Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/methodistarmorreOOfoot_0 
 
e Methodist Armor Reviewed. 
 
 The Rise and Progress of the Baptises 
 
 AND- 
 
 OUTLINES OF HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BRIEMREEM220GIATI0N. 
 
 By JAMES H. FOOTE, 
 
 DELLAPLANE, N. C. 
 
 He taketh from him all his Armor, wherein he trusted." — Luke XI, 22. 
 / praise you, that ye keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." 
 
 [I Cor. XT, 2. 
 
 STATE8VILLE, N. C. : 
 LANDMARK POWER PRESSES. 
 
3ch. R. 
 
 TO THE 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST 
 AND 
 
 ESPECIALLY TO THE BRETHREN 
 OF THE 
 BRIER CREEK ASSOCIATION, 
 THIS LITTLE VOLUME 
 IS 
 
 RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED- 
 BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 384880 
 
{Extract from Minutes of Brier Creek Baptist Association, held at Swan Creek 
 Church, Yadkin County, September 22-24, 1887.] 
 
 The following* paper was read and adopted by the As- 
 sociation : 
 
 YYhereas, We have learned that Bro. J. H. Foote of 
 our Association has written a reply to a book called "The 
 Methodist Armor," written by H. T. Hudson, D. D., of the 
 North Carolina Methodist Conference, in which work our 
 principles as Baptists are assailed, therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of three members of this 
 body be appointed to examine Bro. Foote's manuscript as 
 to the advisability of encouraging the same for publica- 
 tion. 
 
 L. P. Gwaltney, T. W. Paris and 1). W. Pool were ap- 
 pointed a committee. 
 
 The Committee reported as follows : 
 
 The Committee appointed to examine the manuscript 
 of Bro. Foote do respectfully and earnestly recommend its 
 immediate publication. 
 
 L. P. Gwaltney, 
 T. W. Paris. 
 
 Report adopted. D. W. Pool. 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 - — o — 
 
 Some friend has handed us a very neat little book en- 
 titled : 
 
 "THE METHODIST ARMOR, 
 
 BY 
 
 Hilary T. Hudson, D. D., 
 
 OF THE 
 
 North Carolina Conference," 
 which we see is very generally circulated among our Meth- 
 odist friends in this section of the country and commended 
 for its many excellencies. 
 
 We propose to review briefly some portions of this 
 volume. It is not from a fondness of controversy, but a 
 desire to vindicate the honor of Christ, and his ordinances 
 as practiced by the Baptists, from charges of an odious 
 kind, that excited the author to compose and publish the 
 following pages. The writer takes up his pen entirely on 
 the defensive, for had not the principles and practice of 
 Baptists been stigmatized as " indecent and narrow-heart- 
 ed bigotry" these pages would have never seen the light. 
 For instance, on page 81 of the above named book, the 
 following language is used : u It is satisfactory to discov- 
 er that all attempts to impose upon Christians a practice 
 (immersion) repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the 
 health and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all scriptur- 
 al authority and really of primitive practice" Again, on 
 page 93 of his book, Dr. Hudson says: "Baptism by 
 pouring comports with decency and propriety, but does 
 immersion?" A little further on the Dr. says, speaking of 
 the Baptists: ''And to exclude pious Christians from the 
 
8 
 
 Lord's table because they have not been immersed, is nar- 
 row-hearted bigotry" 
 
 Again, on page 227 of his book, the Dr. says: "As 
 Luther and his followers had a right to organize the Luth- 
 eran Church, and as John Calvin and Knox had a right to 
 organize the Presbyterian Church, and as Bishop Crannon 
 and Henry VIII had a right to organize the Episcopal 
 Church in England, and Roger Williams and his brethren 
 had a right to organize the Baptist Church; so had Mr. 
 Wesley, Coke and Asburya right to organize the Methodist 
 Church." 
 
 Now the reader will see from the above quotations, if 
 he be a Baptist, he is charged with practicing an indecent 
 and dangerous ordinance, and that his Church was first 
 organized by Roger Williams ! while he has always been 
 taught and believed that Jesus Christ alone is the author 
 and founder of the Baptist Church. 
 
 li Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up 
 
 To such a sudden flood of mutiny, 
 
 They that have done this deed are honorable; 
 
 What private griefs they have, alas I know not, 
 
 That made them do it. They are wise and honorable 
 
 And will no doubt with reason answer you. 
 
 I come not friends to steal away your hearts ; 
 
 I am no orator as Brutus is, 
 
 But as you know me all, a plain, blunt man, 
 
 That love my friends, and that they know full well 
 
 That gave me public leave to speak of him ; 
 
 For I have neither wit nor worth nor words, 
 
 Action nor utterance, nor the power of speech 
 
 To stir men's blood T only speak right on. " 
 
Preface. 
 
 — o — 
 
 The matter contained in this little book contains no 
 originality except an attempt to collect and combine ex- 
 tracts from various authors and present them in as plain 
 and simple a manner as possible, so as to make it readable 
 to the unlearned, as well as to answer the arguments of my 
 friend who has followed in the track of many of his brethren 
 who have written on the same subjects before him. The 
 quotations are taken generally from the works of Pendle- 
 ton, Ford, Booth, Stuart, Fuller, Mell and others, whose 
 Christian character for truth no one can with reason doubt . 
 
 It will moreover be seen that the writer has done little 
 more in adverting to the mode of baptism and the origin 
 of infant baptism, than to collect and arrange Qoncessions 
 of the greatest and best men found in the Pedo Baptist 
 world. A body of concessions so complete and overwhelm- 
 ing at every point could not be found in regard to any oth- 
 er practice, yet maintained by such large bodies of excellent 
 Christians as still uphold infant baptism and sprinkling or 
 pouring as the proper mode. The Scriptures, themselves, 
 we think, are plain and easily to be understood by every 
 unbiased reader, much more so to the unlettered mind than 
 the mystified volumes of Doctors of Divinity, written often 
 to support the dogmas of their own class than to throw 
 light upon obscure portions of the Word of God. In con- 
 clusion, for his Christian brethren of every denomination 
 the writer ha sever cherished fraternal attachments and af- 
 fection, and the many hard things said of us does not pre- 
 vent us from extending to them the hand of Christian 
 fellowship. The Author. 
 
 384880 
 
The Church. 
 
 o 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 On page 33, Dr. Hudson gives his definition of what a 
 Church is, which is found in the Meth. Discip., Art. 13th. 
 Chap. 1st, as follows: "The visible Church of Christ is a 
 congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of 
 Cod is preached and the sacraments duly administered ac- 
 cording to Christ's ordinances in all things that of necessi- 
 ty are requisite to the same. " The Dr. then adds : " The 
 definition of a Church given in the above Article is broad 
 and comprehensive. A congregation of faithful men. The 
 recognition of the Bible or the pure word of God as the 
 rule of faith and practice." On the next page he says: 
 "Denominational exclusiveness grows out of a false defini- 
 tion of what a Gospel Church is — the Baptists define — a 
 visible Church of Christ is a congregation of baptized (im- 
 mersed) believers, " &c, and this definition he says cuts off 
 all Churches whose members are not immersed. Hence 
 their exclusiveness. On page 93, he says: "To require 
 immersion in order to admission into the Church is con- 
 trary to the teaching of the Bible. * * And 
 to exclude pious Christians from the Lord's table because 
 they have not been immersed is narrow-hearted bigotry. 1 ' 
 But the 5th Article of his Discipline reads: "The Holy 
 Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, so 
 that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
 thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be 
 believed as an Article .of faith." Dr. H. says : "This Arti- 
 cle teaches that the Bible is to be appealed to in the final 
 
11 
 
 settlement of all questions of faith and practice." And 
 still he takes upon himself tie responsibility of fastening 
 indecency and narrow-hearted bigotry upon the Baptists 
 who sincerely appeal to the Bible as their only rule of faith 
 and practice. They have no other Discipline — no laws of 
 Bishops or Conferences to guide or govern them. By the 
 Bible must they stand or fall. 
 
 There can be only one Scriptural Church of Christ un- 
 less Christ founded more than one and gave them differ- 
 ent laws. This we are sure needs no proof; it is self-evi- 
 dent. His people are said to be one. "There is onefold 
 and one Shepherd. " There were to be no divisions among 
 them. They were all to speak the same thing. We read, 
 it is true, of different individual Churches, as the Church of 
 Ephesus, the Church at Phillippi, and so on, separate, dis- 
 tinct and independent organizations. But they were one 
 in doctrine— one in practice. They all walked by the same 
 rule. They had all "One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'* 
 We nowhere read of the " Branches of the Church, " nor 
 anything like the Church of England, The High Church, 
 The Low Church, The Methodist Episcopal Church, North 
 or South, &c. We read of the Churches of Judea, of the 
 Churches of Gallatia, of Samaria, of Gallilee and of Asia , 
 &c.,'but not one word about the establishment which em- 
 braces them all, or any number of them all in one grea,t 
 Church. No one can fairly and impartially read the New 
 Testament and not discover that the Church Christ or- 
 dained, set up, was a visible local assembly, having no 
 lords, no masters, no rulers but Christ himself who is its 
 head. !}ach Church, as it was organized, was complete 
 within itself and entirely independent of all others. It was 
 not a combination of any Churches, or as our Methodist 
 friends would say "Societies." So nowhere do the Scrip- 
 tures mention anything like a vast combination of socie- 
 ties, subordinate and dependent ilpon one general Church. 
 Each Church constituted by the Apostles was democratic 
 
12 
 
 In principle and independent of all others in all its transac- 
 tions. Such are the Baptist Churches, as we shall show 
 from that day till the present, Apostolic in origin and 
 Apostolic in practice. The Baptists have as much right to 
 give their definition of what they believe to be a true Gos- 
 pel Church is, as the Methodists. And the 5th Art. of their 
 Discipline before quoted, says: " Whatsoever is not 'read 
 therein ' .nor may be 'proved thereby 7 is not to be required 
 of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith. ' 5 
 Now, let us apply this rule : The Baptists don't " read in 
 the Scriptures " that a Gospel Church consisted of any but 
 immersed believers, nor do they think it can be proved 
 thereby to the contrary. Anthing else, therefore, accord- 
 ing to the Dr's. theory, " Is not to be required of any man 
 that it should be believed as an article of faith. " But to 
 return to the Scriptures to see if we cannot learn certainly 
 what is a Gospel Church. Christ used the word but twice 
 while on earth. The first is Matthew xvi-18: "On this 
 rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it. " And this is the first place it is used in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 On this important text we shall use the ideas and some 
 of the language of a distinguished modern writer, being so 
 pertinent to our purpose. Now, what was it our Saviour 
 said he would build ? We can ascertain by examining the 
 object built, after it was completed. We have already seen 
 that it was a local and independent assembly . But the ob- 
 jecter will say ' ' That it was to be a perpetual organization, ' ' 
 since " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . " But 
 no local organization has been perpetual, therefore it can- 
 not have been any local organization. " That the first 
 Churches have long ago vanished from the earth. In the 
 very cities where the apostles constituted so many Church- 
 es, even upon their ruins, "idolatry and paganism hold su- 
 preme sway. " This view at first seems reasonable. Yet 
 we think we can show that Christ's Church was a visible lo- 
 
