not excel. 
 The wonderful blue of the upper deep cloud- 
 less and serene seemed the very emblem of 
 peace, itself a curtain vailing from mortal eyes 
 the elysian fields just beyond. The earth re- 
 posed in a loveliness and beauty fairly entranc- 
 ing. It was a day for reveries, for poetic vis- 
 ions and artistic dreams, and communings with 
 Nature and Nature's God, amid the dim aisles 
 of the grand old forests, God's earliest and ho- 
 liest temples. But into the glowing harmonies 
 of a scene so perfect, came crashing along this 
 harsh, discordant note. What could it mean? 
 Had a bolt of forked lightning and an earth-riv- 
 ing peal of thunder fallen that instant from mid- 
 heaven, I could have been but slightly more 
 startled and astonished. The shock staggered 
 me for a moment, but presently ' ' Richard was 
 himself again," and I gently prevailed on my 
 friend to be seated. 
 
 "Now, my dear brother," said I, when at last 
 his hat was hanging gracefully on the rack, and 
 he was settled nicely in my old study-chair; 
 "now, my dear brother, ask as many questions 
 as you please, and I pledge you an immediate, 
 10
 
 146 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 straight, categorical reply. I will say yes or no, 
 or, I don't know, or whatever other word or 
 words the nature of your question may require. 
 Please say freely all you have it in your heart to 
 say." 
 
 Looking me straight in the eye, and relaxing 
 none of his firmness and fierceness of manner 
 and tone, he replied : 
 
 "Sir, did you tell Elder W , a few days 
 
 ago, that Dr. Lange translates Christ's word, 
 baptizing, by immersing? Did you tell him, sir, 
 that Lange translates John's words (Matt. iii. 1 1), 
 ' I indeed baptize you with water, ' by the words, 
 'I indeed immerse you in water?" 
 
 Returning his intense gaze with interest, I 
 
 replied: "Yes, sir, I told Elder W all that, 
 
 and more of the same sort." 
 
 "Why did you do it?" said he, his voice 
 trembling with excitement. 
 
 "Because," I replied, "I thought he ought 
 to know it." 
 
 "Now, sir," said he, "do you not know that 
 Lange is a pedobaptist, a prominent divine and 
 theologian in the Lutheran Church in Germany? 
 Do you not know, sir, that he practices sprink- 
 ling?" 
 
 "Certainly," said I, "that is all true; no one 
 doubts it"
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 147 
 
 "Yes," he replied, "no one doubts it; but 
 how, then, dare you make such statements about 
 him, as you confess you did make to a ruling 
 elder of my church? How dare you say that 
 he translates baptizo to immerse f " 
 
 "Why, sir," I answered, "I dared to say it 
 because it is true." 
 
 ' ' True ! " he cried ; ' ' true ! you surely do not 
 mean to persist in your strange statement, after 
 confessing that he practices sprinkling?" 
 
 "Why not," said I, "when it is true? As 
 you claim, he does practice sprinkling, but he 
 also translates baptizo, and its derivatives, to im- 
 merse t and thereby confesses that Christ has com- 
 manded him not to sprinkle but to immerse ; and 
 I have a right to state the fact it is a public 
 matter." 
 
 "I tell you," he replied, "there is some mis- 
 take about this. Your statement can not be 
 true. Dr. Lange is a good man, and a great 
 man, and he would never do a thing so absurd." 
 
 "Mr. K ," said I, "have you Dr. Lange's 
 
 work on Matthew in your library?" 
 
 "Why, yes, I have it," he replied. 
 
 "Well, then," I rejoined, "why did you not 
 examine it before coming here to accuse me of 
 misrepresentation." 
 
 "Why, sir," said he, "I knew it could not
 
 148 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 be true ; and I could not believe you had really 
 said so; and I thought, 'I will just run in and 
 ask him about it, and that will settle it. ' Of 
 course, I might have looked into the book, as 
 you say, but of what use would that be ? Dr. 
 Lange is a Lutheran. He practices sprinkling 
 habitually, and it is not possible that he trans- 
 lates baptizo to immerse, for that would condemn 
 his own practice." 
 
 I did not reply to this ; but taking Dr. Lange's 
 work on Matthew from a shelf just behind me, 
 I opened to Matt. iii. 1 1, and, handing the book to 
 
 Mr. K , I bade him read for himself. Then, 
 
 sitting down just in front of him, I watched his 
 countenance as he read. 
 
 Poor fellow ! I really pitied him. He grew 
 red and pale by turns; and no wonder, for there 
 he not only read, "I indeed immerse you in wa- 
 ter," but, also, "He that cometh after me . . . 
 shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire ;" 
 and then followed an elaborate explanation of 
 immersion as the symbol of a complete regenera- 
 tion, a change equivalent to a Death and a Res- 
 urrection, and all that from the pen of a great 
 and good man, who, contrary to his own trans- 
 lation of the divine Word, was in the habit of 
 sprinkling, instead of immersing, as the Lord 
 commands.
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 149 
 
 At last my friend looked up, the very picture 
 of astonishment, and in a bewildered but em- 
 phatic way, he said : 
 
 "How can a man write as this man does, and 
 still continue to practice sprinkling?" 
 
 "Ah," said I, "that is the problem; but you 
 see that I was correct, do you not ? You con- 
 cede that my statements about this matter were 
 true, do you not?" 
 
 "Oh, yes," he replied, "your statements are 
 true ; and I most heartily confess the gross in- 
 justice I have so foolishly and unwittingly done 
 you, and I earnestly beg your pardon for treat- 
 ing you as I did. I am very sorry for it, in- 
 deed." 
 
 "Say no more about that, my dear brother," 
 I responded. "I most heartily and fully for- 
 give you, and I sympathize with you most deep- 
 ly in your feeling of pain at the gross inconsist- 
 ency of those men who frankly confess that Jesus 
 enjoins immersion, and then coolly keep right 
 on sprinkling in his name. Do you know what 
 Dr. Chalmers says about immersion?" 
 
 "No, sir; I do not recollect that I ever saw 
 it," he replied. 
 
 I handed him "Chalmers Lectures on Romans, " 
 opened at page 152, at the beginning of his lec- 
 ture on Romans vi. 3-7, and here is what he
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 read from the pen of the greatest divine Scottish 
 Presbyterianism ever produced : 
 
 "The original meaning of the word baptism 
 is immersion; and though we regard it as a point 
 of indifTerency whether the ordinance so named 
 be performed in this way or by sprinkling ; yet 
 we doubt not that the prevalent style of the ad- 
 ministration in the apostles' days was by an act- 
 ual submerging of the whole body under water. 
 We advert to this for the purpose of throwing 
 light on the analogy that is instituted in these 
 verses. Jesus Christ by death underwent this 
 sort of baptism, even immersion under the sur- 
 face of the ground, whence he soon emerged 
 again by his resurrection. We, by being bap- 
 tized into his death, are conceived to have made 
 a similar translation : in the act of descending 
 under the water of baptism, to have resigned an 
 old life ; and, in the act of ascending, to emerge 
 into a second or a new life, along the course of 
 which it is our part to maintain a strenuous 
 avoidance of that sin which as good as expung- 
 ed the being that we had formerly, and a stren- 
 uous prosecution of that holiness which should 
 begin with the first moment that we were ush- 
 ered into our present being, and be perpetuated 
 and make progress toward the perfection of full 
 and ripened immortality."
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. i$t 
 
 As my friend read these grand words of the 
 great preacher, he seemed deeply troubled. At 
 length he closed the book, saying, as he did so : 
 
 "I can not understand it. How can a man 
 write as these men do, and still continue to prac- 
 tice sprinkling?" 
 
 "Ah, my friend," I replied, "that is a very 
 great mystery, but it is none the less a fact. If 
 you will carefully look into the matter, you will 
 find that nearly all of your great scholars, theo- 
 logians and divines write substantially as these 
 men write, and continue to practice substantial- 
 ly as these men practice. I will not accuse them ; 
 to his own Master must each of us answer. But 
 there stands the fact, open, undeniable, and to 
 me altogether unaccountable, that a great host 
 of men apparently wise and good men con- 
 tinue through life in open, plain, constant diso- 
 bedience to the command of Christ, themselves 
 being the judges. For if I affirm solemnly, and 
 as a public teacher, that Christ commands me to 
 do a certain thing, and that his apostles habit- 
 ually did that thing in obedience to his word, 
 and that the doing of it inculcates the great, 
 vital truths of Christianity keeps them before 
 the eye, as it were, in a solemn, religious tab- 
 leau and then I habitually refuse do what he 
 has commanded, and, instead of doing that, do
 
 152 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 something else that he has not commanded, and 
 do it, too, in his name, how can I deny that I 
 am habitually disobeying him ? 
 
 "I know full well the plea that these men 
 urge in defense of their strange conduct 'that 
 sprinkling will do just as well;' but how do they 
 know it will do just as well? His own plain 
 command is a sure proof that Jesus did not 
 think that sprinkling would do as well as immer- 
 sion. In his judgment, immersion is best is 
 necessary to the end lie has in view or he would 
 not require it. Did not he know all about the 
 greater convenience of sprinkling? Did not he 
 know all about the rigors of a northern winter, 
 and how necessary it would often be to cut the 
 ice in order to immerse? Did not he know as 
 much about the liability of ladies' clothing to 
 float on the water as do the men of this genera- 
 tion, who so shamelessly urge it as an element 
 of indecency? 
 
 "If he did not, then who is he more than an- 
 other man? But if he did, then who are these 
 'great and good men' that sit in judgment on 
 his command, and dare to condemn it as imprac- 
 ticable, or unwise, or in bad taste? Who are 
 these doctors who presume to tell us that sprink- 
 ling, which Christ did not command, will do as 
 well as immersion, which he did command?
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 53 
 
 Whence did they gain this wisdom, that they may 
 correct the judgment of the Lord? By what 
 authority do they set aside the authority of the 
 Christ, and tell us that obedience to his command 
 is a matter of indifferency ? 
 
 "Why, indifferency to the command of an 
 earthly king would justly be regarded as crim- 
 inal a fault to be swiftly and severely punished 
 and we are coolly told that it is a matter of 
 indifferency whether we obey Christ. 
 
 "Who are these daring counselors, these bold 
 innovators? 'Great men,' you say; wise men, 
 educated men, good men but men. However 
 great, however wise, however educated, how- 
 ever good ; they are, after all, men only men. 
 
 "Then these men themselves being judges 
 ask us to choose between men and Christ. 
 They set the Word of Christ before us; they 
 make it so plain that no room is left for doubt 
 about what he requires, and then they modestly 
 tell us in words, or by their own action, that 
 they know a better way. And that brings us 
 face to face with this simple yet awful prob- 
 lem : Which will we follow Christ or these great 
 men? Christ or these wise men? Christ or 
 these learned men ? Christ or these good men ? 
 Christ or men ? This is the whole matter in a 
 nutshell. Under which banner Christ or men?
 
 1 54 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Choose ye this day. If you are Christ's, march 
 under his banner, obey his command, submit to 
 his judgment, keep his word, and be immersed 
 simply because he commands it. But if you be- 
 long to these men, obey them decide, if you 
 dare, that obedience to Christ in the solemn act 
 of confession of discipleship is a matter of in- 
 differency, and please your own fancy. But be 
 not astonished when you hear the sorrowful voice 
 of your dishonored Lord asking of you that most 
 uncomfortable question: ' Why call ye me Lord, 
 Lord, and do not the things that I say?' 
 
