The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-05-02
"Layman- 10 His Critics.

| Editor of The Times.
Sir: My attention has been called TO a
kindly criticism OF my article In your most
excellent paper of recent date, on th'
the Text of the Bible" by j. +. r. Oh
oxford. y. c., which l think is sufhc'
iently answered by Mr. Wiley Jones III
your issue of April 2lst and requires Tic
further reply at my hands.
In your issue OF same date appears
another comment by "A Brother Lay
man." who very properly says that II
is not essential to ones faith to suDscIlpe
to the doctrine Of verbal inspiratlon' pu'
il was not inspiration Of scripture we
were discussing but its Interpretation.
Nv brother layman." / imagine VIII
readily see the difference, hgurauVey
and metaphorically, actual ana lmpNeu'
between the expression going INTO TIC
mountain" going into the country, carry
ing the war into Africa, etc, and going
down into the water and coming up
out Of the water" One necessarily and
logically implies an entrance INTO ,he
element. a displacement OF its parts.
the other simply the going on its sur
face. one IS feasible. the other lmprac-
ticable without, great labor and exer-
ton both acts TO be cO-equal in point
of Illustration and comparison, would
have to possess the same natural adap-
tation to circumstances and conditions
one is permissible under ordinary con-
ditiOns the other Is not The lnterpre-
tation into the water" by the light shed
on this subject by ST. John. ill., %, seems
natural We ind more light by reading
this same incident related in Acts viii.
81 and 80, the narration Of this incident
in the scripture gospels would Indicate by
a reasonable and customary rendition OF
the original tongue and the ordinary con-
struction OF the original language IS that
on the journey TO GAIA, Philip met the
Eunuch travelling I'm his chariot ana
whilst il is not stated II is generally
known that travellers in the East on long
Journeys usually took their supply of wa
ter for drinking purposes with them. in
their skin bottles, it is proba-
bic the Eunuch had taken this
precaution on this occasion. but
after he was converted he de-
fered being baptized until he could come
10 a stream or pool OF water, for we are
told that John also was baptzng IN
Aenon near TO Saim because there was
much water there and they came and
were baptized" This shows why Salim
was selected for the performance OF this
rite because there was much
qure much water" to pour or
sprinkle. | cannot conceive of the
necessity for going down into the water
and wetting ones feet and garments
simply TO have little water poured or
sprinkled on ones head. nor can | see
tho occasion why the Eunuch should
have descended from his chariot and
gone down the hill into the water unless
lie was immersed. Why did he not sit
I'm his chariot and have the water brought
10 him If he had none with him? Why
did he not stand by his chariot and have
the water brought from the stream or
river In cup or leather bottle? Why
did he go down into the water when
there was no necessity for 1t unless he
was dipped?
Why did both he and Philip
go down into the water unless
one was to perform the INNER
sion on the other? Now Jesus was bap-
tlzed In the river Jordan and after he
was baptized came UP out OF the water.
II immersion was not performed by john
why did he go 10 a river for the purpose
Of baptzng? II Jesus was not MINERS
ed why did he go into the river? StPaul
compares baptism 10 a burial and resur-
rection, the comparison is suggestive and
logical.
1 agree with my brother layman" that
had not the revisers. in view OF the
light shed on this subject by ST. John
iii. % and by Acts viii. 5S and 49, Math-
ew !. 3, Mathew ill., Is and Mark /. 9 inter-
preted this incident by the light shed on
this view" and other passages, these
same revlsers were perfectly inconsistent
and uniustinable," but the fact is that
word els in every instance where II was
natural TO do SO the proper rendition or
into, | believe that immersion in the
Instances referred TO was the method en-
ployed. I believe there are other instances
in which baptism was performed when
immersion was not only improb-
able but practically almost impossible
d. not believe Il makes any difference
as 10 quantity of water employed or the
slightest odds as to the method-it Is a
religious ordinance. this is the doctrine
OF my church. we simply regard baptism
as the outward visible sign or form OF
"a new birth into Righteousness" whereby
we are made children OF grace"
AS 20 who is 10 be the judge OF 90
possibility and the criterion OF "intellec-
tual conviction" of course this rests W.
the man himself. Some men are more
credulous than others. | once knew
a very sincere Christian gen.
tleman who said If the Bible
stated that man swallowed
a red-hot stove larger than himself. he
would believe II TO be a literal fact. To
this man there was no limitation Of faith.
no bounds to his credulity or his want
Of common sense. but this belief would
be beyond the pale OF most mems Intel
lectual convictions" Many eminent schol-
ars and Christian ministers discredit the
statement that the whale swallowed
Jonah etc. others believe IL literally. II
Is a matter of intellectual credulity or
belief Martin Luther. the great reform
err. did not hesitate to say that this FISH
story was beyond his intellectual con-
viction. In honest intellectual doubt. In
ability TO conviction. there can be no sin.
il Is natural that a reasoning being
should investigate all subjects and De
ieve only what is rational.
I heartily join in what my brother
ayman" says that men may honestly |
differ In their conclusions but may be
affectionate brethren and should be |
such. but the point raised In my first |
etter was why an Episcopal minister. /
whose church recognizes and admins /
ers immersion and pouring as the can /
ildate may elect. should give meaning /
10 the word els which Is not only con-
rary to the Interpretation OF the revis-
srs. but to some extent Is the practice
II his church.
LAYMAN.
Richmond. Va. Aurtl =. i1Dz,