18 
 
 c&l organization, and independent, has never ceased to 
 exist during these 1800 years. It is not the Methodist 
 Church, for Dr. H. says that was founded by John Wesley 
 about 100 years ago, and it is not the Presbyterian, for 
 that was founded by John Calvin. It was not the Episco- 
 pal, for that began with King Henry the VIII. It was not 
 the Lutheran, for Martin Luther was its founder. It was 
 not the Boman Catholic, for that belongs to Satin, and 
 was first formally organized by Constantine, the first Chris- 
 tian Emperor of Rome, and who assumed supreme control 
 of both Church and State during the 4th century of the 
 Christian era. What is it then ? How has it existed ? Let 
 us see— you might say— " It was the Church universal — that 
 it consisted of all the true Churches of Christ in one general 
 organization. " But if you mean by this " some universal 
 Church, and not existing in a practicable way , " we cannot 
 answer. But if you mean that there was an actual and 
 visible organization which included all the members of the 
 Churches of Christ, you can surely produce some of its acts 
 and doings. For we have the acts of the Church at Anti- 
 och, some records of the Church at Jerusalem and of oth- 
 ers ; but we see nothing of the sayings or doings of this 
 universal Church. If any such existed there surely would 
 have been some history of it left on record. We find noth- 
 ing of it in the Scriptures. The Churches spoken of by the 
 apostles were separate, independent bodies, and never com- 
 bined in any such general Church. And the Saviour's lan- 
 guage could hardly apply to anything invisible, for a 
 building is not only a visible but tangible object. "Upon 
 this rock will I build my Church, " does not mean any par- 
 ticular Church as at Jerusalem, &c,, nor does it mean one 
 great Church composed of all others, but it simply meant 
 the name of his institution. To make it more plain— we 
 speak of the court's decision or the court's charge — the 
 verdict of the jury, &c. Now, everybody knows when we 
 speak of the court or the jury, we do not mean any partie- 
 
14 
 
 ular individual judge, nor any particular body of 12 men, 
 nor do we mean all the judges or juries in one, but simply 
 before that judge or jury before whom the trial may come. 
 Indeed a suit at law may continue from one court to an- 
 other. The first be dissolved and jury discharged— others 
 follow and disappear— the jury is still an institution for the 
 administration of justice — thousands of juries may be dis- 
 missed, still the jury, as an institution, is perpetual. It 
 will continue as long as the constitution of the English or 
 American Government shall last. And if we should say it 
 is an institution "built" on the "rock" of our constitu- 
 tion, and that all traitors and tyrants " cannot prevail 
 against" and overthrow the institution of the jury, we 
 should speak of it in the same manner as Christ did of his 
 Church. We think this is plain. If this be so, let us look a 
 little further into this text . What did Christ mean by the 
 word "rock, " upon which he built his Church? (We have 
 our Greek Testament before us, written* in the very same 
 language the Saviour spoke.) He could not have meant 
 Peter, as some have argued— for the word petros first used 
 — " Thou art petros" — is in the masculine gender, and then 
 immediately the gender is changed to the neutra petra— 
 thus: " Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build 
 my church. " He says to Peter, your name is Rock, and 
 upon this rock, &c. Peter's name suggested the figure 
 used. But what did he mean? Read the context and it is 
 as plain as any other passage. Christ asked his apostles 
 what people said about him. "Whom do men say that I 
 am? " They answered, " Some say John the Baptist, some 
 Elias, &c. " " But whom do you say that lam?" Peter 
 answered for them all : "Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
 the living God. " This was their confession of faith. It 
 was what Christ wanted to hear them say. It was their 
 faith in him their only hope for salvation. Jesus replies 
 that such faith came from God alone. "Blessed art thou ? 
 Simon, son of Jonas, for flesh and blood have not revealed 
 
this unto thee ; but my Father." It was Peter's faith and 
 likewise the confession of it, that formed the foundation, in 
 la figurative sense, of this building. " The Church consists 
 of individuals, but before these individuals can be erected 
 into a Church, the foundation must belaid by a profession 
 like Peter's, of faith in Christ. " The foundation is a pre- 
 requisite for a permanent building. So this confession of 
 faith was a prerequisite essential and necessary to the 
 foundation of Christ's Church. The Church consists of in- 
 dividuals, but before these individuals can be erected into a 
 
 i Church, the foundation must be laid on their part by a pro- 
 fession of faith in Christ. The proper materials for the 
 building in ust be of faith. Philip said to the Eunich, ''If 
 thou believest, thou mayst be baptized" — no other condi- 
 tion would suffice. A jury would not be legal, unless qual- 
 ified as the law directs. So a church having been founded 
 
 I on any other "rock" than u faith "is not a Gospel Church. 
 
 I The Master so orders it. So we see it is a local organiza- 
 tion made up only of those who profess faith in Christ, as 
 did the Apostles. 
 
 Paul says to the Church at Corinth: kt Ye are God's 
 building. "— (1 Cor. 111-0.) To the Ephesians, he says: 
 "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of 
 God through the Spirit. " So in Col. 11-6-7 : "As ye have 
 received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted 
 (founded) and built up in him, and established in the faith 
 that ye have been taught. " So in Jude, "Building up of 
 yourselves on your most holy faith. " And thus we see a 
 true Gospel Church rests on the rock of faith, and not on 
 external forms. It consists also of believers, and not be- 
 lievers and their baptized children and "penitent seekers. " 
 If is a perpet ual institution, standing amid the storms of 
 persecution, sacrifices and death of its advocates from its 
 first organization till now. "The gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it." Its martyrs, by their blood and the 
 smoke of their ashes, ha ve cemented its walls to everlast- 
 
16 
 
 ing glory. It has never become apostate, and never need* 
 to be reformed or changed by the inventions of men. 
 
 Now look at the only other text the Saviour uses ttii 
 word Church. Here it is— Matt, 18th— '' Moreover, if thy 
 brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him hi^ 
 fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, 
 thou hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, 
 fhen take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of 
 two or three witnesses every word may be established. 
 And if he neglect to hear them tell it to the Church; but if 
 he shall neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as 
 a heathen man and a publican. " 
 
 How simple is this declaration of our Saviour! He 
 here lays down the fundamental law of discipline in his 
 Church. How carefully does he provide for the rights of) 
 the members t o secure harmony among them ! If the mem- ■ 
 ber aggrieved fails to obtain reconciliation with the offend- 
 er, he is to tell it to the Church; and if he will not hear the- 
 Church, he is to be cut off from membership. The Church i 
 is the final arbiter, from which there is no appeal. The 
 Church is supreme— its decisions cannot be reversed. Christ 
 alone is its head and author. The Church is his executive. 
 What the Church does is to settle all matters of discipline. 
 No one man, however high in authority, must 11 lord it over 
 God's heritage. " The minister, the pastor, is but the ser- 
 vant of the Church, and is amenable to it alone, if he should 
 become guilty of immoral conduct. Its laws and ordi- 
 nances are of Divine authority, and cannot be changed. 
 Yet Dr. Hudson says, Every particular Church may or- 
 dain, change or abolish rites and ceremonies so all things 
 be done to edification. " See Methodist Discipline, page 
 SI. Now, Christ's Church, if it be an executive, cannot be 
 also a legislative institution . It cannot make its laws and 
 then execute them. It cannot change or abolish any of 
 the rites (ordinances) committed to its keeping. The 
 Church that does this is not the one Christ organized. The 
 
17 
 
 plan he laid down, the Apostles and their followers strictly 
 observe. But how does an offended member in the Metho- 
 dist Church seek for relief? Christ says, "Tell it to the 
 Church. " His brethren say, " No ; you must tell it to the 
 minister in charge, or to a committee appointed by him. " 
 If lie and they do not decide and please both, why go to 
 the Quarterly Conference, and if you don't obtain satisfac- 
 tion there, go to tho Bishops, or to those whom he may 
 appoint. The Church, that is the local assembly to which 
 the brethren belong, is not known in the matter. The 
 whole business is taken away from the place where Christ 
 fixed it and lodged in the hands of those who are in au- 
 thority over the Church. The command is, 1 Tell it to the 
 Church, H whose decision is final, from it there is no appeal. 
 The laws of Christ are as immutable as himself. There is 
 no human authority "to change or abolish them." No 
 Quarterly or Annual Conference, or Bishops must usurp 
 the rights of the Church. On page 41 of the Discipline, 
 Section 7, this question is asked : "What are the duties of 
 the elder, deacon or preacher who has charge of a circuit, 
 or station? Answer — " Jlo receive^ try and expel mem- 
 bers, according' to the form of the Discipline. " This is 
 what the preacher is to do — receive, try an d expel members. 
 The -great Apostle Paul was a tipher in his day, compared 
 to one of these Methodist circuit riders, in power and au- 
 thority. Again, on page 84 of the copy before me, this 
 question is asked : To whom is a Bishop amenable for his 
 < onduct ? A xswer . — £ ' To the General Conference. ' ' Again . 
 question 4 : What shall be done when an elder, deacon or 
 preacher is under report of being guilty of some crime? 
 