 "I do not know, my brother, what you may 
 think of this matter ; but as for me, I prefer to 
 follow Christ in this as in everything else, and 
 that is the reason I became a Baptist. These 
 men testify truly that the original baptism the 
 baptism which our Lord instituted, which he 
 himself received in his own sacred person, and 
 which he commanded us to receive and to prac- 
 tice is an immersion of the body in water. 
 This testimony is extorted from them by the 
 force of resistless evidence against all their de- 
 nominational and churchly interests, and against 
 their own evident personal tastes and preferences ; 
 and it is true, as a rigid, impartial examination 
 never fails to demonstrate.
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 55 
 
 "And, my brother, every Christian man is shut 
 up to this alternative to obey Christ by being 
 immersed, or to disobey him by accepting some- 
 thing else on the strange and daring plea that 'it 
 will do just as well.' ' 
 
 In a short time my reverend friend took his 
 departure, a sad and thoughtful man. 
 
 Through a painful mistake he had made a very 
 painful discovery that there are professedly 
 Christian men who concede that Christ does re- 
 quire immersion, and who still persist in the prac- 
 tice of sprinkling. 
 
 I do not wonder that he was surprised and 
 grieved, and that he asked with such emphasis: 
 "How can a man write as this man does, and 
 still continue to practice sprinkling?" And yet 
 the state of mind which enables men to do that 
 is the sole defense of sprinkling and of infant 
 baptism to-day. Let conscience assert itself in 
 this matter, and put Christ on the throne mak- 
 ing his Word the word of a king in reality, a 
 word to be heard reverently, and to be obeyed 
 implicitly and immersion instantly assumes its 
 proper dignity as a gospel ordinance. 
 
 I said "conscience" advisedly; for it is the 
 lack of conscience, in respect to this one matter, 
 that keeps the practice of sprinkling afloat. Men
 
 156 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 do not intend to be disloyal to Christ in this 
 thing; but they have drifted into a dangerous 
 state, on the current of indifferency, lulled into 
 false security by the force of great names, and 
 the soothing murmur of a general assent. They 
 fondly fancy the Master does not care, because 
 he keeps silent, and utters no word of protest. 
 If you chide them, they say, ' ' Oh, it is only a 
 form," forgetting that back of the form is the 
 solemn command of our Lord enjoining it. 
 Only a form, but a divinely-chosen form a 
 form enforced by the authority of Christ him- 
 self. When a Christian man is fully awake to 
 this fact, he- can not be satisfied with some other 
 form than the one having divine approval. 
 
 It is idle to talk of it as "a mere question of 
 water;" nay, worse, it is wicked to do so, be- 
 cause such pretensions raise a false issue and ob- 
 scure the truth. It is a question of the kingly 
 authority of Christ. It is a question of the su- 
 premacy of his law. There stands the law, plain, 
 definite, explicit, positive, in full force. Only 
 the same authority that enacted it can repeal it 
 or in any way modify it, and that authority is 
 silent respecting its repeal. The sacred lips that 
 uttered the law of baptism have never, in any 
 way, intimated even the slightest modification
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 57 
 
 of it. How can a man ignore or disobey that 
 law, and have a good conscience toward God? 
 "Brethren, if our heart condemn us, God is 
 greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 

 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER XII. 
 
 ' ' What can you plead in behalf of your dear chil- 
 dren? You have rejected infant baptism, 
 and with it the Covenant of Circumcision made 
 with Abraham. What is there left ? What 
 can you now plead in behalf of your dear 
 children? " 
 
 " Your question is a fair one. I have indeed re- 
 jected infant baptism, and as for circum- 
 cision, I have nothing to do with it. I am 
 not a Jew, nor have I the least desire to be 
 one. And yet I have one plea to urge in be- 
 half of my dear children. It is a short, 
 simple plea, yet one of infinite value. I can 
 and I do plead in their behalf the blood of 
 Christ, and I would not give up this plea for 
 tens of thousands of Abrahams, and uncounted 
 Covenants of Circumcision. I am satisfied 
 with it." 
 
 SOME time after I had publicly renounced 
 infant baptism and sprinkling, I received a letter 
 from the wife of my former pastor. A descend- 
 ant of the old Puritan stock, she was a lady of
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 59 
 
 culture and refinement. A Christian of deep, 
 fervent piv-ly, she was also a zealous pedobap- 
 tist. Witli her, infant baptism was a very sacred 
 and blessed institution, dating back to Abraham. 
 In some way, to me unaccountable, she had come 
 to associate it inseparably with the covenants of 
 circumcision and of grace. It seemed to be 
 with her a matter of early training and of 
 reverent feeling, almost entirely. I do not 
 think she ever examined it as a question of truth. 
 I am confident she regarded it as a matter to be 
 received and held by faith alone, and that she 
 looked upon the intrusion of doubt respecting it 
 as a visitation of the evil one, to be instantly, 
 firmly and perpetually resisted and rejected, not 
 by investigation and argument, but by prayer 
 and a new resolution of faith and trust. An 
 amusing incident in her quiet, earnest life will 
 illustrate the great predominance of feeling over 
 judgment in determining her conduct. 
 
 She was visiting a dear friend in a distant city, 
 and while there (her friend being a member of 
 the "Disciples" Church), much was said to her 
 about the importance of submitting to baptism. 
 Of course, she had been sprinkled in infancy, 
 and she insisted firmly for a time that she was 
 all right, while her friend assured her that she
 
 I6O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 was really unbaptized, and therefore (in his 
 opinion) unsaved. At length he said to her: 
 
 ' ' You have long striven to follow the Savior, 
 and to attain to eternal life. You have done 
 many noble, Christly things but you have not 
 been baptized. You say it is not necessary in 
 order to be saved. Perhaps you are right, but 
 I think you are wrong. Now suppose you go 
 on in this way until you come to the judgment, 
 and then find that, after all, I am right, and that 
 your sins are not forgiven ; in a word, that you 
 are lost. Would not a discovery of the fact, at 
 that awful hour, be insupportable ? 
 
 ' . Is it not vastly better to be on the safe side ? 
 Remember that, if I am wrong, I am still safe ; 
 but if you are wrong, you are lost." 
 
 She made no reply ; but a few days after, 
 hearing that there were to be several baptisms 
 in the "Disciples" Church in the evening, she 
 timidly inquired of her friend whether his pastor 
 would baptize her, with the understanding that 
 she should continue a member of the Congrega- 
 tional Church. Her friend replied in the affirm- 
 ative, and then inquired whether she had changed 
 her views. 
 
 "No," she replied, " I have not ; but I have 
 been thinking about what you said some days 
 since about being on the right side. There is
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. l6l 
 
 much in that, and I have resolved to run no 
 needless risk ; and therefore I desire to be duly 
 immersed, and then I shall feel that I am certainly 
 safe." 
 
 And immersed she was though whether she 
 went on her way any more joyously on that 
 account, I can not say. 
 
 Of course my renunciation of pedobaptism 
 was a matter of great mystery and great pain to 
 her. She was a very warm, earnest, Christian 
 friend, and she had reposed great confidence in 
 me. When I announced my change of views, it 
 was a great shock to her, although she had known 
 for weeks that it was coming. 
 
 She could not easily become reconciled to it. 
 After a time she wrote me a letter, very kind 
 and very pathetic. In it she spoke freely of her 
 great sorrow at the step I had taken ; yet with 
 the sincerest expressions of friendship and 
 Christian affection. 
 
 She seemed to regard me as honest, but greatly 
 deluded as a wrong-doer, but not willfully so. 
 In her view, I was rather the victim of mis- 
 fortune than the blameworthy rejecter of divine 
 truth. Her Christian charity did great honor 
 to her heart, while her utter failure to grasp the 
 great questions at issue, and to weigh fairly the 
 reasons of my action, was not at all creditable to 
 II
 
 1 62 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 her head. And yet it was not the question of 
 any lack of mental power, or of mental discipline, 
 but of a vicious training which taught her to 
 refer all questions touching religion to the heart 
 rather than to the head ; thus giving up to the 
 guidance of blind feeling, in matters calling 
 urgently for the undimmed gaze of the "eye of 
 the mind " the very mistake which, to-day, 
 makes so many good men "blind leaders of the 
 blind." 
 
 Referring to the fact that my children had 
 been baptized in infancy, and that they were yet 
 very young, she wrote : 
 
 "What can you plead in behalf of your dear 
 children? You have rejected infant baptism, 
 and with it the Covenant of Circumcision made 
 with Abraham. What is there left ? What can 
 you now plead in behalf of your dear children?" 
 
 It really seemed as if she thought the salvation 
 of my children depended on the Covenant of 
 Circumcision ; that in some inscrutable way 
 their baptism had made them heirs of all its 
 benefits, and that among those benefits the chief 
 and crowning one is the salvation of the soul. In 
 having them baptized, I, as their natural guardian . 
 had really done no less than to place God under 
 a solemn covenant obligation to save them ; but 
 alas! in renouncing infant baptism, I had re-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 163 
 
 leased him from that covenant obligation. Hav- 
 ing rejected infant baptism before my children 
 were actually saved, I had forfeited all its benefits 
 for them, and put them again outside the pale 
 of the "covenanted mercies " of God. And if 
 infant baptism is not a lie, and a cheat, she was 
 right. 
 
 If there is any defense for it in the Word of 
 God, that defense is in the plea of circumcision. 
 Plainly there is no command, nor precept, nor 
 example, in the Scriptures, enjoining or justify- 
 ing it. The command to baptize is limited by 
 the context to such as believe, as nearly all pedo- 
 baptists admit. Every precept, or principle, or 
 illustration, in the divine Word, in any way 
 touching baptism, relates, evidently, to the bap- 
 tism of believers, and to such baptism only. 
 And every example of baptism relates to the 
 same class, and to them alone. The cases of 
 household baptism are no exception to this state- 
 ment, and furnish no pretense for the baptism of 
 infants, since it is simply impossible to prove the 
 existence of even one infant in any of those 
 households, and in most of them the context 
 makes it certain that all received instruction, be- 
 lieved in Christ, and rejoiced in him things 
 which infants are not in the habit of doing. 
 
 Glance at the cases of household baptism in
 
 164 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 detail. We have no hint, not the slightest, that 
 Lydia had either husband or children. The fact 
 that she was a merchant, away from her own 
 home (Acts xvi. 14, 15), renders it morally 
 certain that she was unmarried, and the record 
 of her conduct proves that she was a respectable, 
 virtuous lady. Taking into consideration the 
 known circumstances of her case, it is positively 
 cruel to pretend there were infants in her family. 
 If we were to assume as much about any respect- 
 able lady now living, we would call down upon 
 us a speedy and very just prosecution for defa- 
 mation of character. Dear old Sister Lydia can 
 not defend herself in that way ; but she is fairly 
 entitled to better treatment at the hands of 
 professed Christians, and I beg our pedobaptist 
 friends, in the interest of Christian morals and 
 decency, if for no other reason, to let her alone. 
 The members of her household are called 
 brethren (Acts xvi. 40); but sprinkled babes 
 are hardly brethren, those who sprinkle them 
 being judges. Besides this, Paul and Silas 
 "comforted " them (Acts xvi. 40). Were those 
 noble missionary ministers itinerant baby-tenders? 
 Did they talk baby-talk to one or more of those 
 "brethren ? " If I seem to talk foolishness, re- 
 member that I am replying to an unfounded 
 foolish pretense, one that sensible and pious
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 6$ 
 
 people ought to be ashamed to set up in defense 
 of anything. 
 
 The jailer's household were not only baptized, 
 all of them (Acts xvi. 33), but they were also 
 taught, all of them, before baptism (Acts xvi. 
 32), and they all believed in God, all of them 
 (Acts xvi. 34). To that sort of infant baptism 
 Baptists will be the very last persons to object. 
 
 The household of Crispus were baptized by 
 Paul (i Cor. i. 14), but they were all believers 
 (Acts xviii. 8). The household of Stephanas, 
 which Paul also baptized (i Cor. i. 16), were 
 certainly believers, since they all became min- 
 isters directly afterward, and were so worthy of 
 confidence that Paul directs the brethren at 
 Corinth to submit themselves unto them i. e., 
 to receive their instructions (i Cor. xvi. 15, 16). 
 
