It is rarely the case that a Court is called upon to decide questions
of a purely theological character. Of necessity, however--property
interests being involved,--controversies, measurably of a religious
character, sometimes arise for judicial determination.
The case to be mentioned is probably the only one where "baptism"--
the true mode and manner thereof--has ever come squarely before an
American judge. A man under sentence of death for murder was
awaiting execution in the jail of one of the counties in
northern Kentucky. Under the ministrations of the pastor of the
Baptist Church, the prisoner at length made "the good confession" and
desired to be baptized. To this end, the faithful pastor applied to
the circuit judge before whom the prisoner had been tried, for
permission to have the rite observed in the Kentucky River near
by. The judge--more deeply versed in "Blackstone" and "Ben Monroe"
than in theological lore--declined to have the prisoner removed
from the jail, but gave permission to have him baptized in the
cell. The physical impossibility of the observance of the solemn rite
in the prisoner's cell was at once explained. "Certainly," said
the judge in reply, "I know there is no room in there to baptize
him that way; but take a bowl of water and sprinkle him right where
he is confined." "But," earnestly interposed the man of the sacred
office, "our church does not recognize sprinkling as valid baptism.
We hold _immersion_ to be the only Scriptural method." "Is it
possible?" exclaimed the judge, greatly surprised. "Well, this
Court decides that sprinkling _is_ valid baptism; and I tell you
once for all, that that infernal scoundrel will be sprinkled, _or he
will be hung without being baptized at all!"_
Inasmuch as this decision has never been _overruled_ by a higher
court, it stands as the only judicial determination of the
long-controverted question.