 Answer, ** Let the Presiding Elder in the absence of a 
 Bishop call as many traveling ministers as he shall .s*ee fit, 
 at least three, and, if possible, bring the accused face to 
 face. If the person be clearly convicted he shall be sus- 
 pended from all official services in the Church till the ensn- 
 mg Annua] Conference," tiLVi) So it seems the Church 
 
\ 
 
 18 
 
 has nothing to do in such matters, while Christ says, "The 
 Church alone has power to try and discipline its members, 
 no matter what position they may fill. On page 91, 
 " What shall be done with a local elder, deacon or preach- 
 er, reported to be guilty of improper temper, w r ords or ac- 
 tions? " Answer : " The person so offending shall be repre- 
 hended by the preacher in charge. Should a second of- 
 fense take place, one, two or three faithful friends are to be 
 taken as witnesses. If he then be not cured, he shall be 
 tried at the next Annual Conference, " and so on up to the 
 higher orders of this Higherarchy. We nowhere find in the 
 commands of Christ, or in the Acts of the Apostles such 
 monarchy, such power even over offending members. All 
 matters of discipline were left to this independent, local as- 
 sembly of believers and their decision was final. There 
 was no one to reverse their acts, no appeal to Elders and 
 Bishops and Conferences. Here we see marks of great dif- 
 ference between the true Gospel Church which Christ organ- 
 ized and the one claimed by Dr. Hudson to be the "nearest 
 pattern " to this. But let us now briefly examine the char- 
 acter of those who compose the true Gospel Church. 
 Whatever the Church was as first organized it is yet and will 
 remain the same till time stoa.ll be no more, 'Tor the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it/' The precise time 
 when the first Church was We do not know. We first find 
 it transacting business in Acts 1-15. It then consisted of 
 only 120 members who met in an " upper room ,? and after 
 prayer elected one of their number to fill the vacancy oc- 
 casioned by the death of Judas. Those were all disciples. 
 They were all professed believers. They were men and 
 women, but no children. We observe, too, the vacancy 
 was filled by election, chosen by bnUot,\\ot appointed by 
 some Bishop or Conference. Soon after this we read that 
 (3000) three thousand were added in a single day and it 
 was called the Church which was at Jerusalem. All these 
 were old enough to "repent'' and "gladly receive the 
 
/ 
 
 19 
 
 word/' and when they had done so, were baptized and add- 
 ed to the Church, and, like the first, they " continued 
 steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, break- 
 ing of bread and in prayers. "—Acts 11-42. It seems, 
 therefore, that not a single one of these was a little babe. 
 They were all believers. Five thousand others were add- 
 ed, (Acts 4-4,) both men and women, all others excluded. 
 So also the great company of priests, (Acts 6-7,) were not 
 admitted till they had "become obedient to the faith.'! 
 Here are over eight thousand members, but not one who 
 was not a professed believer. These and these alone com- 
 posed the Church. If there were any children, or uncon- 
 verted seekers, Luke was a false historian for he never in- 
 timates that there were children in the Church. 
 
 Can it be possible then that a congregation which ad- 
 mits infants and "penitent seekers " to membership can be 
 called a true Church of Christ! Refer to " Methodist 
 Tracts." In No. XII, page 248, it says: "By baptism 
 we are admitted into the Church." Again, page 254, Sec. 
 Cy. "If infants ought to come to Christ — if they are capa- 
 ble of a dmission into the Church of God — then they are 
 proper subjects of baptism. But infants are capable of 
 coining to Christ— of admission to the Church, and sol- 
 emnly dedicated to God, therefore, his disciples or ministers 
 are still to suffer infants to come — that is to be brought 
 into the Church! " 
 
 Here is a Church then, (the Methodist) made up of 
 three classes of persons, viz : Believers, unbelievers, and 
 infants who are not conscious of their becoming such. We 
 read nowhere of any such Church in the Scriptures. But 
 let us examine further. There is a book called "The His- 
 tory of Methodism as it was and is, " written by the Rev. 
 P. I). Gorrie, published in 1852 and adopted as one of their 
 standard works. On page 170 it says : 1st. The nature 
 of Baptism, "It is a figurative ordinance, symbolical of 
 our death unto sin, and our being born again from above, 
 
20 
 
 of being purified by the water of regeneration and receiving 
 of the Holy Ghost." So we see. When Dr. H. baptizes 
 (sprinkles) the baby, it signifies that "it has died unto sin 
 and been born again from above"— " that it is, or has been 
 purified by the water of regeneration and has received the 
 Holy Ghost. " Do we not state the ease fairly? Let the 
 reader judge for himself. 
 
 But again, 2nd, he says : " Baptism is a sign of profes- 
 sion — a rite which was constituted under the law and re- 
 tained under the Gospel as the distinguishing mark or sign 
 of a profession of faith." So when you baptize an infant 
 or "penieent seeker" it is a sign that they have professed 
 their faith in Christ! Again, 3rd, "Baptism is also con- 
 sidered the door of entrance into the Church." On page 
 173, he says: "That infants are scriptural subjects of bap- 
 tism appears from the following consideration: 1st, the 
 perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant which included chil- 
 dren as well as adults. 2nd, the eligibility of children to 
 Church memberships. And after arguing this point drawn 
 from the circumcision of the old Jews, says : "There can be 
 no reasonable doubt that infants are entitled to the initia- 
 tory rite which will formally admit them into the visible 
 Church of Christ. " The writer goes on at length to prove 
 that infants are as much entitled to membership in the 
 Methodist Church as adults. So we see unconscious infants 
 are as much entitled to all the benefits and privileges as 
 grown-up people. Is it not strange, then, when Methodists 
 refuse to commune with a large number of their own mem- 
 bers, call the Baptists a set of narrow-hearted bigots be- 
 cause they refuse to commune with those whom they re- 
 gard as not baptized at all? But Dr. Hudson's Church 
 admits persons who make no profession of faith. On page 
 155 of his book, he says the Methodist Church, besides 
 opening her doors to adult converts, takes in also penitent 
 seekers, and adds, the following is the condition for the ad- 
 mission of such persons : "There is only one condition pre- 
 
21 
 
 viously required of those who desire admission into the so- 
 cieties—a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be 
 ' saved from their sins. " So faith in Christ is not required 
 to become a member of the Methodist Church. " A desire 
 to be saved from their sins " is all that is required. Now, 
 we imagine there are few persons who would not come un- 
 der the class, who, since they have come to the years of ac- 
 countability, desire to be saved . Ask almost anyone, how- 
 ever wicked and profane, if he wishes to be saved from his 
 sins, the answer generally will be in the affirmative, and all 
 such are proper subjects for membership in our friend's 
 Church. So if all the children in the world, and all adults 
 who wished to be saved were gathered into a Methodist 
 Church, there would be but few left out in the world. No 
 wonder Dr. H. is enabled to boast in his book, page 229 : 
 1 1 While other Churches have been gathering a, few mem- 
 bers through family training and cathechetical instruction, 
 Methodism has " swept them in by thousands ! " He 
 says, "sweep in thousands with one haul!!" But 
 Matthew 7-13-14 : "For wide is the gate and broad is the 
 way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which 
 go in thereat ; because strait is the gate and narrow is the 
 way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. ' ? 
 And Dr. Watts puts it in solemn verse : 
 
 "Broad is the road that leads to death, 
 And thousands walk together there : 
 But wisdom showte a narrow path, 
 With here and there a traveller." 
 
 But Dr. Hudson defines "Baptism to be a sign of Ke- 
 generation, " and then on page 64, he defines regeneration, 
 to be the new faith, the work of the Holy Spirit by which 
 we experience a change of heart — that regeneration is the 
 removal of the pollution of sin." Now, how is it? Peni- 
 tent seekers are baptized while yet in their sins. " Baptism 
 is a sign of regeneration, and regeneration is a sign of the 
 new birth— the work of the Holy Spirit by which we expe- 
 rience a change of heart— that it is the removal of the pol- 
 
22 
 
 lution of sin." This makes those who are not believers, 
 and infants who can't believe, fit subjects of Christ's king- 
 dom, by being baptized into the Methodist Church. Now, 
 if this does not involve our friend in the doctrine of Baptis- 
 mal regeneration, it comes with bad grace to charge the 
 Baptists with this unscriptural dogma. That is, to make 
 the matter plain, we repeat, if as Dr. Hudsod maintains: 
 Baptism is the sign of regeneration, and regeneration is 
 the sign of conversion, " unconverted persons and uncon- 
 scious babes are baptized. Therefore, they are regenerat- 
 ed, born again and have experienced a change of heart, be- 
 cause they are baptized or sprinkled by some Methodist 
 Minister! But to remove all doubt in the mind of the 
 reader on this point, we will prove by their own authority 
 that the only object of baptizing (sprinkling) infants orig- 
 inally intended to make them fit subjects for heaven, and 
 without it they would be forever lost . Now for the proofs. 
 John Wesley says in his Doctrinal Tracts, page 251, pub- 
 lished and circulated by the " Methodist Book Concern," 
 "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper 
 subjects of Baptism, seeing in their ordinary' way, they 
 cannot be saved unless this be washed away by Baptism. 
 "Audit has already been proved," says he, "that this 
 original stain cleaves to every child of man. and that tru- 
 ly they are the children of wrath and liable to eternal dam- 
 nation. It is true the second Adam has found a remedy for 
 the disease which came upon all by the offence of the first. 
 But the benefit of this is to receive through the means 
 which he hath appointed, through Baptism in particular, 
 which is the ordinary means he hath appointed for that 
 purpose, and to which God hath tied us, though he may 
 not have tied Himself. Indeed, when it cannot be had 
 (those yet unborn) the case is different, but extraordinary 
 cases do not make void a standing rule. This, therefore, 
 is our first ground — infants need to be washed from origi- 
 nal sin, therefore they are proper subjects of baptism. " 
 
23 
 
 Again, on page 248, he says, "By baptism, we who were 
 the children of wrath are made the children of God. " This 
 is grounded on the plain Word of God : " Except a man be 
 born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God " (John 111-5.) " By water as a 
 means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born 
 again. " Now, we have quoted the above correctly, as the 
 words of the Founder of Methodism, the father of the 
 Methodist Church and cited the reader to the pages of these 
 Doctrinal Tracts for satisfaction, which have been endorsed 
 by the Conferences and circulated by the tra velling preach- 
 ers. If a Baptist should be guilty of publishing such lan- 
 guage as was laid down by the father of Methodism for the 
 rule and guide of faith in his followers, viz : That infants 
 could not be saved unless their original sin be washed 
 away by baptism, that we are regenerated and born again 
 by the water of baptism, and that we who were the chil- 
 dren of wrath by nature," are made the children of God by 
 baptism; we say if a Baptist were to publish such objec- 
 tionable doctrine, he would be an object of contempt, and 
 bp excluded from the Baptist Church. 
 