 The household of Gaius may possibly have 
 been baptized by the apostle, but as there is not 
 the slightest evidence that they were, nor that 
 Gaius had any household of any sort whatever, 
 it would seem hardly safe to assume that he had 
 a household, and in the household a babe, and 
 that Paul baptized that babe, in order to find 
 some shadow of excuse for infant baptism. 
 
 This whole matter of household baptisms 
 does not afford even an honest pretext for in- 
 fant baptism.
 
 166 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 1. The presence of an infant is not necessary 
 to the existence of a household. In my own 
 congregation, at this moment, there are more 
 than thirty well-regulated households without so 
 much as one infant in any of them. And this 
 word household is just as properly applied to 
 these families that are destitute of babes, as -to 
 any others ; and so it was anciently. Therefore, 
 the word household of itself proves just nothing 
 at all. 
 
 2. In every case of household baptism re- 
 corded in the New Testament, there is conclusive 
 proof that the entire household were believers. 
 These household baptisms, honestly studied, 
 justify, not infant baptism, but the baptism of 
 believers only. They are Baptist ammunition. 
 
 Nor can infant baptism be justified by the 
 incident in the life of our Lord, recorded in 
 Matt. xix. 13-15, Mark x. 13-16, and Luke 
 xviii. 15-17, commonly described as Jesus bless- 
 ing the little children. For Jesus did not bap- 
 tize them, nor even hint that they ought to be 
 baptized. His silence at such a lime is conclusive 
 proof that he does not desire their baptism. The 
 passage shows beyond a doubt that Jesus is not 
 a pedobaptist. It is the one grand incident in 
 his life in which he is called to deal directly with 
 little children as a class, He notices them, re-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. l6/ 
 
 ceives them, puts his hands on them, takes them 
 up in his arms and blesses them, but does not 
 utter one word about baptizing them ; therefore, 
 he did not intend they should be baptized. 
 
 This touching incident gives no countenance 
 to infant baptism. It is also Baptist ammunition 
 of the most effective sort, since it shows that 
 Baptists, in neglecting the baptism of infants, 
 are only following the undeniable example of 
 our Lord. 
 
 There remains only one possibility of vindicat- 
 ing infant baptism from the Scriptures. If the 
 Covenant of Circumcision is still in force, and if 
 the form of the rite has been changed by divine 
 direction into baptism ; then the baptism of in- 
 fants, under certain conditions, is an imperative 
 duty. Is the Covenant of Circumcision still in 
 force ? and has the form of the rite been changed 
 by divine direction into baptism ? Suppose we 
 look into this matter. 
 
 The Covenant of Circumcision was given to 
 Abraham, and is recorded in Genesis, chapter 
 XVII. It is in these words: 
 
 "i. And when Abram was ninety years old 
 and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and 
 said unto him, I am the Almighty God : walk 
 before me, and be thou perfect. 
 
 "2. And I will make my covenant between
 
 1 68 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 
 
 "3. And Abram fell on his face: and God 
 talked with him, saying, 
 
 ' '4. As for me, behold, my covenant is with 
 thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 
 
 "5. Neither shall thy name any more be 
 called Abram ; but thy name shall be Abraham : 
 for a father of many nations have I made thee. 
 
 "6. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, 
 and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall 
 come out of thee. 
 
 "7. And I will establish my covenant between 
 me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their 
 generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a 
 God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 
 
 "8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy 
 seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a- 
 stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlast- 
 ing possession ; and I will be their God. 
 
 "9. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt 
 keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed 
 after thee, in their generations. 
 
 "10. This is my covenant, which ye shall 
 keep between me and you, and thy seed after 
 thee. Every man-child among you shall be cir- 
 cumcised. 
 
 "II, And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 169 
 
 foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant 
 betwixt me and you. 
 
 "12. And he that is eight days old shall be 
 circumcised among you, every man-child in your 
 generations ; he that is born in the house, or 
 bought with money of any stranger, which is not 
 of thy seed. 
 
 "13. He that is born in thy house, and he 
 that is bought with thy money, must needs be 
 circumcised ; and my covenant shall be in your 
 flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
 
 "14. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose 
 flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul 
 shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken 
 my covenant." 
 
 In the last five verses we have Abraham's idea 
 of his part of this covenant in his method of 
 applying it: 
 
 "23. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and 
 all that were born in his house, and all that were 
 bought with his money, every male among the 
 men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the 
 flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as 
 God had said unto him. 
 
 "24. And Abraham was ninety years old and 
 nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of 
 his foreskin. 
 
 "2$. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years
 
 I/O BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his 
 foreskin. 
 
 "26. In the selfsame day was Abraham cir- 
 cumcised, and Jshmael his son ; 
 
 "27. And all the men of his house, born in 
 the house, and bought with money of the stranger, 
 were circumcised with him." 
 
 Is this Covenant of Circumcision still in force ? 
 This is not a new question. It arose at Antioch 
 in the days of the apostles, and troubled the 
 brethren there greatly. For certain men went 
 there from J udea, and taught the people: ' 'Except 
 ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye 
 can not be saved." Paul and Barnabas contra- 
 dicted them, but they insisted upon it, and the 
 church was in a great commotion about it. At 
 last, to set the matter at rest, they sent a com- 
 mittee, headed by Paul and Barnabas, to Jeru- 
 salem, to consult the apostles and elders about 
 it. After a very earnest consultation, the apostles 
 and elders decided unanimously that circumcision 
 was not necessary, and they sent chosen men, 
 Judas and Silas, with Paul and Barnabas, to tell 
 the brethren at Antioch, in substance, that they 
 need not be circumcised. Read the fifteenth 
 chapter of Acts, and you will see that this first 
 great Council of the Church, under the direction 
 and by the advice of the inspired apostles, set
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. I/ 1 
 
 aside circumcision as a matter not binding on 
 the Church of Christ. 
 
 It is true, they expressed themselves very 
 cautiously, for they were in great danger of ex- 
 citing a deadly persecution against themselves, 
 surrounded as they were by zealous Jews ; but 
 their letter to the church at Antioch is sufficiently 
 explicit. 
 
 The refusal to enforce circumcision upon the 
 church at Antioch was a deliberate, intentional 
 notice to them, and to Christians everywhere, 
 that it is not an institution of Christianity. I 
 affirm, therefore, by the authority of the apostles 
 of our Lord, that the Covenant of Circumcision 
 is not in force among Christians. 
 
 Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, denounces 
 circumcision as opposed to the gospel. (Gal. 
 v. 2.) "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if 
 ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you 
 nothing." And in the eleventh verse of the 
 same chapter he says: "And I, brethren, if I 
 yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer per- 
 secution? then is the offense of the cross ceased." 
 
 If circumcision is still in force, why did not 
 Paul preach it ? If it is a part of Christianity, 
 why did he say, "If ye be circumcised, Christ 
 shall profit you nothing?" If circumcision is
 
 1/2 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 still in force, then Paul did not know it, or he is 
 a deceiver. 
 
 But it is said the form of circumcision is 
 changed to baptism. But if this be true, why 
 did not the Council at Jerusalem tell the brethren 
 at Antioch that they were already circumcised 
 by baptism ? If it be true, why did not Paul tell 
 the brethren of Galatia that they were already 
 circumcised by baptism ? If it be true, why were 
 any baptized who had been circumcised? 
 
 If it be true, then all who are baptized are 
 thereby circumcised, and Christ profits them 
 nothing, since Paul says (Gal. v. 2), "If ye be 
 circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." 
 If it be true, then all baptized persons, being 
 thereby circumcised, are bound to do the whole 
 law, Paul being judge, for he says (Gal. v. 3), 
 "For I testify again to every man that is circum- 
 cised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." 
 If it be true then, every baptized person, being 
 thereby circumcised, is fallen into endless troubles 
 and contradictions. 
 
 For, being circumcised, he has become a Jew, 
 and as such he is an heir with them of the 
 earthly Canaan, and he is subject, with them, to 
 all the laws and ordinances of the Theocracy. 
 Having become a circumcised man by baptism, 
 in the very act by which he intended, solemnly
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 73 
 
 and publicly, to "put on Christ," and avow 
 himself a Christian, he has unwittingly "put on 
 Moses" and henceforth Christ avails him noth- 
 ing; while, in addition to his own crushing burden 
 of personal guilt, as a wretched sinner, he comes 
 in for his share of the curse resting upon the 
 Jews for their rejection of our Lord. At the 
 same time, being by his circumcision ' ' a debtor 
 to do the whole law " (Gal. v. 3), he has no other 
 way of justification open to him than by the law, 
 and he is, therefore, fallen from grace. (Gal. v. 
 4). But by the law salvation is impossible, for 
 " By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be 
 justified in his sight : for by the law is the knowl- 
 edge of sin." (Rom. iii. 20). 
 
 Absurd? Yes but the legitimate and in- 
 evitable result of this absurd notion that circum- 
 cision is still in force in the form of baptism. 
 
 No, circumcision is not in force. Christ 
 abolished it: "Blotting out the handwriting of 
 ordinances that was against us, which was con- 
 trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing 
 it to his cross. " (Col. ii. 14. ) And the Council 
 at Jerusalem quietly dropped it as a thing no 
 longer binding an action the more significant 
 from the fact that it was advocated by such 
 inspired Jews as Paul and Peter and James, and
 
 174 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 was approved by all the apostles and elders, the 
 most of whom were certainly Jews. 
 
 And Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, 
 did not preach it, but constantly warned the 
 Christian brethren to let it alone telling them, 
 in effect, that they could not have both Christ 
 and circumcision ; that if they were circumcised 
 they would thereby forfeit Christ, and henceforth 
 he would profit them nothing. And yet, in the 
 vain hope of justifying infant baptism, men claim- 
 ing to be Christians tell us that, after all, cir- 
 cumcision is not nailed to the cross ; is not 
 opposed to Christ ; is not abolished, but is still 
 in full force, in the form of baptism. When 
 asked to name the chapter and verse wherein 
 this change of form is authorized, they are silent. 
 When called upon to vindicate the conduct of 
 the apostles and elders in the Council of Jeru- 
 salem, they are dumb. When requested to 
 explain how it is that Paul who, according to 
 their statements, was all the time preaching, and, 
 at least sometimes, practicing circumcision 
 could honestly denounce circumcision, and affirm 
 defiantly that he did not preach it, they are 
 speechless. 
 
 When we inquire how it happened that the 
 existence of circumcision, under the form of 
 baptism, escaped the notice of the entire Christian
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1/5 
 
 world until so recently, they ought to blush with 
 modest worth, but they suddenly become wonder- 
 fully deaf, and of course attempt no reply. 
 
 The truth is, this whole pretended argument 
 for infant baptism from circumcision is an after- 
 thought a contrivance cooked up to meet a 
 desperate emergency. Its weakness is exceeded 
 only by its audacity, unscripturalness and endless 
 inconsistencies. Its existence is a reflection on 
 the piety of modern times, while the fact that 
 any considerable number of men continue to 
 employ it as a defense of the practice of infant 
 baptism is a severe impeachment of the intelli- 
 gence of Christendom in this progressive age. 
 
 Circumcision was a strictly Jewish rite. It 
 began with Abraham and ended with Moses. 
 It did not begin with the Dispensation of Prom- 
 ise. It was injected into that dispensation at a 
 certain time, as a surety and means of the ful- 
 fillment of those temporal promises which were 
 to prepare the way for Christ. 
 
 There was no Christ in circumcision, but it 
 was designed and fitted to become the bond of 
 a new national life, through which in due time 
 he might appear. Abraham saw in it the begin- 
 ning of the fulfillment of the long-deferred prom- 
 ises of future temporal greatness. It was to him 
 an explicit, visible pledge of a numerous and
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 powerful posterity, and for this reason it was to 
 him a seal, or confirmation, of the faith and con- 
 fidence in the promises of God which he had 
 cherished so long and so patiently. This was 
 its only connection with faith. Abraham saw in 
 it an earnest of the realization of his long-de- 
 ferred hope and trust. It was, therefore, to him 
 a seal of his faith ; but he received it, not be- 
 cause he was a saint, but because he was to be- 
 come the Father of many nations, and especial- 
 ly of that particular nation through whom the 
 Messiah should come. And his sons and his 
 slaves and the sons of his slaves received it, not 
 because they had faith, or were by and by to 
 have it, but solely because they were his sons, 
 or his slaves, or the sons of his sons, or the sons 
 of his slaves, and, therefore, citizens of that new 
 nation of which God had constituted him the 
 founder and the head. They were entitled to 
 it, not by faith, present or prospective, but by 
 natural birth in the nation, in which it was the 
 badge of citizenship. As a Jewish rite, it had 
 its uses as a pledge or token of certain great 
 temporal rights and privileges; but when Juda- 
 ism gave place to Christianity, it was abolished 
 along with the nationality of which it was the 
 bond and the badge, and the Covenant of Works >
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. Iff 
 
 of which it had also become the recognized 
 bond. 
 
 Some, indeed, imagine that it still survives 
 under the form of baptism. But if so, it has 
 undergone a most complete and wonderful trans- 
 formation such a transformation as utterly de- 
 stroys its identity, and converts it into a some- 
 thing in every way unlike its own former self, 
 and in everything fatally opposed to it. 
 
 As to outward form, what can be more unlike 
 than circumcision and baptism the one a bloody 
 cutting, the other a bloodless bathing ? 
 
 As a religious type or symbol, while it 'is not 
 opposed in signification to baptism, it is almost 
 immeasurably inferior to it. 
 
 It symbolizes a putting off the sins of the flesh 
 a circumcision of the heart but it does not 
 even hint of the means of that circumcision, nor 
 does it intimate the completeness of it. It in- 
 dicates a lopping off of old evils a partial re- 
 form in life but it gives no promise of a new 
 life, a divine life, charged to overflowing with 
 good. 
 
 But not so baptism. That tells in its very 
 form, not only of a cleansing, but of a change 
 radical as death, and vitalizing as the resurrec- 
 tion. It symbolizes, not a mere lopping off of 
 rotten limbs, but a dying to the old life of sin 
 12
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 and a rising into a new life of holiness ; and all 
 this through the death and resurrection of our 
 Lord. The one voices the demand of the law, 
 the other describes, in eloquent action, the amaz- 
 ing victory of the Cross. The one is a " yoke 
 of bondage," making those who receive it debt- 
 ors to do the whole law ; the other is a badge 
 of liberty and life, assuring all observers that all 
 who rightly receive it have passed from the bond- 
 age and death of law into the freedom and light 
 and life of the gospel. 
 
 The one is the badge of citizenship in a tem- 
 poral kingdom, and attests only a natural birth 
 into a certain temporal nationality ; the other is 
 the badge of citizenship in a spiritual kingdom, 
 and attests a spiritual birth into the kingdom of 
 God. 
 
 The one belongs to the Covenant of Law, 
 which says, "This do and live;" the other be- 
 longs to the Covenant of Grace, which says, 
 "Believe and live." 
 
 The one is the natural birthright of all the 
 male children of a certain nation, and of all their 
 male servants and proselytes, no matter what 
 their moral character; the other is the spiritual 
 birthright of such, and only such, as are born 
 of God, male or female. 
 
 The one is the token and badge of the Juda-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 1/9 
 
 ism whose letter killeth ; the other is the token 
 and badge of that Christianity whose spirit giv- 
 eth life. 
 
 In a word, circumcision and baptism are as 
 unlike in all respects as law and grace, as Moses 
 and Christ, as Sinai and the Cross, as bondage 
 and liberty, as death and life. They are not, 
 they can not be, one and the same. 
 
 Baptism is not circumcision in disguise, but 
 the new, divine, gospel rite, ordained by infinite 
 wisdom as a perpetual and complete epitome of 
 the central, vitalizing truths of the gospel of 
 Christ; and, as such, it has nothing in common 
 with Judaism, or its antiquated and bloody cere- 
 monial rites. It comes to us, fresh from the heart 
 and the lips of Christ, eloquent with his spirit 
 and with his truth. 
 
 But Paul says (Col. ii. 11): "In whom also 
 ye are circumcised with the circumcision, made 
 without hands, in putting off the body of the 
 sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." 
 
 " Does he not mean that we were, in some 
 way, thus circumcised in the person of the infant 
 Christ?" Nay. The circumcision here spok- 
 en of is evidently that work of grace which he 
 wrought in their hearts by his spirit a work of 
 which circumcision proper was only an imper- 
 fect symbol, and not that work wrought in his
 
 ISO BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 flesh when he was circumcised on the eighth 
 day. That fleshly circumcision was made with 
 hands, but this without hands. That put off a bit 
 of the flesh of a sinless man, but this "puts off 
 the body of the sins of the flesh " for sinful men. 
 That was a carnal ordinance, this is a spiritual 
 renewal. That was an act of obedience to the 
 letter of the law, this is an effect of the opera- 
 tion of divine grace. That was a characteristic 
 of the dispensation of types and shadows, this 
 is the crowning glory of the dispensation of spir- 
 itual realities. That simply certified that Jesus 
 was a Jew, and, as such, entitled to all the rights 
 and immunities of a Jew; this made those Colos- 
 sians genuine Christians, heirs and trophies of 
 the regenerating grace of God. 
 
 But we are told that circumcision still survives 
 in baptism, the latter being the badge of mem- 
 bership in the church now, as circumcision was 
 anciently. This information would be very im- 
 portant, indeed, if it were true. It assumes the 
 identity of the Christian Church and the Jewish 
 Commonwealth an assumption not only not 
 true, but utterly and hopelessly false, in every 
 particular. 
 
 The ancient Jewish Commonwealth was simply 
 a religious nationality a nation under theocratic 
 government. The Christian Church is a spiritual
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. l8l 
 
 body, having properly no political or national 
 character or functions. 
 
 Take the Apostolic Church at Jerusalem and 
 contrast it with the Jewish Commonwealth : 
 
 The one was composed of natural men, the 
 other of regenerate men. In the one piety was 
 not necessary in order to membership, in the 
 other it was the chief qualification. 
 
 To the one were added daily by natural birth 
 all male children of Jewish parents, to the other 
 were added daily by spiritual birth such only as 
 were saved. The one was made up chiefly of 
 worldly, impenitent persons, with whom religion 
 was an affair of forms and ceremonies and state- 
 craft ; the other was composed chiefly, if not en- 
 tirely, of persons with whom religion was a mat- 
 ter of heart and life persons who gave evidence 
 of genuine penitence and living faith, and who 
 willingly gave up all for Christ. 
 
 The members of the one boasted the law of 
 God written on tables of stone, but ignored it 
 in their lives. The members of the other had 
 that law written on their hearts, and illustrated 
 it in their lives. 
 
 The one institution was built on the Covenant 
 of Works: "This do, and thou shalt live;" the 
 other was erected on a better covenant, the Cove- 
 nant of Grace: "Believe on the Lord Jesus
 
 1 82 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The one had 
 the Levitical priesthood, with Aaron at its head ; 
 the other had but one priest, Jesus the Son of 
 God. 
 
 The contrast could not well be more complete. 
 The Christian Church is a new institution, dis- 
 tinct from the old Jewish economy, and totally 
 different from it in all things ; having a new and 
 better covenant, a new and better sacrifice, a new 
 and better high priest, new and better promises, 
 a spiritual membership, admitted on new and 
 better conditions, and by new and better tests 
 of fitness. 
 
 If a man could demonstrate that black is white, 
 that darkness is light, that evil is good, that sick- 
 ness is health, that death is life ; then, perchance, 
 he might be able to prove that the old Jewish 
 Commonwealth and the Church of Christ are one 
 and the same. 
 
 They are not the same in any just sense what- 
 ever. They have not the oneness of identity, 
 nor of continuity, nor yet of similarity. They 
 have only the same God, and a part of his ora- 
 cles of divine truth in common. And being so 
 entirely unlike in all else, they are also wholly 
 unlike in their badges of membership. 
 
 But suppose, for a moment, that the ancient 
 Jewish Commonwealth and the Church of Christ
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 183 
 
 are really one, and that circumcision does sur- 
 vive in the form of baptism, and that children 
 ought to be admitted into this Jewish Christian 
 Church now by baptism, as they were anciently 
 admitted into the Jewish Commonwealth by cir- 
 cumcision. Admit all this and what follows? 
 Why, nothing less than this: The Church must 
 have a High Priest in its earthly sanctuary, as 
 anciently. It must have its priests and Levites. ' 
 It must have its heads of tribes, its Sanhedrim, 
 and its voice of authority which none may dis- 
 pute. And when it has all these things, what is 
 it but the Church of Rome? And if this plea 
 for infant baptism from circumcision is valid at 
 all, it proves that the Church of Rome is the 
 true apostolic, Jewish Church of Christ, and that 
 all other churches are schismatic, heretical sects. 
 And this puts Luther and Calvin, Knox, Cran- 
 mer and Wesley into a most unpleasant plight. 
 For it exhibits them as most unsaintly schism- 
 atics, opposing the Pope and the true Church. 
 
 When our Protestant brethren have succeeded 
 in proving the identity of the Jewish Common- 
 wealth and the Church of Christ, their first duty 
 will be to cease their protest against Rome, and 
 to seek immediate reconciliation with her as the 
 only true Church. . 
 
 But I submit that an argument which involves
 
 184 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 the inevitable overthrow of Protestantism is pre- 
 sumptively false, and ought not to be received 
 by sincere Protestants, except as the result of 
 the most careful scrutiny, and in obedience to 
 the most rigid and undeniable proofs of its ab- 
 solute truthfulness. If this circumcision-baptism 
 theory could be proven, .it would not only sus- 
 tain infant baptism, but the Pope, the College 
 of Cardinals and the entire machinery of Roman- 
 ism. If true, it is the death-knell of Protestant- 
 ism. 
 
 Protestant ministers engaged in the vain at- 
 tempt to substantiate it could not possibly do 
 anything more absurd and hopeless, nor can the 
 wisest friend of Romanism devise a scheme more 
 perfectly adapted to destroy the last vestiges of 
 Protestantism and to give Rome universal and 
 perpetual dominion. The only safety of the 
 Protestant, and the only despair of the Roman- 
 ist, is in the utter absence of proof of this theory ; 
 nay, the presence of undeniable, overwhelming 
 evidence that this entire claim of identity is false. 
 
 But, again, suppose we concede for a moment 
 all that the most ardent devotee of infant bap- 
 tism will claim, that the Covenant of Circumcis- 
 ion is now in force in the Church of Christ ; that 
 this covenant includes the Covenant of Grace 
 ("In thee shall all the families of the earth be
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 185 
 
 blessed." Gen. xii. 3), and that the form of 
 circumcision has been changed into baptism. 
 Then these are some of the consequences that 
 inevitably follow : 
 
 I. Male servants and slaves must be baptized, 
 for such were circumcised. 
 
 II. Females must not be baptized, since they 
 were not circumcised. 
 
 III. All the male children of members of the 
 Church must be baptized on the eighth day, for 
 that is the day named in the covenant. 
 
 IV. All males who are thus baptized are to be 
 reckoned as the natural descendants of Abraham, 
 entitled to all the privileges and bound by all the 
 obligations of Judaism. 
 
 V. There are now no Jews in the world, ex- 
 cept such as are baptized, since circumcision is 
 performed now by baptism. 
 