 But infant baptism and its evils we shall discuss in 
 another place in reply to Dr. Hudson's chapter IX, page 
 ( .)4, to which we ask a candid perusal of the reader. For 
 Dr. H. himself says— page 97: "We must believe then 
 either the horrid doctrine of infant damnation or the doc- 
 trine of infant baptism!" When the reader reaches this 
 ' hapter we invite him to pause and wonder, and then read 
 with care. 
 
 Hut to return. We were speaking of the marks of what 
 a true Gospel Church was as taught in the Scriptures. We 
 ha ve found it to be an independent local assembly compos- 
 ed of voluntary believers in Christ and who have been bap- 
 tized upon a profession of their faith, and we shall show 
 before we get through that immersion alone is baptism, - 
 and that sprinkling and pouring used as an ordinance had 
 
24 
 
 their origin with those who "changed the ordinances of 
 Christ to suit the convenience of man," and is a fragment 
 of Popery— that man of sin and son of perdition, who pros- 
 tituted the Holy Scriptures to the service of the devil. 
 This we will show both from the true meaning of the word 
 of Christ as well as from most of the leading historians of 
 the world, ancient and modern, sacred and profane. We 
 .o'bject to the Methodist as being the true Church of Christ . 
 Because, 1st. It is not an independent body — it is ruled by 
 Bishops. 2nd. Its laws are made first by Conferences and 
 Bishops . Its laws are executed , by its preachers . The peo- 
 ple have no voice in making the laws or their execution. 
 The Bishop is elected by the preachers. The society or 
 Church must receive the preacher imposed upon them by 
 the Bishop, or have none at all. 
 
 All power is in the hands of Bishops, Conferences or 
 preachers, and none in the Churches where Christ and His 
 Apostles placed it. Again, the Methodist Church is com- 
 posed in part of unconverted seekers and infants, while the 
 Gospel Church is composed of professed believers only. 
 Again it is subject to the preachers — it cannot choose its 
 own pastors — it is dependent for its very existence as a 
 Church, w r hile a Gospel Church recognizes no authority 
 above it but Christ. Again, the Methodist Church is sub- 
 ject to the laws of Conferences even as to the rights of its 
 own members, and some of its members are brought in by 
 the authority of parents, having no will of their own, while 
 the Church of Christ acknowledges no law-givers except 
 those found in the Testament, and its members become 
 such by their voluntary act alone. Again, the Methodist 
 Church holds and teaches salvation by faith, but partially 
 nullifies this good doctrine by teaching baptismal regen- 
 eration as we have clearly shown. It was conceived and 
 established by Mr. Wesley and other men and began in 
 1 784 by the authority of two Bishops and sixty preachers 
 while a, true Gospel Church holds its articles of faith upon 
 
25 
 
 the fundamental doctrines of the Apostles, and was found- 
 ed by Christ more than eighteen hundred years ago and 
 has continued down to the present time— "The gates of 
 hell shall never prevail against it. ' ' 
 
 So we plainly see, so far as the spiritual kingdom is 
 concerned, that Christ is the foundation of the Christian's 
 hope and faith. When it comes to the setting up of the 
 Gospel Church, there we must needs have a declaration of 
 principles and fundamental truths must constitue the 
 foundation of Christ's Church, and these glorious truths 
 he has pointed out as a foundation rock upon which he 
 says he will build his Church. He is the head of His Church 
 in all things. He has not resigned the headship to anoth- 
 er, and from thence transmitted it down to successive gen- 
 erations, but He is still the head ; for He is to-day a living, 
 present Savior. We have the blessed assurance that the 
 clumsy and contaminated hands of sinful men shall not 
 mar the beauty of the building of God. The Church is com- 
 posed, not of organized bodies of men, holding their au- 
 thority in their hands which they received from men writ- 
 ten on scrolls of paper, not from communicants of faith 
 that is altered and changed by the councils of Bishops, or 
 Cardinals, or Conferences that meet to make new laws to 
 meet new necessities— not a body of professors who believe 
 in the traditions of men and know no higher authority, and 
 believe the Bible secondary to the edicts of Bishops and 
 Conferences — but a remnant according the election of grace, 
 who have a white stone given them and in the stone a new 
 name written which no man knoweth saving he that re- 
 ceiveth it. A great multitude which no man can number, 
 that have come out of great tribulation, out of every na- 
 tion, kindred and tongue, and people on earth — the com- 
 municants of the one unchangeable faith that was once de- 
 livered to the saints. 
 
 Though the children may be scattered and their houses 
 of worship burned, their j)astors pinioned to the stake and 
 
1 
 
 26 
 
 tortured with fagot or beheaded and stoned, or imprisoned 
 to languish and pine away in dark and filthy dungeons, 
 yet truth will prevail. The blood of the martyrs is the 
 seed of the Church and the Church will survive and finally 
 triumph over all, for " the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it," the foundation of God standeth sure forever. 
 kt In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being -pre- 
 destinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh 
 all things after the counsel of His own will that we should 
 be to the praise of His glory."' 0, tha/fc the Church which 
 He established 1800 years ago " might look forth as the 
 morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun and terrible as 
 an army with banners," and that all religionists would be 
 able to see the errors of their leaders and take the Bible as 
 their only rule of faith and practice ! 
 
 But to close this chapter on the definition of the Church 
 we observe that the Methodist Church, though of recent 
 origin, has changed its base line several different times 
 since it was organized. It is acknowledged their first 
 Church consisted of the preachers and a pair of bishops. 
 And so it was decided in the great Methodist law suit that 
 •'the bishops and the travelling preachers are now the 
 Church. " W What has before been the rule of the societies, 
 now became the rules of the Church. What were before the 
 terms of admission into the societies, became the terms of 
 admission into the Church. " " As it has been only needful 
 for one to profess a desire of salvation to constitute the so- 
 ciety, so this was all that was needful to come into the 
 Church. " But while the laws of Christ's Church were to re- 
 main "steadfast and immovable, those of the Methodist 
 have already undergone many and important changes. 
 For instance, in regard to slavery in the United States : 
 many years ago, to own slaves was made a bar of fellow- 
 ship and communion among its own members. It was 
 the business of the circuit preacher to take with him his 
 blank-book and take down the names and ages of all the 
 
27 
 
 slaves belonging to any of their members with a view of ex- 
 pelling all snch masters who did not free their slaves at a 
 certain time fixed by the Conference, and though their rules 
 would invite members of other denominations, who owned 
 slaves, to the communion table with them, yet positively 
 excluded their own members from such privileges who • re- 
 fused to free their slaves as required by the Discipline. 
 
 The writer well remembers a striking case of this kind 
 when a, pious and very useful minister of the Methodist 
 Church withdrew his name from among them rather than 
 submit to such tyranny. It is a curiosity to go back and 
 read over the rules and changes made from time to time in 
 their Discipline, made by men who make no pretension to 
 divine authority, but bind its members to strict obser- 
 vance. According to the early editions of the Methodist 
 Discipline, no man, however pious and exalted in society, 
 however useful and beloved among his fellows, if he owned 
 slaves and did not set them free, as prescribed in the Dis- 
 cipline, should be expelled from the Church. This law was 
 at a later day repealed. Still the Discipline, after under- 
 going many and radical changes, is yet the rule and guide 
 of faith and practice of Methodists. The Bible alone fur- 
 nishes all articles of faith for a true Gospel Church and to 
 it the Baptists as a body of Christians, have rigidly adher- 
 ed for 1800 years, through persecution, suffering and 
 death. 
 
 Now, reader, if you will turn to the last chapter of this 
 little work, you will find a brief outline of the rise and 
 progress of the Baptists, from which you will be able to 
 form an opinion as to Dr. Hudson's knowledge of history 
 in his accounting Roger WiHiains the founder of the Bap- 
 tist Church. You will see how faithful historians record 
 how thousands of Baptists, or those holding similar doc- 
 trines, but existing in different ages under different names, 
 have died in behalf of soul-liberty— have died as "witnesses 
 of Jesus," because they have strenuously maintained and 
 
28 
 
 contended "for the faith once delivered to the Saints," and 
 for the ordinances as they were committed to the Church 
 by its Great Head. Yon will see how the tree of religious 
 and civil liberty was watered by the precious blood of mar- 
 tyrs. Living as we do in times when the fruit of this tree 
 is fed upon by so many millions of the hum an race, Ave per- 
 haps fail in appreciating the fact that this constitutes the 
 noble legacy which the Baptists of all ages have bequeath- 
 ed to living generations and to generations yet unborn, 
 and for which, with martyr devotion, they have struggled 
 and suffered, and agonized and died from the beginning 
 of the Christian era. "Not only have Baptists been sub- 
 jected to the exquisite tortures which a hellish and cun- 
 ning ingenuity could devise, but they have been always the 
 objects at which learning and buffoonery have aimed their 
 poisoned darts." Other Christian denominations have 
 done their share x>f this small work in ridiculing and de- 
 faming this set of "narrow-hearted bigots." But howev- 
 er reluctant small minds and narrow souls may be to con- 
 fess these truths, it is pleasant to know there are persons 
 of capacious intellects, of exalted nature, and large, lib- 
 eral-hearted views, who cordially acknowledge the great 
 worth of the Baptist denomination. Hear what Thomas 
 Chalmers, the great Scotch Presbyterian, and eminent 
 scholar, says : " Let it never be forgotten of the Baptists, 
 that they form the denomination of Fuller, and Cary, and 
 Kyland, and Hall, and Foster; that they originated the 
 first of all Missionary enterprises; that they have enriched 
 the Christian literature of our country with an authorship 
 of the most exalted piety, as well as the first talent, and 
 the first eloquence; that they have waged a noble war with 
 the hydra, of Antinomianism, that perhaps there is not a 
 more intellectual community of ministers, who have to 
 their number put forth a greater amount of mental power 
 and mental ability in the defence and illustration of our 
 common faith, and what is still better than all the tri- 
 
29 
 
 umphs of genius and understanding, who by their zeal and 
 fidelity and pastoral labor among the congregations 
 which they have reared, have done more to swell the lists 
 of genuine Discipleship in all the walks of private society, 
 and thus to uphold and extend the living Christianity of 
 our nation.'' So says Dr. Chalmers, one of the greatest 
 men of England and a Presbyterian. Dr. Baird, another 
 very distinguished Presbyterian divine, says : "The Bap- 
 tists comprehend a body of men, who in point of talents, 
 learning and eloquence, as well as devoted piety, have no 
 superiors in the country." But we did not intend to detain 
 the reader on this subject, which he will find more fully 
 stated in the conclusion of this little volume. 
 