 VI. The Church of Christ, and that alone, is 
 the true owner of the earthly Canaan. 
 
 VII. All who are not baptized are forever 
 lost, for the male child which was not circum- 
 cised was to be cut off from his people. He 
 had no right to the benefits of that covenant, 
 and if that was the Covenant of Grace, he was 
 forever lost. If, therefore, baptism is the new 
 form of circumcision, then no unbaptized person 
 can have the benefits of the Covenant of Cir-
 
 1 86 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 cumcision; and if that covenant be really the 
 Covenant of Grace, then it follows beyond a 
 peradventure that no unbaptized person can be 
 saved. 
 
 Thus this boasted circumcision argument car- 
 ries with it such consequences as demonstrate 
 to every sane mind its utter falsity. 
 
 Do you wonder that I replied to the appeal 
 of my old pastor's wife in terms indicating little 
 respect for the Abrahamic Covenant of Circum- 
 cision as a warrant for infant baptism? That 
 covenant was a good thing in its day. It served 
 its purpose admirably, and then it gave place to 
 a better and bloodless covenant resting on the 
 one offering of Christ, and assuring spiritual and 
 eternal blessings. 
 
 God's Covenant of Grace made with Abraham 
 twenty-four years before the Covenant of Cir- 
 cumcision, I did not and do not reject. That 
 was confirmed in Christ by the very same act 
 by which the Covenant of Circumcision was 
 taken away and nailed to his cross. That Cove- 
 nant of Grace is open to all. Baptism can not 
 secure its benefits, nor can the lack of baptism 
 forfeit them. If it were otherwise, then bap- 
 tism would have power to save, and the absence 
 of baptism would render salvation impossible. 
 
 But some tell us that Christians are children
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. l/ 
 
 of Abraham that they are called the seed of 
 Abraham. Yes, but in what sense? Not in the 
 sense of natural generation, surely! No one 
 believes a thing so ridiculously absurd as that! 
 What then? Why, in a spiritual sense only. 
 Abraham believed God and his faith became 
 an eminent example and illustration of all true 
 faith. So he is called, by way of eminence, the 
 father of the faithful. If then you believe God, 
 you are a child of Abraham in the sense that 
 you do as he did. You follow his example. You 
 become, by your faith, a member of the great 
 company of believers, of which, because of the 
 priority and eminence of his faith, Abraham has 
 been called the father, and in that sense, and in 
 that alone, are you his seed. 
 
 Does it follow that your child, born of your 
 flesh, is of the seed of Abraham? By no means. 
 Your child can become a child of Abraham only 
 in the same sense, and in the same way, that you 
 did by believing God for himself. This is as 
 plain as that two and two make four ; and yet pious 
 pedobaptist ministers are often conveniently blind 
 to it. But a man who refuses to see it, ought not 
 to wonder if men doubt his intelligence or the 
 purity of his motives ; they can not help it, and 
 generally, as the more charitable way, they will
 
 188 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 give him credit for honesty at the expense of 
 his judgment and good sense. 
 
 Being yourself a child of Abraham by faith, 
 it is your privilege and your duty to endeavor 
 by a holy life, by faithful instruction, and by 
 earnest prayer, to induce your children to exer- 
 cise a like faith, and to become thereby heirs with 
 you of the heavenly inheritance. It is your priv- 
 ilege and your duty to do all you can to bring 
 your dear ones to God, but you can do it only 
 by way of the cross. The way to heaven is not 
 by infant baptism, but by way of Christ cruci- 
 fied. Go with your dear ones to Gethsemane, 
 and Calvary, and Olivet. Show them the dear 
 Master agonizing and dying for their sins, and 
 ascending to the Father; and if that does not 
 bring them to penitence, and faith, and hope, 
 you may rest assured that the baptismal font is 
 of no use. If they will not heed the dying, 
 risen Savior, you may depend upon it, they will 
 not care for Abraham, nor for any or all of his 
 covenants. 
 
 And when you carry their case to the throne 
 of mercy, your weary, aching heart will need 
 no other plea than the blood of Jesus. Indeed, 
 that is the only plea that can find admission 
 there. The devout Catholic may plead the name 
 of the Virgin Mary there, but it can not be
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 189 
 
 heard. The devout pedobaptist may plead the 
 name of Abraham, but all in vain. Only one 
 name can avail there the name of Jesus. "If 
 ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." 
 That is a full warrant for claiming all you need, 
 and it is from the lips of our Lord himself. All 
 power in heaven and on earth is in his hands, 
 and he is able to redeem every promise with 
 absolute certainty. Bring your dear ones, then, 
 in the arms of faith, not to the baptismal font, 
 on doubtful authority at the best on a supposed 
 authority that has never yet been clearly vindi- 
 cated, and that apparently never can be but 
 directly to Christ, and plead his own precious 
 promise. In this you will be doing right beyond 
 any doubt for Christ himself invites you to do 
 so in these blessed words: "Ask and receive, 
 that your joy may be full," and "Ask, and it 
 shall be given unto you." 
 
 Many years have passed since I received the 
 letter from my dear old pastor's wife, asking me 
 so pathetically, "What can you plead in behalf 
 of your dear children ? You have rejected in- 
 fant baptism, and with it the Covenant of Cir- 
 cumcision made with Abraham. What is there 
 left? What can you now plead in behalf of your 
 dear children?" and I am only the more firmly 
 convinced each passing year, that Christ is still
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 left me, and that his name and his blood are an 
 all-sufficient plea, and I still adhere to my reply : 
 "Your question is a fair one. I have indeed 
 rejected infant baptism, and as for circumcision, 
 I have nothing to do with it. I am not a Jew, 
 nor have I the least desire to be one. And yet 
 I have one plea to urge in behalf of my dear 
 children. It is a short and simple plea, yet one 
 of infinite value. I can and I do plead in their 
 behalf the blood of Jesus, and I would not give 
 up this plea for tens of thousands of Abrahams, 
 and uncounted Covenants of Circumcision. I 
 am satisfied with it."
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. IQI 
 
 NUMBER XIII. 
 
 "7 like tJte Baptists very much. Tliey are a good 
 people. But tJiere is one thing about them that 
 / never could understand, and that is tlieir 
 close communion. f can not see why they 
 should be so narrow." 
 
 WHILE pastor of the Baptist Church in the 
 city of P , I formed the acquaintance of Sis- 
 ter M , a most excellent Christian lady, a 
 
 member of the Presbyterian Church. She was 
 an elderly lady a mother in Israel always in- 
 terested in every good work, and very fond of 
 Christian conversation. She was too infirm to 
 go abroad much, and at her request, I often call- 
 ed at her house to talk over the interests of the 
 Master's work, especially in our city. 
 
 One day she surprised me by alluding to our 
 denominational differences, a matter which had 
 never before been mentioned in our interviews. 
 After speaking of the zeal of certain members 
 of my church in the cause of temperance, she 
 continued : 
 
 " I like the Baptists very much. They are a
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 good people. But there is one thing about them 
 I never could understand, and that is their close 
 communion. I can not see why they should be 
 so narrow." 
 
 Thus challenged, I thought it my duty to aid 
 her in the solution of this very strange problem, 
 so troublesome to so many of the dear disciples 
 of the Master. So I said : 
 
 4< Do you really desire to understand our close 
 communion?" 
 
 "Certainly I do." 
 
 ' ' Well, I think I can make it plain to you in 
 a.few moments." 
 
 "If you can, I wish you would. It would 
 be a great relief to me to know that they have 
 a good reason for it." 
 
 "Very well, I will try. You are a Presby- 
 terian, I believe, are you not?" 
 
 " Yes, sir ; I have been a member of the Pres- 
 byterian Church from childhood." 
 
 "Do you fully indorse the doctrines and us- 
 ages of the Presbyterian Church?" 
 
 ' ' Certainly, sir ; I am a thorough Presbyterian, 
 in all respects. " 
 
 "Then you believe in the Presbyterian views 
 and usages respecting the Lord's Supper?" 
 
 "Of course; I think they are scriptural and 
 right."
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. Ip3 
 
 "Well, let us see if we understand those views 
 and usages alike. Presbyterians believe and 
 teach that the Lord's Supper is a Church ordi- 
 nance, and that only those who are members of 
 the Church in good standing are entitled to par- 
 take of it. They also believe and teach that bap- 
 tized persons only are members in good stand- 
 ing in any gospel Church. In other words, Pres- 
 byterians hold that only such persons have a 
 right to that table as are members, baptized 
 members, of evangelical churches, and they in- 
 vite such and such only. Am I correct in this 
 statement of their views and practice?" 
 
 "Yes, sir; you have stated our views and 
 practice precisely." 
 
 "And you believe them fully?" 
 
 "I do ; I have no doubt that they are script- 
 ural and true." 
 
 "Then, if I am not mistaken, you believe 
 firmly that scriptural baptism and church-mem- 
 bership are prerequisites to the Lord's table; 
 that faith is not enough to entitle any one to 
 appear there; and in this view you agree with 
 the membership of the Presbyterian Church?" 
 
 "You are not mistaken. That is just what 
 
 we believe and practice. We all think that a 
 
 person who is not baptized, and who is not also 
 
 a member in good standing in some evangelical 
 
 '3
 
 194 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 church, ought not to go to the Lord's table. 
 He ought first to be baptized and unite with 
 some church, and then take"the Supper." 
 
 "Exactly. And you think that those who 
 are sprinkled are baptized, and therefore you 
 invite them." 
 
 "To be sure we do. We accept sprinkling 
 as valid baptism, and we regard infant sprinkling, 
 too, as real baptism ; but we do not reject im- 
 mersion as baptism. We regard you Baptists as 
 baptized believers, and would welcome you to 
 the Lord's table among us. Why do you not 
 welcome us to the Lord's table in your churches ?" 
 
 "Ah ! that's the point precisely. But I think 
 you can answer that question yourself. Suppose 
 now, my sister, that you wake up some bright 
 morning holding precisely the same views re- 
 specting admission to the Lord's table that you 
 now hold, but firmly convinced that immersion 
 upon a public profession of faith in the Lord 
 Jesus is the only scriptural baptism, and that 
 sprinkling is not baptism at all, what would you 
 be then ? What could you be but a close com- 
 munion Baptist?" 
 
 "Oh, I see it at last; I see it. Of course, I 
 should be a Baptist, and that without changing 
 my views about communion one bit. It is close 
 baptism that makes it seem such close commun-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. Ip5 
 
 ion. How much I have wronged you Baptists 
 by my hard thoughts and cruel words about your 
 narrowness and "bigotry ; while it is all the while 
 a noble, firm fidelity to principle. I hope you 
 will forgive me, for I did it ignorantly, and rest 
 assured I shall never again complain of close 
 communion." 
 
 That good sister did not become a Baptist 
 being satisfied with her sprinkling but she gave 
 Baptists due credit for their integrity, in abiding 
 the just consequences of their own convictions 
 of Bible truth and Christian duty. 
 
 Happening in the city of X one day on 
 
 business, and hearing a church bell, I dropped 
 in, hoping to hear a sermon. I was not disap- 
 pointed. The church was United Presbyterian, 
 and the preacher (a wide-awake Scotchman) de- 
 livered an inspiring sermon. In it he discoursed 
 of Christian charity. Alluding "to the Baptists, 
 and the abuse heaped upon them as close com- 
 munionists, he said : 
 
 "The Baptists are no more chargeable with 
 close communion than are the Presbyterians. 
 They hold, in common with us, and, indeed, in 
 common with the great body of evangelical Chris- 
 tians, that baptism is a scriptural prerequisite to 
 the Lord's table. They are firmly convinced that 
 immersion only is baptism; and therefore, as
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 honest Christians, they can not invite to that 
 table any who have not been immersed. All 
 honor to the Baptists for their firm maintenance 
 of principle in the face of bitter opposition. Let 
 no man twit them of close communion. It is 
 not a question about communion, but about bap- 
 tism. We have no controversy with them about 
 communion. It is a controversy about baptism, 
 and about baptism only. We think they are 
 wrong about baptism. Let us reason with them 
 about that, and try to convince them that they 
 are mistaken ; but let us be honest and confess 
 that if they are right about baptism, they are 
 right about all the rest." 
 
 As I was an entire stranger to the congrega- 
 tion, and to the preacher, I knew that he had not 
 said these things to flatter me, but because he 
 was a well-informed, honest man, and loved to 
 speak the truth. 
 
 In the beginning of my ministry, before I was 
 ordained, I invited a Presbyterian minister to oc- 
 cupy my pulpit on communion Sabbath and ad- 
 minister the Lord's Supper, and he accepted my 
 invitation. 
 
 There was at that time in my congregation a 
 young man, a very recent convert, and a very 
 zealous Christian worker. He was an English- 
 man, and had been sprinkled in infancy in the
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Church of England. Afterward he had become 
 an avowed atheist, and was such when I first 
 met him. At his earnest request, I privately 
 canvassed the whole ground of speculative athe- 
 ism with him. I found him a sharp, trained 
 reasoner, of a very decided metaphysical cast 
 of mind, and our discussions were continued for 
 several months. At length he was thoroughly 
 convinced of his mistake, made a public renun- 
 ciation of his atheism, sought Christ, and became 
 a very devout, earnest Christian. His talents 
 made him very useful, and he was almost immedi- 
 ately made superintendent of the Sunday-school, 
 in which position he was doing good service at 
 
 the time Rev. Mr. S came at my invitation 
 
 to administer the Lord's Supper in my church. 
 He had not united with any church, being in 
 doubt about which one he ought to unite with. 
 Ultimately he became a Congregationalist, and 
 is now, and has been for many years, an honor- 
 ed and useful minister of the gospel in that de- 
 nomination. 
 
 I loved him tenderly as a Christian brother, 
 and a very dear friend, and, in common with 
 many of my brethren, I greatly desired to have 
 him sit down with us at the Lord's table. At 
 that time I had not examined the question of 
 communion, but was governed in the matter by
 
 198 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 misguided feelings, and consequently was in fa- 
 vor of open communion. So I spoke to Rev. 
 
 Mr. S , confidentially, and requested him to 
 
 speak to Bro. H privately, and invite him 
 
 to come to the table with us. I told of his re- 
 cent conversion, his zeal for Christ, and our great 
 love for him as a true and devoted disciple. 
 
 Mr. S listened attentively until I conclud- 
 ed, then he said : 
 
 "Is Bro. H a member of any church?" 
 
 "No; he has not yet decided where he ought 
 to unite. He has that matter now under pray- 
 erful consideration." 
 
 "Well, I can not invite him to the Lord's 
 table. That is an ordinance of the Church, and 
 only those who are church-members have a right 
 to come to it." 
 
 ' ' Oh, but he is such a good man ! We all 
 love him so much! Do, please, invite him." 
 
 "No; I can not. As for loving him, you can 
 love him just as well, and fellowship him just as 
 much if he does not come to the table. The 
 Lord's table is not to exhibit pur love and fellow- 
 ship for each other, but to commemorate the 
 death of our Lord. It will be time enough for 
 
 Bro. H to engage in the observance of this 
 
 church service when he has become a member 
 of the church,"
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 199 
 
 "But Bro. H has been baptized; he was 
 
 baptized in infancy in the Church of England. 
 Isn't that enough?" 
 
 "No, sir. The Supper is a church ordinance, 
 and it belongs, not to all who are baptized, but 
 only to those who are baptized members of the 
 
 church. Bro. H has been baptized, but he 
 
 is not a member of any church. He was bap- 
 tized by a minister of the Church of England. 
 Very well. We respect his baptism. But he 
 was not received into the membership of the 
 Church of England. And he does not consider 
 himself a member of that church, or of any other, 
 and therefore he has no right at the Lord's table, 
 and we have no right to invite him there until he 
 unites with some evangelical church." 
 
 And Mr. S was firm, and I was obliged 
 
 to submit to what I then deemed a very great 
 hardship, and a grievous wrong. But I have 
 long since learned that he was right in putting 
 the order of the Lord's house above the clamor 
 of private affection, or personal interest and feel- 
 ing. 
 
 In refusing to invite Bro. H to the Lord's 
 
 table he acted upon strict Presbyterian princi- 
 ples, and upon strict Baptist principles as well. 
 And in support of his action, he might have ar- 
 rayed the standard writers and authorities of al-
 
 2OO BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 most every denomination in Christendom. Take 
 a few samples. Dr. Doddridge, Congregation 
 alist, says: "It is certain that, as far as our 
 knowledge of antiquity reaches, no unbaptized 
 person received the Lord's Supper." (Lectures, 
 page 511.) 
 
 ' ' How excellent soever any man's character 
 is, he must be baptized before he can be looked 
 upon as completely a member of the Church of 
 Christ." (Lectures, page 511.) 
 
 Richard Baxter, Congregationalist, says: 
 "What man dare go in a way that hath nei- 
 ther precept nor example to warrant it, from a 
 way that hath a full current of both ; yet they 
 that will admit members into the visible church 
 without baptism do so. " (Plain Scriptural Proof y 
 page 24. ) 
 
 Rev. Dr. Dwight, Congregationalist, says: "// 
 is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance 
 that the candidate for communion be a member 
 of the visible Church of Christ, in full standing. 
 By this I intend that he should be a man of 
 piety ; that he should have made a public pro- 
 fession of religion, and that he should have 
 been baptized." (Systematic Theology, Ser. 160.) 
 Again he says (Ser. 156): "Except a man be 
 born of water, and of the Spirit, etc. To be 
 born of water is to be baptized. To be born
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2OI 
 
 of the Spirit is to be regenerated. The king- 
 dom of God is a phrase used in the gospel in a 
 twofold sense, and denotes his visible and invis- 
 ible kingdom, or the collection of apparent and 
 the collection of real saints. The indispensable 
 condition of entering the former, or visible king- 
 dom, is here made by our Savior, baptism. The 
 indispensable qualification for admission into the 
 invisible kingdom is regeneration, the great act 
 of the Spirit of God, which constitutes men real 
 saints. Baptism, therefore, is here made, by Christ, 
 a condition absolute to our authorized entrance into 
 his visible Church. ' ' 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hopkins, Congregational ist, says : 
 ' ' No one is to be considered and treated as a 
 member of the Church of Christ unless he be 
 baptized with water, as this is the only door by 
 which persons can be introduced into the visible 
 kingdom of Christ, according to his appoint- 
 ment." (Curtiss on Com., page 125.) 
 
 Rev. F. G. Hibbard, Methodist Episcopal, 
 says (Christian Baptism, page 174, Second Part): 
 "Before entering upon the argument before us, 
 it is but just to remark that, in one principle, 
 the Baptist and pedobaptist churches agree. 
 They both agree in rejecting from the commun- 
 ion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the 
 rights of church-fellowship to all who have not
 
 202 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 been baptized. Valid baptism, they consider, is 
 essential to constitute visible church-member- 
 ship. This also we hold. The only question, 
 then, that here divides us is, What is essential 
 to valid baptism ? The Baptists, in passing the 
 sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all 
 other Christian churches, have only acted upon 
 a principle held in common with all other Chris- 
 tian churches, viz.: that baptism is essential to 
 church membership. They have denied our bap- 
 tism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have been 
 excluded from their table. That they err greatly 
 in their views of Christian baptism we, of course, 
 believe. But, according to their views of bap- 
 tism, they certainly are consistent in restricting 
 thus their communion. We would not be un- 
 derstood as passing a judgment of approval upon 
 their course, but we say their views of baptism 
 force them upon the ground of strict commun- 
 ion, and herein they act upon the same princi- 
 ples as other churches, i. e., they admit only 
 those whom they deem baptized persons to the 
 communion table. Of course, they must be their 
 own judges of what baptism is. It is evident 
 that, according to our views of baptism, we can 
 admit them to our communion; but with their 
 views of baptism, it is equally evident that they 
 can never reciprocate the courtesy. And the
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2O3 
 
 charge of close communion is no more applicable 
 to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the ques- 
 tion of church-fellowship with them is determined 
 by as liberal principles as it is with any other 
 Protestant churches, so far, I mean, as the pres- 
 ent subject is concerned ; i. e. , it is determined by 
 valid baptism, ' ' 
 
 Dr. Wall, Episcopal, says (Hist. Infant Bap- 
 tism, Part II. , Chap. 9) : " No church ever gave 
 the communion to any persons before they were 
 baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever 
 were held, none ever maintained that any person 
 should partake of the communion before he was 
 baptized." 
 
 Open communion is a modern innovation, 
 having no sanction in Scripture, in the history 
 of the churches, or in reason. 
 
 That it has made some inroads upon the or- 
 der and stability of some churches is readily 
 conceded, and that it is a growing sentiment in 
 many quarters is doubtless true; and yet the 
 great body of Christian churches still reject it, 
 and hold, with the much maligned Baptists, that 
 baptism and church-membership are essential to 
 an orderly participation in the solemn service of 
 the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Even our Episcopal Methodist friends, al- 
 though they invite all who, in their own judg-
 
 2O4 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 ment, are Christians, still testify in their Book 
 of Discipline that they will admit no one to the 
 Lord's table among them who is guilty of any 
 practice for which they would exclude a member 
 a declaration in itself very wise and proper, 
 but involving fully the principle of church con- 
 trol over the Table. Few Methodists will care 
 to affirm that their church would not exclude 
 from her membership any person who might 
 actively denounce her doctrines as untrue, or 
 her practices as unscriptural. If, for example, 
 a member of that church should actively teach 
 that the doctrine of the Church is false in re- 
 spect to falling from grace, he would speedily be 
 excluded. Or if he should teach vigorously that 
 sprinkling and infant baptism are unscriptural 
 and wrong, that they are inventions of men and 
 ought to be put away as no baptism at all, and 
 that all his brethren who are not immersed on a 
 profession of faith are unbaptized, he would be 
 promptly expelled from the church. And yet 
 in all that he would be doing just what honest 
 Baptists are doing all the time. And the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church says, in an official way, 
 in her Discipline, that she will admit no one to 
 the Lord's table who is guilty of any practice 
 for which she would exclude one of her own 
 members. I submit, therefore, with all due def-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2O5 
 
 erence, that the Methodist Episcopal Church is 
 a close communion Church. If you say she is 
 open communion, I admit it. The fact is, judged 
 by her own official standards, she is both close 
 communion and open communion, having close 
 communion principles, but open communion prac- 
 tices. 
 
 Open communion is \ modern thing alto- 
 gether, without warrant in the word of God. 
 There is not one solitary example or precept for 
 it in the Scriptures. They are entirely silent 
 about it as a thing never heard of in that age. 
 And the early history of the Church gives it no 
 support. On the contrary, the explicit testimony 
 of Justin Martyr, about the middle of the sec- 
 ond century, shows that only baptized believers 
 were then permitted to partake of the sacred 
 Supper. He says, speaking of the Lord's Sup- 
 per: "This food is called Eucharist, of which 
 it is lawful for no other person to partake than 
 one who believes what we teach to be true, and 
 who has been bathed in the bath for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and unto regeneration, and who so 
 lives, as Christ enjoins." 
 
 The catechism of the Church in Geneva, writ- 
 ten by Calvin, embodies the universal view and 
 practice of all churches, from the apostolic age 
 to very recent times, with reference to the rela-
 
 2C)6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 tion of baptism and the Supper. It says: " Is 
 it enough to receive both (the sacraments) once 
 in a lifetime?" "It is enough so to receive bap- 
 tism, which may not be repeated. It is different 
 with the Supper." "What is the difference?" 
 "By baptism the Lord adopts us, and brings us 
 into his Church, so as thereafter to regard us as 
 a part of his household. After he has admitted 
 us among the number of his people, he testifies 
 by the Supper that he takes a continual interest 
 in nourishing us." 
 