30 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Having briefly stated our views of what constitutes a 
 true Gospel Church together with objections to our friend's 
 ideas of it, we come now to consider his Chapter VII, page 
 79, " Mode of Baptism." 
 
 He says " We conclude then that water applied in the 
 name of the Trinity by a, Gospel minister to a proper can- 
 date is Christian baptism." "Go ye therefore and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost." "It will be seen, " says 
 Dr. H., "from the above definition, that the mode of bap- 
 tism is not one of its essential elements ; that all the essen- 
 tials of baptism . will be preserved when administered by 
 the mode of pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Therefore 
 the Methodist Church holds that the three modes are 
 equally valid, but that the weight of evidence is in favor 
 of pouring and sprinkling. Pouring and sprinkling are 
 really only one mode, they being alike as to mode, the dif- 
 ference being the freer use of water in pouring. The terms 
 are borrowed from the Bible." "I will pour out my Spirit, 
 and then will I sprinkle clean water upon you." 
 
 Now, Dr. H. says,there are three modes of baptism, "'pour- 
 ing, sprinkling and immersion,'' and that the "Methodist 
 Church holds that these modes are equally A^alid. " Is it 
 not strange, then, that these three modes being equally val- 
 id, Dr. Hudson should consume so large a portion of 
 his book in attempting to prove that immersion is no- 
 where taught in the Scriptures, nay more, that it is a prac- 
 tice "repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health and 
 offensive to delicacy ! ! " What confidence would a man of 
 the world have in a preacher of the Gospel, urging him to 
 become a Christian, when he sees or hears him thus ridicul- 
 ing one of God's most holy ordinances, admitting it to be 
 equally valid, and in the same breath denouncing the same 
 to be "indecent" and without "scriptural authority!" But 
 
31 
 
 • 
 
 lie says there are three modes, while the inspired Apostle 
 says to the Church at Ephesus, " One Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism. " Who is likely to be correct, Dr. Hudson or St. 
 Paul? Dr. H. says, " We conclude that water applied in 
 the name of the Trinity by a Gospel minister to a proper 
 candidate is Christian baptism. " 
 
 Xow, we would ask where he gets such authority that 
 Christian baptism is water applied to the subject? Cer- 
 tainly not in the Scriptures, if so he would not have failed 
 to refer his readers to the text. There is no such intima- 
 tion in the Avord of God, that Christian baptism is " : water 
 applied to the candidate. " This kind of baptism, we shall 
 show, is of human invention. The Savior Himself was &p- 
 jjlied to the water and not the water to Him. John bap- 
 tized (immersed) Jesus in the river — in the water — and' k He 
 came up straightway out of the water" — no application of 
 water here to the candidate, but the candidate was dipped 
 or immersed in the water. Philip led the Eunuch down in- 
 to the water and there baptized (immersed) him, and then 
 both came up out of the water, Acts 8. Here, again, the 
 candidate was applied to the water and not the water to 
 the subject. 
 
 But Dr. H. says " the terms pouring and sprinkling are 
 terms borrowed from the Bible, " and then quotes as fol- 
 lows: "I will pour out my spirit and then I will sprinkle 
 clean water upon you. f The first clause of the above sen- 
 tence is found in Isaiah, 44-3, and the latter clause in Ezeki- 
 el, 36-25. Now our author must be hard pressed indeed 
 to find authority in the Bible for pouring or sprinkling as 
 a mode of Christian baptism. He first goes a way into the 
 ( lid 'Testament and finds where the Prophet Isaiah uses 
 the word jjour, having no reference whatever to the ordi- 
 nance of baptism and then takes a part of the 3rd Averse of 
 the 44th chapter and sticks it on to a part of Ezekiel 3(>th 
 chapter, 25th verse, and makes up his quotation, "I will 
 pour out my spirit, and then will I sprinkle clean water 
 
32 
 
 upon you. " What subterfuge! Who that desires to know 
 the truth and his duty in obeying the ordinance of baptism 
 would ever think of going back to the old prophets to learn 
 what it was ! An institution which Christ set up Himself 
 set the example, and as clearly taught his disciples, both by 
 precept as well as example in language and symbols so 
 plain that for hundreds of years there was not even the 
 shadow of doubt what was the true and only form. But 
 let us go back to Isaiah and read the whole passage, verse 3d : 
 " For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods 
 upon the dry ground ; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed 
 and my blessings upon thine offspring. V Then Ezekiel 
 36-25, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
 shall be clean ; from all your nlthiness, and from all your 
 idols will I cleanse you. " Now the man that can see Chris- 
 tian baptism in the above language is capable of believing 
 that Jonah swallowed the whale! Besides the instance 
 above mentioned there are but two others where the sprink- 
 ling of water is used in the whole Bible. In Numbers, 8th 
 and 19th chapters, the same figure is expressed in refer- 
 ence to purification and cleansing "from filthiness, from 
 idols, " &c, just as it is in Ezekiel. We are rather at a loss 
 to know Avhy our friend did not seize on to these other two 
 texts to sustain his "lost cause." He surely must have 
 failed to find them or they would have been brought out 
 as proof texts that sprinkling was Christian baptism ; tha t 
 John either sprinkled or poured the Savior in the river Jor- 
 dan ; that Phillip sprinkled or poured the Eunuch in the 
 water and that John was sprinkling or pouring in Enon, 
 because there was much water there. 
 
 But as Dr. H. insists that in baptism water is applied 
 to the subject and not the subject to the water, and that 
 there is no difference in the modes of pouring and sprink- 
 ling except the former requires a little more water. Now 
 the writer is curious to know how much water is required 
 to constitute baptism by his favorite modes? How many 
 
33 
 
 drops to make a sprinkle, and what kind of a vessel is nec- 
 essary out of which to pour the water. Surely as baptism 
 is a positive institution, our friend can read from the Scrip- 
 ture how the Apostles acted in this matter. Again, we 
 would inquire what part of the body is the wa ter to be aip- 
 plied to make valid baptism? Must it be on the head in 
 front or on the back? Or the face? Or would not a little 
 on the hands or indeed the feet be the proper locality. 
 For we read of a sect in ancient times who washed their 
 feet and called it baptism and appealed to John XIII-10 
 in justification of their conduct. Surely our friend has 
 some preference on what part of the body the water shall 
 fall when it is sprinkled or poured. He says baptism has 
 taken the place of circumcision, and every one knows that 
 unless circumcision was performed precisely according to 
 the Jewish law— on the precise locality of the body given in 
 the command, it would not answer; it would not be receiv- 
 ed as circumcision at all. So if baptism has taken its place, 
 as the strict letter of the law was to be followed in the one 
 case, so it seems to us it should not be neglected in the other. 
 Baptism being a positive institution as well as those an- 
 cient rites, what reason can our opponents assign for not 
 specifying what particular part of the body the water is to 
 be applied ? 
 
 But on the same page (80) of his book, Dr. Hudson 
 takes hold of the oft-repeated Pedo-Baptist grounds, (and 
 which have been as often thoroughly exploded) of attempt- 
 ing to prove baptism by pouring as the mode, because the 
 Scriptures speak of the Holy Ghost as being poured out. 
 But few, if any, of the learned men of the Pedo-Baptist 
 denomination, however, maintain such a weak and unten- 
 able position. For it is clear to be seen that to make Holy 
 Ghost baptism and water baptism synonymous is to ma- 
 terialize the Holy Spirit. Here are his texts : " The Holy 
 Ghost fell on all them that heard," and "on the Gentiles 
 also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."— Acts 10, 
 
84 
 
 44-47, and he says: "Then Peter baptized those on 
 whom the Holy Spirit was poured out." " Now/' he adds, 
 "as the Holy Spirit was poured upon the people, it is al- 
 most certain that Peter poured water upon them as the 
 most fitting mode of baptism." The Dr. would have us 
 believe that Peter saw 7 with his natural eyes the Holy Spirit 
 pouring down upon the people, coming down in a stream 
 as you see water poured out of a pitcher, and therefore 
 Peter in like manner took Avater and poured it upon the 
 people ! But he says the word baptism means to pour or 
 a pouring. Now substitute the word poured in lieu of the 
 word baptized in the above sentence and see how it reads : 
 " Peter poured those on whom the Holy Spirit was poured 
 out." How nonsensical ! Now take the true translation 
 1 of the word baptized and see how plain and natural. "Pe- 
 ter immersed those on whom the Holy Spirit was poured 
 out / ' But hear what that great and good man, Dr. Barnes, 
 says of this Holy Ghost baptism in his notes on the 10th 
 chapter of Matthew. He explains it thus : "Are you able 
 to be plunged deep in afflictions and to have sorrows cover 
 you like water and to be sunk beneath calamities as a 
 flood? Now in this there is no literal immersion, but the 
 sorrow is represented as covering and swallowing up the 
 mind as water does the body in the act of baptism. It is a 
 metaphorical but not a real baptism. So in the case be- 
 fore us. As Christ had told James , and John that they 
 should be immersed or overwhelmed by suffering and sor- 
 row, so now he tells all the disciples that they shall in a 
 few days be immersed or overwhelmed 'by the influences of 
 the Holy Spirit. That these influences cover, overpower 
 and swallow up their minds as the water in baptism did 
 their bodies. It is no more a literal baptism than the ba p- 
 tism of suffering in Matthew. It is a metaphor, and the 
 allusion is not to the act done in baptism, so much as to 
 the result— that is the swallowing up and overwhelming of 
 their minds by the flood of life, and light and joy, and 
 
heavenly influence which that day came (poured) upon 
 their souls. " This is what Dr. Barnes says who was one of 
 the great lights of the Presbyterian Church, celebrated for 
 his learning as well as his devotion to his Master. Com- 
 pare his purely Scriptural comments with those of our 
 friend. And see how speedily the latter \s theories vanish 
 like the mists of the morning before the brilliant rays of 
 the rising sun . 
 