 Open communion has no support from sound 
 reason. The Lord's Supper is intended to com- 
 memorate his death, not to manifest our Chris- 
 tian fellowship one with another. " For as often 
 as ye eat this bread, and drink' this cup, ye 
 proclaim the Lord's death till he come." And 
 Christ himself says, "This do in remembrance 
 of me." 
 
 But suppose we grant for a moment all that 
 the advocates of open communion claim, viz.: 
 that the Supper is an act of Christian fellowship, 
 i. e., that in eating the Supper together, Chris- 
 tians express their fellowship one with another 
 as Christians. It follows that each one who eats 
 at that table thereby indorses all the rest who 
 eat with him as Christians, for an act expressive
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2O"J 
 
 of Christian fellowship for a person means an 
 indorsement of that person as a Christian. 
 
 Are such indorsements to be given by Chris- 
 tian people carelessly? Are they to be scattered 
 about promiscuously? Are they to be handed 
 out generously to all who come along? Is there 
 no responsibility incurred by an indiscriminate 
 Christian fellowship? What would we think of 
 a business man who would continually give cer- 
 tificates of character and financial responsibility 
 to every man who would apply, on the mere 
 affirmation of the applicant; that he was honest 
 and responsible ? Would we regard him as dis- 
 creet ? Would we deem him a safe and prudent 
 man ? Would we regard his certificates as val- 
 uable evidences of character and financial stand- 
 ing? No; we would think such a procedure 
 either very wicked, or very foolish, or both 
 and very justly, too. And we would laugh at 
 such certificates until the meanest beggar would 
 be ashamed to take one. And yet our open 
 communion friends, on their own showing, are 
 scattering broadcast their certificates of Christian 
 character quite as recklessly. They fellowship 
 all who come, and invite all to come who desire 
 to putting the sacred Supper out in the street 
 practically, at the mercy of every mendacious 
 tramp. And then, when the motley crowd of
 
 208 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 good, bad and indifferent are gathered about, 
 they proceed to express Christian fellowship with 
 them, without the slightest evidence that they 
 are all Christians. Is that wise? Is it prudent? 
 Is it honorable ? Is it reasonable ? Look over 
 the company of communicants. Yonder are 
 half a dozen strangers. No one knows them. 
 They may be good Christians, but they bring 
 no evidence of it. For aught any one knows, 
 they may be the basest of base hypocrites, yet 
 a whole church proceeds to fellowship them as 
 Christians. Can* anything be more unreason- 
 able? If those strangers eat and drink unworth- 
 ily, and therefore to their own condemnation, 
 they can justly plead that the church tempted 
 them. If they prove utterly unworthy of con- 
 fidence, there is no redress for the community 
 or the church. They can present themselves at 
 the Lord's table at the next communion season, 
 and receive the full Christian fellowship of the 
 very church whose confidence they have grossly 
 abused; and, on open communion principles, 
 there is no help for it. Is that reasonable ? 
 
 But this is not the worst of it. Open com- 
 munion practices break down all barriers and 
 neutralize all church discipline. A member of 
 the church proves himself a very bad man. The 
 church promptly expels him from her member-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 2OQ 
 
 ship publicly withdraws the hand of fellowship, 
 but at the next communion season that bad man 
 presents himself at the Lord's table, in that same 
 church, and the whole church expresses its Chris- 
 tian fellowship with him by eating and drinking 
 with him. Is that reasonable? Does it tend 
 to promote the purity of the church ? Does it cul- 
 tivate truthfulness and integrity in the church ? 
 Is it likely to make acts of discipline effective? 
 And yet it is an inseparable part of the actual 
 working of open communion. 
 
 If the act of partaking of the Lord's Supper 
 is really expressive of Christian fellowship, then 
 reason dictates the greatest caution in respect to 
 our associates at the sacred table, lest we express 
 Christian fellowship for those who are not Chris- 
 tians, and so bring reproach on the name of 
 Christ. 
 
 More,real Christian fellowship can not exist in 
 the absence of evidence of Christian character. 
 In law, a man is deemed innocent until proven 
 guilty, and in business a man is esteemed honest 
 (yet with great caution) until proven dishonest. 
 But in religion a man is not to be regarded as 
 a Christian in the absence of satisfactory evi- 
 dence. The mass of men are not Christians, 
 and the drift of human nature is not in that 
 direction. A stranger presents himself at the 
 14
 
 2IO BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 Lord's table. That fact, of itself, does not es- 
 tablish his character as a Christian. For aught 
 we know he may be a bad man. Certainly we 
 do not know, with any reasonable degree of cer- 
 tainty, that he is a true Christian. How, then, 
 can we honestly express Christian fellowship with 
 him ? We do not know his character, and there- 
 fore we do not and can not fellowship him as a 
 Christian. If, then, we proceed to express Chris- 
 tian fellowship with him, we express that which 
 does not exist, and our communion is the solemn 
 enactment of a falsehood. If, then, the open 
 communion view be the true one, and the act of 
 eating the Lord's Supper with others is an ex- 
 pression of Christian fellowship with them, our 
 only safety is to eat that Supper only with such 
 persons as we thoroughly know and fully esteem 
 as real Christians. For with such persons only 
 can we have true, full Christian fellowship. It 
 follows inevitably that our open communion 
 friends are by their own principles reduced to 
 this very remarkable dilemma that they must 
 choose between expressing a Christian fellow- 
 ship which does not exist, or resort to the most 
 rigid measures to restrict the expression of fel- 
 lowship within due limits, so that the expression 
 of fellowship shall not exceed the actual fellow- 
 ship. But this compels a resort to the sternest
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 211 
 
 sort of restricted communion as the only means 
 of escape from bearing false witness at the table 
 of our Lord. A system whose principles are so 
 evidently, necessarily and fatally at war with its 
 practices, can not be true. 
 
 The Scriptures plainly make baptism the first 
 duty of the believer, whence it follows that it 
 must precede the Supper. That is the order 
 enjoined by our Lord (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) in 
 the great commission: "Go ye therefore, and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost; teaching them to observe all things what- 
 soever I have commanded you. " Teaching, bap- 
 tizing, training that is the divine order. And 
 the inspired apostles so understood it, observing 
 it in all their work. On the day of Pentecost 
 they first preached the Word, then baptized those 
 who believed, then broke bread. And this di- 
 vine order is the sum total of close communion 
 in Baptist Churches. Adherence to the law of 
 Christ, as illustrated in the work of his apostles, 
 is the head and front of our offending. 
 
 But what can we do about it? We must obey 
 Christ and observe his ordinances as he instituted 
 them, even though we be traduced for so doing. 
 We are not separatists. We make no laws about 
 either ordinance. We simply obey Christ. We
 
 212 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 want our brethren to do the same thing, and be 
 one with us in doing as Christ directs. Isn't that 
 fair? We ask no advantage, claim no superior- 
 ity, assert no authority, but beg our brethren to 
 obey our common Lord. 
 
 If they refuse to do it, and go off and set up 
 other laws and contrary usages, we can not help 
 it. We put up no bars, create no tests, and 
 compel no divisions. Others go away and set 
 up new tests, and establish new practices, and 
 then ask us to put their new tests and new prac- 
 tices on a par with the old ones instituted by the 
 Master; and because we can not do that, they 
 call us hard names, brand us as bigots, and charge 
 us with close communion. Is it bigotry to obey 
 Christ? Is it wicked to observe his ordinances 
 as he delivered them ? Is it close communion 
 to adhere to the order instituted by our Lord? 
 Who are excluded by it? those who observe it? 
 No! only those who prefer their own way to 
 Christ's way. Our churches are open to all Chris- 
 tians who are willing to come into the Church in 
 Christ's way. They can come in exactly as we 
 did in Christ's way. And the Lord's table 
 among us is open to them on precisely the same 
 terms as to ourselves ; they can come to it in 
 Christ's way just as freely as we can. 
 
 And yet they say we exclude them. It is a
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 213 
 
 mistake; they exclude themselves. We show 
 them the law of Christ, and they refuse to obey 
 it, and go off and set up for themselves. Is that 
 our fault? Must we give up Christ's way, and 
 adopt their way, to win them back? We could 
 not succeed, if we were willing to try it. Some- 
 body would invent some other new way, and 
 many would accept it, and the divisions and dis- 
 cords would constantly multiply. 
 
 But we dare not do it. We must obey Christ, 
 for he is King in Zion, and he alone. We love 
 our brethren much, but we love Christ more. 
 We dread their harsh, bitter, unjust words, for 
 they hurt ; but we dread the displeasure of our 
 King more. So we will keep on in the old paths, 
 ever holding out the torch of truth, and the olive 
 branch of peace, in the name of Christ.
 
 214 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 NUMBER XIV. 
 
 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth 
 them, he it is that loveth me." . . . "If a 
 man love me, he will keep my words" . . . 
 " Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I 
 command you." . . . "He that loveth me not, 
 keepeth not my sayings. " Jesus. 
 
 WITH these tender but decisive words of the 
 Master before me, I could not do less than test 
 my pedobaptist practices by his words. 
 
 Doing that as fairly and as impartially as I 
 could, I was obliged to give them up, as oppos- 
 ed to his commandments, contrary to his exam- 
 ple, and subversive of his life-giving words. This 
 was not an easy thing for me to do, for I loved 
 my pedobaptist brethren very dearly, and my 
 love was evidently reciprocated by them; but 
 when the crucial test came, my sorrowing heart 
 was made glad by the discovery that, much as 
 I loved them, I loved the Master iore. I make 
 no boast ; only by grace I am what I am. If I 
 braved loss for his sake, it was because his love 
 impelled me. If I attained to definite and firm
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 21$ 
 
 /vJn turns; of scriptural truth, it is because his 
 are definite and firm, and easily under- 
 stood by the earnest and prayerful seeker after 
 truth. But- I was not alone in these things. In 
 those dar.k and trying hours there was one by 
 my sioj wito is yet the light and solace of my 
 life, wli!\ by her faith in God, her love of Christ, 
 and hei teen, intuitive perceptions of his truth, 
 was to i le a tower of strength my quiet, retir- 
 ing, but resolute and self-sacrificing wife, whose 
 heroic c ounsel has ever been, Dare to do right, 
 no matter what it may cost. 
 
 These sketches are, as their title imports, from 
 real life. There is neither fancy nor fiction about 
 them. The incidents narrated and the conver- 
 sations detailed actually occurred. ' 'With malice 
 toward none," but "charity toward all," I have 
 herein related a few of the many things entering 
 into my experiences in the study of baptism, in 
 the hope that the relation may prove serviceable 
 to those who desire to know and do the truth, 
 suppressing only the names of my interlocutors, 
 to whom I would not knowingly do aught of 
 harm. They are brethren of many noble quali- 
 ties. Some of them have entered into their rest, 
 while others still labor in hope, earnestly looking 
 forward to refreshment and reward. With their 
 virtues and graces I have no controversy ; I com-
 
 2l6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 bat only their errors. As noble men I revere 
 them ; as Christians I love them ; as errorists I 
 oppose them. I honor their virtues, emulate 
 their graces, and seek to correct their errors. 
 Nor do I, in this, pretend that I am infallible, 
 or free from error. "To err is human," and 
 many years of close observation have taught me 
 that he is doomed to disappointment who seeks 
 perfection beneath the stars. But of all types of 
 imperfection, that is the most censurable which 
 is content with itself, and cherishes its own er- 
 rors, or the errors of others, excusing itself be- 
 cause no mortal, with undimmed eye, discerns 
 perfectly all parts of the absolute truth. 
 
 Grant that I am in error in many things, as 
 almost certainly I am; then let those who per- 
 ceive my errors teach me the truth, and as they 
 verify it by the divine Word, I will gladly re- 
 ceive it, and thank them for their kind offices. 
 It is in this spirit that I have written these sketch- 
 es. I love my pedobaptist brethren as Christian 
 brethren Christian and beloved but in error 
 in a matter of vast importance, and far-reaching 
 in its consequences. I believe they love' the 
 truth, and I would help them to perceive it by 
 clearing away some, at least, of the fogs error 
 has exhaled about it. Immersion of adults is as 
 impotent to make men Christians as is the sprink-
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 ling of infants; but immersion is a duty enjoined 
 by our Lord himself upon those who believe in 
 him, while sprinkling infant and adult is an 
 invention of men which actually obscures many 
 portions of the divine Word, and in the case of 
 millions prevents obedience to the plain com- 
 mandment of Christ. 
 
 I do not say, I dare not say, that immersion 
 is essential to salvation; but I do say, on the 
 authority of the Lord himself, that obedience 
 to his commandments, at least so far as the im- 
 port of those commandments can be perceived, 
 is indispensable to honest, genuine discipleship, 
 and that he only who is willing to render prompt 
 and cheerful obedience to the words of Christ in 
 all things, so far as their meaning can be discov- 
 ered, is entitled to call himself a Christian, or to 
 demand recognition of his Christian character 
 from others. 
 
 I ?.m not a Baptist because I love much water 
 rather than little, but because Jesus commands 
 immersion instead of sprinkling, and the immer- 
 sion of those who believe instead of unconscious 
 babes, and his commandments are the supreme 
 law of my life. With me it is not a question 
 of water, nor a question of getting to heaven, 
 but a question of loyalty to Christ and of fitness
 
 2l8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 
 
 for /leaven, and in this I do not differ from the 
 great mass of my Baptist brethren everywhere. 
 
 If any one says, "It is a matter of indifferency, 
 since we can get to heaven without scriptural 
 baptism," I reply: Is the desire and will of 
 your Master of so little consequence to you? 
 Do you not care whether you obey him or not? 
 If you do not, then I fear you love him not, 
 since he says : " If a man love me, he will keep 
 my words." 
 
 Rest assured, if you do not care to obey Christ, 
 you really do not love him, since he says: " He 
 that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." 
 Does that describe you? If so, heaven would 
 prove but an irksome prison, should you chance 
 somehow to get there. Beware ! there is danger 
 in such indifferency. 
 
 But I am confident there are many thousands 
 of pedobaptists who honestly and earnestly de- 
 sire to know the truth about these matters, and 
 who will gladly welcome aid, no matter whence 
 it may come, if only it contributes to open to 
 them the temple of truth. 
 
 To such I send forth these brief sketches, 
 with an earnest prayer that their mission of love 
 may not prove fruitless. 
 
 And if, by and by, I am permitted to know 
 that they have been of use in guiding earnest
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES. 219 
 
 souls into the light, and in leading them to put 
 away the inventions of men, and to cherish and 
 observe the ordinances of Christ in their sim- 
 plicity and purity, I will rejoice that I have not 
 suffered and studied and written in vain. 
 
 And may grace, mercy and peace, from God 
 the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord, rest upon 
 all readers of these sketches for the Master's 
 sake. 
 
 THE END.
 
 WHAT THE PAPERS SAY 
 
 Behind the Scenes, 
 
 IF any of our readers want a book that if read, will stiffen 
 their backbone as Baptists, let them send to the JOURNAL 
 AND MESSENGER, Cincinnati, O., and ask for "Behind the 
 Scenes." We read the articles as they were printed in the 
 columns of that paper, and pronounce them among the best 
 things of the kind we ever read. Baptist Nation, 
 
 WE have just received the book, and regard it as among 
 the most interesting additions made to our literature on the 
 baptismal question in half a dozen years. It will be inter- 
 esting reading to Baptists and pedobaptists as well. We 
 commend it heartily. Alabama Baptist. 
 
 THE arguments are extremely telling and cogent, yet they 
 are urged in a kind, Christian, not in the least bitter spirit. 
 Christian Secretary. 
 
 No one can fail to be benefited by reading carefully this 
 unique book. Pedobaptists will find themselves fairly rep- 
 resented, aud their views in general correctly stated. 
 Texas Baptist.
 
 THE book has not a dull page in it, and is not only ex- 
 ceedingly interesting as a narrative,, but can not but prove 
 helpful to earnest, inquiring minds who desire to know and 
 do their duty. Baptist Weekly. 
 
 IT is not often that a book deserves to be read at once 
 as this does by everybody, and especially by every pedo- 
 baptist. It tells the story of the baptismal controversy 
 capitally. The little book will make an impression and 
 rank first class in polemic literature. Herald of Truth. 
 
 WE trust the book may accomplish great good in opening 
 the eyes of our pedobaptists friends to the weakness and un- 
 scripturalness of their position, and that they may have not 
 only light to see, but grace to follow the light. National 
 Baptist. 
 
 THE story is a captivating one; is bestudded at every point 
 with sparkling gems of truth, and is so presented as to 
 disarm prejudice at the outset. We know of no book so 
 valuable as a hand-book for Baptists to use with their pedo- 
 baptist friends. Send and get the book and loan it, and keep 
 on loaning it. American Baptist Reflector. 
 
 WE emphatically commend the book. Our brethren in the 
 ministry of other denominations ought to read it. Watch- 
 Tower. 
 
 THE sketches are well written, very sensible and pointed, 
 and show very conclusively the inconsistencies of pedobaptists 
 and the logical correctness of Baptist views, as well as their 
 accordance with Scripture. The book is not only interesting 
 but very instructive, and should be read by old and young. 
 Kind Words.
 
 WE congratulate the author and thank the publisher, and 
 commend the volume to all our readers. It is the very book 
 to put into the hands of inquiring pedobaptists. Send and 
 get it. Arkansas Evangelist. 
 
 As we said a few weeks ago, it is a book that will do to 
 buy, to read and to lend. Texas Baptist Herald. 
 
 THESE sketches as they appeared in the JOURNAL AND 
 MESSENGER attracted wide attention. In the permanent 
 form in which they now appear, they are worthy of the 
 widest circulation. Zion's Advocate. 
 
 IT is the very book for the masses of the people and for 
 Baptists to loan to their pedobaptist neighbors and relatives. 
 2enne&see Baptist. 
 
 THE book is not only interesting but very instructive, and 
 should be read by old and young. Biblical Recorder. 
 
 THE book ought to be in every Baptist family, and it is 
 an excellent thing to put into the hands of any who de- 
 sire to know about the Baptists. We give it hearty com- 
 mendation. Central Baptist. 
 
 No recent contribution to Baptist literature lias been more 
 gladly welcomed. Michigan Christian Herald. 
 
 WE are pained to know that Mr. lams charges pedobap- 
 tists with lack of candor, but it is more painful to observe 
 that he has proved his case. Watchman.
 
 WE had one chapter of its contents in the MESSENGER 
 a few weeks since, and may possibly extract another shortly 
 but the book should be read to be fully appreciated. 
 Christian Messenger, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 
 
 THERE is no dullness, nor sameness, nor weariness going 
 over old ground, in a single page. It is bright, spicy, elo- 
 quent, amusing, instructive, with a frank, manly, Pauline 
 piety and devotion to truth which can not fail to profit 
 every reader. ........ 
 
 This book is so well and wittily written that it would 
 interest a man who cared nothing for Christ's commands. 
 It is, of all books on the subject we have seen, the best for 
 Baptists to put into the hands of pedobaptist friends; the 
 New Testament, of course, excepted. . It is the very thing 
 for the young Baptists to read on this subject, and it will 
 be a treat to older Baptists who have grown a little weary 
 of the usual style of such books. Western Recorder.
 
 BEHIND THE SCENES, 
 
 By REV. F. M. JAMS. 
 
 One of the most popular works ever published on " BAPTISM " and 
 " COMMUNION." 
 
 In a series of sketches, for the most part narrating per- 
 sonal experiences, the author, formerly a Congregationalist, 
 but now a Baptist minister, tells of the troubles experienced 
 by pedobaptists in their efforts to sustain their own prac- 
 tices. At the same time, it shows the unsatisfactory and 
 unavailing character of the arguments adduced ; presenting 
 those to establish the doctrines and practices of the Baptists, 
 in such a manner that the reader is convinced before being 
 aware of it, and wakes up to a sense of the duty of baptism 
 and an "orderly walk." 
 
 The sketches were first published in the JOURNAL AND 
 MESSENGER, of Cincinnati, O., and such was their popu- 
 larity that thousands of copies were immediately sold to 
 subscribers to that paper who had read the sketches as they 
 appeared. The publisher is constantly receiving informa- 
 tion of the conversion of one and another to Baptist views, 
 by reading "BEHIND THE SCENES." 
 
 It is a duodecimo volume of 219 pages, on good paper, 
 clear type, and well bound ; and, in order that it may have 
 THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CIRCULATION, the price has been put 
 at ONLY 75 CENTS BY MAIL, POSTAGE PAID. Liberal re- 
 ductions made to pastors and agents who promote the sale 
 of the book. Agents wanted in every Baptist Church. 
 Address 
 
 <3r. W. LASHER, 
 
 Publisher "Journal and Messenger" 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO.
 
 BEFORE THE FOOTLIGHTS. 
 
 By the Author of "BEHIND THE SCENES." 
 
 A SERIES OF LETTERS, in which the author, once a Congre- 
 gational minister, but now a highly esteemed and successful 
 Baptist pastor, replies to the inquiry of an old pedobaptist 
 friend who asks : "WHY NOT RETURN TO YOUR OLD CHURCH 
 HOME ? " 
 
 In his answer the author tells his reasons, by reciting such 
 facts and arguments as make the adherents of pedobaptism 
 appear to be acting a part on the stage " Before the Foot- 
 lights" while the writer looks on and criticises the per-' 
 formance, giving his reasons for not joining in the farce. 
 
 The style of the book is admirable; the arguments are 
 ably and fairly presented, so that a child can understand 
 them ; the tone and spirit are kind, conciliatory and per- 
 suasive; but the facts and the quotations from various 
 pedobaptist authors are so set forth as to carry conviction 
 to any but the most obdurate opponent. 
 
 The letters were first published in the JOURNAL AND MES- 
 SENGER; but the demand for their publication in a more 
 permanent form has induced the author and the publisher 
 to put them in the form of this well-printed and well-bound 
 duodecimo volume of more than 220 pages, selling at the 
 low price of only 75 cents, postage prepaid. Agents wanted 
 in every church, to whom liberal discounts will be made. 
 Send for terms. Address 
 
 G, W, LASHER, 
 
 Publisher "Journal and Messenger," 
 
 CINCINNA.XI, O.
 
 JOURNAL AND MESSENGER 
 
 [Established at Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1831.] 
 is AN 
 
 "THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS," 
 As understood by Baptists. It embraces among its contrib- 
 utors many of the ablest writers in the Baptist denomination, 
 and is 
 
 THE ONLY BAPTIST PAPER 
 
 that can publish the Serials of that most popular writer, 
 now enjoying a world-wide reputation as 
 
 Its Editorial, Literary, Agricultural, Home Circle and 
 Sabbath-school Departments are ably conducted, and are 
 always 
 
 Up with the Times, Though Loyal to the Truth. 
 
 Its correspondence reaches all parts of the world. It 
 contains eight pages of seven columns each, printed on good 
 paper, in clear type, and is regarded as 
 
 " THE BEST FAMILY PAPER IN THE COUNTRY." 
 
 Subscription price, $2.00 per year. Send for a sample 
 copy, and see our list of premiums. Address 
 
 JOURNAL AND MESSENGER, 
 
 17H Elm Street, 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO.
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 COL DB. 
 
 51977 
 
 Form L9-50w-ll,'50 (2554)444 
 
 iARY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 A vntar TJ
 
 A 001 013763