 On his next page (81) Dr. H. quotes Dr. Pope, a Wes- 
 leyan minister of England, thus. "There are many consid- 
 erations which lead us to regard affusion or sprinkling 
 as the ordained rite. The Catholic design of the Gospe] 
 suggests that the simplest and most universally practica- 
 ble ordinance would be a ppointed . Again , the most impor- 
 tant realities of which baptism is only the sign are such as 
 sprinkling or affusion indicates. The blood of atonement 
 was sprinkled on the people and on the mercy seat, and 
 the gifts of the Holy Ghost are generally illustrated by the 
 pouring of water and the anointing. '' Now it seems like a 
 pity to spoil this ingenious fortification, this the al- 
 most forlorn hope of our opponents to maintain their fa- 
 vorite mode of baptism. But as it has often been demol- . 
 ished and they continue to set it up again, it must contin- 
 ue to be pulled down, 'until our Lord sees fit it shall no 
 more be held up as a Christian ordinance. If our Saviour 
 wished it to be so, he certainly would have appointed it . But 
 lie seems to have preferred immersion in water; and this, 
 while it may signify the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, yet 
 the design is better signified in our death and burial to sin, 
 and our living again to righteousness ; and it is thus that 
 Paul explains it when he says, u We are buried with him by 
 baptism into death, that as Christ was raised from the 
 dead so we should walk in newness of life.'* It serves also 
 to remind us of the burial and resurrection of Jesus and 
 prefigures also our own coming death, burial and resurrec- 
 tion.. As the other ordinance (the Lord's Supper) repre- 
 
sents the broken body and shed blood of our Saviour, so 
 baptism is designed to represent His burial and resurrec- 
 tion. Pouring and sprinkling can't do this ; it may suit the 
 machinations of man ; it may as Dr. H. says, be "more sim- 
 ple, more practicable," but Christ did not so command and 
 the Apostles did not so teach, nor did the Disciples ever 
 practice it . Now let us pause here, and offset the Dr. \s last 
 quotation by giving others in opposition thereto and then 
 let the reader form his opinion as to the best authority. 
 
 Dr. James McKnight, an eminent Presbyterian divine, 
 for 20 years the Moderator of the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church in England, says : " Jesus submitted 
 to be baptized; that is to be put under the water and taken 
 out again by John. " 
 
 Dr. Chalmers, to whom we have heretofore alluded, 
 says, "The meaning of the word baptism is immersion. " 
 Martin Luther says expressly: "Immersion was without 
 doubt instituted by Christ." John Calvin, the founder of 
 the Presbyterian Church, distinctly states the word baptize 
 signifies to immerse, and the right of immersion was prac- 
 ticed by the ancient Church. " (See Institutes.) 
 
 Dr. Geo. Campbell, another standard author and a 
 Presbyterian, says, in his notes on- the four Gospels, vol- 
 ume 2, page 20: "The word baptize, both in sacred and 
 classical authors, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, 
 and is always construed suitably to this meaning. " 
 
 Dr. Neander, the great and learned Church historian, 
 on page 197, says, "Baptism for the first three centuries 
 after Christ was administered by immersion . ' ' Lord Chan- 
 cellor King wrote a book called the Primitive Church and 
 published by the Methodists in 1841, says, on page 218 : 
 " As for the quantity of water employed in baptism, to me 
 it seems evident that their custom was to dip or immerse 
 the whole body under water." The exception, says he, 
 was in the case of sick persons. The ordination of Nova- 
 tian was opposed by all the clergy and all the laity, be- 
 
37 
 
 cause of clinic perfusion, " being sick he had water poured 
 over him in bed, and for this reason he was rejected on the 
 ground that he had not been baptized, but only poured 
 upon. This was in the third century. 
 
 ' Dr. Whitby, who is the author of more than 40 learned 
 works, says : "Immersion being religiously observed by all 
 Christians for 13 centuries, and the change into sprinkling, 
 even without allowance of the author," &c. (See his notes 
 on Romans, 6—4.) 
 
 Bishop Bossuet says: "We are able to make it ap- 
 pear by the acts of councils and by ancient rituals that for 
 thirteen hundred years baptism by immerson was admin- 
 istered throughout the whole Church." 
 
 Dr. Mosheim, the celebrated German historian, says : 
 " The Sacrament of Baptism was administered in the first 
 century by the immersion of the whole body." (See vol- 
 ume 1st, page 126, Methodist Edition.) Again: "In the 
 second century the persons baptized were immersed under 
 water." ( Vol. 2, page 206.) 
 
 Dr. Adam Clark, on Rom. 6-4: "It is probable that 
 the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administering bap- 
 tism by immersion, the whole body being put under wa- 
 ter." ( Dr. Clark is a favorite author with Methodists.) 
 
 Bishop Taylor : " The custom of the ancient Churches 
 was not to sprinkle, but immersion ; in pursuance of the 
 sense of the w r ord, in the commandment, and in the exam- 
 ple of our blessed Savior." ( Vol. 1, 199.) 
 
 But hear what John Wesley says, the father of our 
 friend's Church, commenting on Rom. 6 and 4: "The allu- 
 sion is to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion." 
 In his journal, Vol. 3, page 20, he relates the circumstance 
 of Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according 
 to the custom of the ancient Church by immersion. Again 
 Wesley on page 24 of his journal, gives us the following 
 narrative : "I was asked to baptize a child of Mr. Parker's, , 
 second bailiff of Savannah, but Mrs. Parker told me that 
 
38 
 
 neither she nor Mr. Parker will consent to its being dipped. 
 I answered, 'if you will certify to the child's being weakly it 
 will suffice, the Rubric says, to pour water upon it.' She 
 replied, 'Nay, the child is not weak, but I am resolved the 
 child shall not be dipped.' This argument I could not 
 confute, so I went home and the child was baptized by an- 
 other. 1 ■ . This shows Mr. Wesley's practice as well as belief 
 at that time. 
 
 The above entry in his journal is dated May 5, 1730. 
 He followed or adhered to the ''Rubric,'' which was then 
 the formula of the Church of England, and it 'seems requir- 
 ed even infants to be immersed. But we find that this 
 wonderful man of God changed his views, and published in 
 the year 1756—20 years after the above narration— a 
 treatise on baptism and contended for pouring or sprink- 
 ling as the more Scriptural mode of baptism. Strange in- 
 consistency of this good man! But we will proceed with 
 our testimony of many writers who lived at different times 
 and in different countries of all the different denominations. 
 The falsehood of their united testimony is not to be con- 
 ceived. The argument which this produces furnishes for 
 the truth of immersion as the only primitive and Apostolic 
 mode, has, in strength and conclusiveness, no parallel in 
 the whole compass of ancient literature. All antiquity 
 does not afford a vestige, public or private, of any con- 
 tradictory testimony. Though opposition has been most 
 violent, though ridicule, defamation and persecution, were, 
 and are yet employed and displayed against this institu- 
 tion and its adherents, no one presumed to deny the facts. 
 What but truth almighty could have stood such an ordeal, 
 or commanded: such acquiescence! The Pope issued his 
 edicts against it and those who practiced it were nailed to 
 the stake and their bodies burned to a shes. It yet remains 
 the ever-living monument of the burial and resurrection of 
 our precious Redeemer ! 
 
 Rev. O. Fisher, of the Methodist Episcopal Society, in a 
 
39 
 
 debate with G. G. Baggerly, at Jarrissa, Texas, August 
 28, 1853, said:* ' "The days of Baptists are well nigh num- 
 bered, for all the 'Pedo-Baptist denominations are deter- 
 mined to push this vexed question until the wave of im- 
 mersion shall be stayed." (Pedo-Baptist immersions by 
 Rev. G. W. Purifoy,)who adds: "How do ' the Pedo-Bap- 
 tist dettominartlons' expect to stop 'the wave of immersion,' 
 when 'in condescension to weak consciences' they immerse? 
 Pedo-Baptistshave already tried persecution, confiscation, 
 banishment, fines, imprisonment, stripes, fire, sword, ridi- 
 cule, sophistry, the inquisition, scoffs, arguments, &c. 
 Still 'the wave of immersion ' has rolled on, and is rising 
 higher and higher, stronger, broader and deeper, and Mil 
 eventually immerse the whole Pedo-Baptist world, for if 
 has already sprung a leak in every branch of 'the Pedo- 
 Baptist denomillations , who are determined to stop 'the 
 wave of immersion. ' " 
 
 William Penn, a Quaker, and founder*of Pennsylvania, 
 declared, "There is not one text of Scripture to prove that 
 sprinkling in the face was water baptism, or that children 
 were subjects of water baptism in the first times." Here is 
 high authority of a distinguished Roman Catholic, Arch- 
 bishop Cullen, who said "immersion was certainly only prac- 
 ticed by the primitive Church ; that it was changed by the 
 authority of the Church, and but for this power vested in 
 the Church, the ordinance could not have been clitwgvd. 
 Therefore, in the matter of baptism, the various sects are 
 dependent upon and derive their authority from us for tin 1 
 chnngv of the ordinance from immersion to pouring and 
 sprinkling. ' ' Again he says : "The Baptists alone of all the 
 sects are consistent. Denying the authority of tradition and 
 the power tested* iii • the Church of bin ding a&d loosing, they 
 adhere strictly to the teachings of Christ and the letter of 
 the New Testament. " He further says that the "Baptists 
 'alone compose the true Church, unless the Church has the 
 power of 'loosing mid binding / " So if is here truthfully 
 
40 
 
 asserted, by this eminent Catholic Archbishop, that our 
 Methodist friends derive their authority for the change of 
 the ordinance from immersion to sprinkling and pouring, 
 from their grandmother, the Church of Rome, and not from 
 the Scripture. If Dr. H. denies this, hear what Leo I, Pope 
 of Rome A. D. 440, says: "The regular administration of 
 baptism was immersion." Pope Zacharias, A. D. 741, 
 says: "Immersion was the only practice" Cardinal Wise- 
 man says : "We retain the name of baptism, which means 
 immersion, though the rite is no longer performed by it, 
 having been changed by The Church" Erasmus, this won- 
 derful scholar, quotes Cyprian as saying: "Teach all nations, 
 dipping them in the name," &c. Cyprian lived in the third 
 century with Tertullian and Origen, only about 104 years 
 after the Apostle John. Tertullian also speaks of "John's 
 dipping the people in the river Jordan." One more. Bish- 
 op Trevan, a learned Catholic, in his celebrated argument, 
 uses the following remarkable language : "But without go- 
 ing any farther, show us, my lords, the validity of your 
 baptism by Scripture alone." Jesus Christ in the Bible or- 
 dains that baptism shall be conferred not by pouringwatev 
 on the heads of believers, but by believers being plunged 
 into the water. The word baptizo employed by the evan- 
 gelists strictly conveys this signification as the learned are 
 agreed" 
 
 We have already referred to the concessions of Drs. 
 Clark and Wesley, of the Methodist Church. We will men- 
 tion one more. Joseph Benson, a very popular commen- 
 tator, on Rom. 6-4 remarks: "Therefore, we are buried 
 with Him," alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by 
 immersion. Dr. Benson, may like my friend Dr. Hudson, 
 practice sprinkling, but unlike him confesses that immer- 
 sion was the ancient baptism. Having noticed what 
 ( Quakers, Catholics and Methodists have conceded to Baptist 
 principles, hear what the most learned scholars and divines 
 of the I^piscopalians say. Take Dr. Arthur P. Stanley, 
 
41 
 
 Professor of Ecclesiastical History of the University of Ox- 
 ford, and who declined the office of Archbishop of Dublin, 
 upon the death of the lamented Whateley. In his lectures 
 published a few years ago, on the history of the Eastern 
 Church, he says : " There can be no question that the orig- 
 inal form of baptism, the very meaning of the word, was 
 complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters ; and 
 that for at least four centuries any other form was either 
 unknown or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous ill- 
 ness, as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case/" 
 Again, "whilst the Greek Church still rigidly adheres to im- 
 mersion, the Koman Catholic Church, doubtless in defer- 
 ence to the requirements of a Northern climate, to the 
 change of manners, to the convenience of custom, has 
 wholly altered the mode, preferring a few drops of wa- 
 ter, for the three-fold plunge into the rushing rivers or the 
 wide baptisteries of the East." He says: "The Greek 
 Church is the only living representative of the Hellenic race, 
 and speaks the only living voice which has come down to 
 us from the Apostolic age ! " And yet this Church which as 
 Stanley says, u rea as the whole code of Scripture, old as 
 well as new, in the language in which it was read and spo- 
 ken by the Apostles, this same Greek Church practices only 
 immersion as baptism, and absolutely repudiates and 
 ignores any other mode of administration as essentially 
 valid." This Church prevails over the Byzantine Empire, 
 and numbers its millions. And yet Dr. H. says on page 
 81, "No Church as such, except the* Baptist, requires any 
 X>articular form of baptism as a sine qua non condition of 
 membership." Yet if he will read a little more carefully 
 he will observe a Church outnumbering his own boasted 
 thousands, and that utterly "repudiates and ignores " the 
 validity of my friend's baptism, if the learned and popular 
 Dr. Stanley is to be believed. Another Greek writer, Chris- 
 topulos, sajs: "We follow the example of the Apostles, 
 who immersed the candidate under the water." Jeremiah, 
 
42 
 
 another Greek patriarch says : " The ancients were not ac- 
 customed to sprinkle but immerse the candidates." Still 
 Dr. H. boldly asserts: "There is no command to baptize 
 by immersion." 
 
 We will let Dr. Wall, an Episcopalian, the ablest defender 
 of infant baptism of the Pedo-Baptist denomination, re- 
 ply to Dr. H. "Immersion was the practice of the Primi- 
 tive Church. This is so plain and clear by an infinite num- 
 ber of passages, that one cannot but pity the weak en- 
 deavors of such Pedo-Baptists as would maintain the neg- 
 ative of it. 'Tis a great want of prudence, as well as hon- 
 esty to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly 
 true and may be proved so." 
 
 Thus we see how these great and good men of all de- 
 nominations are honest in making concessions to the Bap- 
 tists who rest their rule of practice and faith upon the Bi- 
 ble alone. And why should they do so unless constrained 
 by candor and truth ? Why should the master spirits of 
 the ecclesiastical world be found testifying to the truth of 
 Baptist principles, if those principles be not sound, and in 
 accordance with the teachings of the Bible ? Men of intel- 
 ligence and candor are never known to turn witnesses 
 against themselves, either before God or man , unless forced 
 by the truth thus to act. How these Christian writers can 
 reconcile their daily practice, so contrary to these wonder- 
 ful admissions, I leave for them to settle before a higher 
 tribunal. 
 
 " 'Tis something strange, we freely own, 
 That those who preach immersion down. 
 Should after all the things they say, 
 Consent to tread this frantic way, 
 And from the pulpit straight repair 
 To practice what they censured there. 
 Rather than lose a wandering sheep, 
 Whom all their reasonings cannot keep. 
 To please the man, but not his God, 
 They will immerse him in the flood." 
 
 But we refer once more to page 81 of the Methodist 
 
43 
 
 Armor. Immersion is here affirmed to be "Indecent and 
 
 DANGEROUS." 
 
 Our friend's favorite author, Richard Watson, is here 
 quoted and paraded before his readers. It is found in his 
 " Theological Institutes," Vol. II, page 648-660. Since 
 Dr. H. uses only a, part of this remarkable language, we 
 here give the reader the benefit of the whole passage. He 
 says, "With all the arrangements of modern times baptism 
 by immersion is not a decent practice. There is not a fe- 
 male perhaps who submits to it who has not a great previ- 
 ous struggle with her delicacy." Again: "Even if immer- 
 sion had been the original mode of baptizing, we should, in 
 the absence of any command on the subject, direct or im- 
 plied, have thought the Church at liberty to accommodate 
 the manner of applying water to the body in the name of 
 the Trinity, in which the essence of the rite consists, to dif- 
 ferent climates and manners ; but it is satisfactory to dis- 
 cover that all attempts made to impose upon Christians 
 a practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to health , 
 and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all Scriptural au- 
 thority and of really primitive practice." "Indecent! " 
 
 Offensive ! " And yet "valid," " equally valid with, sprink- 
 ling! " It cannot be valid unless Christ appointed it . Our 
 Saviour appoints an ordinance "indecent!" "offensive!" 
 nay, submitted to an indecent thing himself! In the lan- 
 guage of a, distinguished Baptist who left the Methodist 
 Church : "May Heaven have mercy on the man who makes 
 such an appeal! The vulgarity is in the man and not 
 in immersion." 
 
 Dr. Lee, late editor of the Richmond Christian Ad- 
 vocate, says : " Is there anything in Christ's personal char- 
 acter that indicates a possible justification ofsucha scene? 
 ( Immersion of a female.) No. He was too pure, too gen- 
 tle, too modest to institute such a ceremony as an .ordi- 
 nance of His Church. You will find it impossible to im- 
 agine Peter and Paul engaged in any such administration 
 
44 
 
 of baptism. We insist that if women must be immersed, it 
 ought to be by moonlight, or if in the face of the sun, in the 
 presence only of women by a blindfolded minister. ' ' Again : 
 Methodist Tracts, No. 180: "The idea of being plunged 
 into water is so dreadful to some, that it renders them un- 
 lit to wait upon the Lord without distraction." It is a 
 circumstance so revolting to our delicacy in these times 
 that we cannot but think immersion an innovation ," ( No. 
 130.) " The practice of walking into a river or pond where 
 the water is itself filthy, appearing more like objects of grief 
 than members of that Kingdom w r hichis joy, &c; their hair 
 disheveled, their garments defiled and dripping, is all this 
 commendable in woman ? " ( Methodist Tracts. 130-180, 
 page 20.) "Baptism by pouring comports with decency, 
 but does immersion." — Methodist Armor, page 93. And 
 yet those who publish and circulate such contemptible 
 abuse of immersion and to whom "the idea is exceedingly 
 dreadful and indecent," immerse all they cannot ridicule 
 out of the notion. "There is no command," says Dr. H., 
 "to baptize by immersion." But we will show before we 
 get through, that he is egregiously mistaken, that the very 
 meaning of the word baptize, implies it in the Great Com- 
 mission, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them, "&c, that 
 it is a most positive command and requires obedience. He 
 says: "The following Bible examples lead us to believe 
 that the Apostles administered it by pouring or sprink- 
 ling." 
 
 1. Baptism of Paul, page 81, Armor. "And Ananias 
 went his way," &c. * * * u and he received sight forth- 
 with, and arose and was baptized." Acts 9-17-18. Here 
 he insists that Paul could not have been immersed. On 
 the expression, "arise and be baptized, ("literally stand- 
 ing up, be baptized," ) " and he arose and was baptized ; " 
 ("literally standing up he was baptized;") * * "it 
 definitely and precisely expresses his (Paul's) posture 
 when he received baptism," and concludes : "The whole air 
 
45 
 
 of it is that he just stood up from his prostration, in order 
 to be baptized wMe upon his feet." Now it is urged here 
 that Paul could not have been immersed for he was too 
 weak. "Three days had he been sunk in feebleness and 
 fasting"— he was too feeble to go out to the river— he just 
 stood up from his prostration, "that he was baptized," 
 ( Sprinkled) " standing up." But why, (we ask) was it 
 necessary for Paul to stand up to be sprinkled or poured 
 upon ? Being very weak, as they say, and reclining, he was 
 just in the right position to be sprinkled if that was the 
 mode of baptism he was to receive. He doubtless was in 
 an attitude of prayer, for it is said, " Behold he prayeth." 
 And we have noticed some Methodist ministers 'administer 
 baptism to the candidate while kneeling. There was no 
 necessity then, for Paul to rise up, in order to have water 
 poured or sprinkled on him. Now if the Bible had said 
 that Paul was too weak to sit up but was baptized in a re- 
 clining posture, they would have exclaimed at once: "Do you 
 not see he could not have been immersed, for he was bap- 
 tized reclining upon a couch?" But "he arose and was 
 baptized, " is the language used, the very thing he ought to 
 have done in order to immersion, and yet they claim that 
 this idea is against baptism in that way, for, say they, the 
 word standing, implies that Paul remained in this posture 
 to receive his baptism. But this is not so. "For," says a 
 high authority, "the word rose up indicates motion, pre- 
 paratory to departure from a place." " It is here used to 
 state that Paul moved off." So we read : " Saul arose and 
 got him up to Gilgal." " David arose and fled for fear of 
 Saul." "Saul rose up out of the cave and went." But 
 poor Paul must " arise' " and stand still. 
 
 There are several places in this chapter in regard to 
 Paul's baptism where the word "arise" is used. "Arise 
 and go into the city." Was he to go " standing still? " 
 "Arise and go into the street which is called straight." 
 Was Ananias standing still as he went ? Paul " arose and 
 
46 
 
 was baptized . ' ' Where is the proof now that he was 1 4 stand- 
 ing' still " when he received the rite of baptism? 
 
 Is the reader not satisfied that the word " arose 7 ' was 
 simply intended to denote the movement of Paul to some 
 place where baptism could be properly administered ? But 
 Paul settles the question beyond cavil when he says : " So 
 many of us, as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- 
 tized into his death. Therefore we are buried with him by 
 baptism into death. "—Rom. VI, 3-4. Some have insisted 
 that there was no suitable place, or that sufficient water 
 could not be found for Paul's immersion. Let us see. Paul 
 was in Damascus. Naaman said, -"Are not Abana and 
 Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of 
 Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? " — Second 
 Kings, v— 10. Besides much is written of the clearness and 
 sweetness of these two rivers. One of them is said to run 
 along through this ancient city, furnishing the houses with 
 good water, and the other " flows through the orchards 
 and gardens, vineyards and meadows," &c. What a suit- 
 able place then for this great Apostle to be baptized in im- 
 itation of his Master! 
 
 Here we will close this account of Paul's baptism by 
 giving place to Dr. Barnes, the learned Presbyterian divine" 
 who clearly trips up our friend Hudson's theory and drives 
 him to take shelter with the jailer's family where we will 
 follow him. Barnes in his "notes" says of Paul: "The 
 word 'arose,' does not imply that he had been sitting. It 
 does not refer to any change of position but expresses the 
 act of setting out, or beginning to do anything. It was a 
 common expression among the Hebrews to denote entering 
 upon a. piece of business. Now if Luke had said he sat still 
 and was baptized , it might have made some difficulty ; but 
 if he ' rose up' or prepared himself, he would do this equally 
 whether he was sprinkied or immersed. Immersion is quite 
 as probable, so far as this word is concerned, as sprinkling 
 or anything else. " So says this popular author andPres- 
 
47 
 
 byterian, who is too honest to seize on such weak and un- 
 tenable argument for sprinkling as an ordinance. 
 
 We come next to the " Baptism of the Jailer, "page 82, 
 Armor. Dr. H. thinks here he has certainly found a place 
 where "immersion was impossible under the circumstan- 
 ces." Let us see. The recital is found in Acts, 10 ch. Dr. 
 Hudson takes only a part of this passage of Scripture, just 
 so much of it as suits his purpose and then adds : 1st . "The 
 jailer and his' family were baptized at the hour of midnight 
 in the prison/' 2nd. " The baptism took place in the 
 prison." He" says, " We have the authority of the Apostles 
 that they did not go out of the prison. Paul refused to 
 leave the prison privily." "Who can believe," says he 
 " that Paul had gone out to some river at midnight, gone 
 privily, secretly, and immersed the parties and then slipped 
 back into the prison and demanded a public and honorable 
 discharge from the prison after he had already been out. 
 No such hypocrisy can be charged against them. The con- 
 clusion is inevitable that they had not been out of prison- 
 bounds." 
 
 Again, " There is not the slightest ground for the wild 
 supposition that a Roman prison was provided with any- 
 thing like a baptistry, ' ' &c. " Besides, Philippi was located 
 in the very latitude of ' Snowy Thrace ' where such things 
 would not be needed. A bath or tank in a Roman prison ! 
 As well expect to find a piano in the wigwam of a. flat-head- 
 ed Indian. " He says, "there was a baptism in the prison, 
 but most clearly it was not immersion/' He says "it was 
 either sprinkling or pouring," &c M &c. I belie* ve I have got 
 down the Dr's. strongest points on this passage. So here 
 again we will have to pull down this stronghold of Metho- 
 dism. There was most certainly a baptism administered 
 to the jailer and his family. How was it? There is no 
 mystery or doubt even, about the manner of it. There was 
 no sprinkling, no pouring. Luke, the inspired Apostle, 
 says, "he was immersed, he and all his, straightway," for 
 
48 
 
 the word baptized cannot be and never has been rendered 
 in any language to mean sprinkled; this alone, is sufficient,' 
 without any supposed obstacles to forever settle the mat- 
 ter. Besides we have heretofore shown from leading writers 
 and historians of all denominations, from authors, sacred 
 and profane, that no other mode than that of immersion 
 was practiced to any extent for 13 hundred years after 
 Christ ordained it, and that sprinkling and pouring are the 
 inventions of man and not sanctioned by divine authority. 
 But look how incorrectly Dr. H. states the case. He says, 
 "The baptism took place in the prison," that "we have 
 the authority of the Apostles that they did not go out of 
 the prison" — that Paul was too brave a man to go out of 
 the prison to immerse the parties and then " secretly slip 
 back into the prison, " &c. It was by no means impossible 
 for immersion to take place in the jail. Lord Bacon* says, 
 "Bathing with the Komans and Grecians was as usual as 
 eating and sleeping, and so it is with the Turks to this 
 day. " It is also said that their prisons were provided with 
 baths. The writer once visited the penitentiaiy at Albany , 
 N. Y., and a State .prison at Detroit, Mich., where the pris- 
 oners had bath rooms — Avater in which their whole bodies 
 could be plunged or immersed — these were for the purpose 
 of cleanliness. And Dr. Judson states that in India baths 
 in prisons were common. That the Philippian jailer had 
 no convenient place for immersion must first be proved be- 
 fore it is granted. The mere assertion will not do. But 
 the truth is, the baptism was not done in the jail, as as- 
 serted by our opponent. Don't we read, verse 30, how the 
 jailer sprang into the prison and brought the Apostles out 
 of it? Verse 32— He brought them into his own house— 
 they spoke the word of the Lord to all that were in his 
 house. So you see the Apostles were in the family apart- 
 ments. And again, verse 33 he took them somewhere else, 
 washed their stripes, and was himself baptized, and then, 
 verse 34 he brought the Apostles back into his house and 
 
49 
 
 " set meat before them. " But who knows where this pris- 
 on stood ? It may have been on the bank of a river, as 
 many of our prisons are in this day and country. It is cer- 
 tain there was a river near (see verse* 13) to which the peo- 
 ple were accustomed to go for purification. It is highly 
 probable there were conveniences for bathing on the prem- 
 ises of the jailer and this was the opinion of the learned 
 Gratius, "that would most commodiously admit of the or- 
 dinance of this form." Even in "Snowy Thrace" the 
 Greeks to this day practice only immersion, and have al- 
 ways repudiated and ignored any other form of baptism. 
 So away goes Dr. Hudson's "Snowy Thrace " idea. As to 
 the wigwam of the flat-headed Indian and his piano, that 
 reminds me of the Indians idea of baptism as related some 
 years ago. A traveling minister of the Methodist Church 
 gave an old Indian a Testament, which he had learned to 
 read in English, and appointed a certain time and place for 
 the purpose of baptizing all who wished to join his Church. 
 The day arrived, and all the candidates w T ere found at the 
 meeting house, but the Indian was missing, and upon in- 
 quiry it was told that he was seen sitting on the bank of a 
 stream near by reading his Testament. The preacher sent 
 for him to come to the house if he wished to be baptized 
 along with the others, but says he, " How can you baptize 
 at the house? There is no water there," and insisted that 
 the creek was the place as he read it ; but on being told that 
 it was not necessary to be baptized in the creek, that the 
 minister only sprinkled a few drops or poured a little wa- 
 ter out of a pitcher or cup in order to baptize one, the 
 Indian replied if that was the case, the preacher had given 
 him the wrong book. 
 
 This closes our article on the jailer's family, and we pro- 
 ceed to follow our author to his next stronghold, for al- 
 though the Indian might have little use for a* " piano, " yet 
 I venture the assertion, let him learn to read the New Tes- 
 tament for himself, and nninstrncted as to the ordinances. 
 
50 
 
 except what he gets by reading the pure word of God he 
 would not likely be a Methodist; or at least if he should 
 the preacher would have to impose upon him a dangerous 
 and indecent " mode. 
 
 3rd. « Baptism of Cornelius,- page 84, Armor. « While 
 r ^ et *P ak & the «e words, the Holy Ghost fell on all 
 them which heard the word/' & c . * * « Then answered 
 Peter, can any man forbid water that these should not be 
 baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as 
 we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name 
 of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain 
 days.- -Acts. 10-44-48 -The clear inference is that Cor- 
 nelms and his household were baptized by pdiiPmg The 
 circumstance proves this. They went to no river they 
 are not said to go down to any wa ter, nor are we told that 
 They had a bath adapted for such a purpose in their house 
 I eters remark aboiit forbidding water, indicates that it 
 was to be brought to him for the purpose of administering- 
 this nfe. And above all, it should be noticed, that when 
 the Apostle saw the Holy Spirit descending upon them he 
 was reminded of what Christ had sa id of John's baptizin<>- 
 with water. (Acts, xi-10. Whence this instantaneous 
 recollection and association of ideas, but from the fact that 
 the mode of water baptism was in form the same as that 
 of the descent of the Holy Ghost? Had either John or 
 Peter baptized by dipping the narrative and the allusion 
 would have been grossly inconsistent and calculated to 
 mislead the most devout and clear headed student of inspi- 
 ration. ' Here we have quoted the whole argument Dr H 
 uses to show that pouring- m this place was what Peter 
 practiced m his administration of baptism and that " dip- 
 ping would have been grossly inconsistent." Let us see if 
 he is correct. -The objection here to immersion,'" says 
 Dr. Pendleton, - is almost a laughable one. The question 
 only means, can any one forbid the baptism of these Gen- 
 tiles who have received the Holy Spirit as well as the Jews > 
 
51 
 
 Peter does not say the. "water was to be brought." He 
 only says \\hd Avill " forbid water?" Baptist ministers of- 
 ten say in receiving candidates, "Can any man forbid wa- 
 ter," &c. It simply means, can any one object to the bap- 
 tism of these Gentiles ; for this is the first recorded instance 
 of the Gentiles being received into the number of the Dis- 
 ciples. But Dr. H. here again, brings up his favorite idea 
 of Holy Ghost baptism, that as the Apostle "saw the Holy 
 Spirit descending'' upon them, it proves conclusively that 
 Veiev pouivd wa ter on the heads, faces, or some other parts 
 of the bodies of these Gentiles. Dr. H. would have 
 us believe that Peter actually saw the personal substance 
 of the Hoh^ Spirit poured down in a stream, literally and 
 visibly, and thai" this suggested to his mind how he should 
 apply water in baptism ! But the Scripture does not say 
 that Peter actually "saw the Holy Spirit." It says the 
 •'Gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out." It was clearly 
 the miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit that was 
 "poured out" and shed forth on the hearts and minds of 
 these people which caused them to "speak with tongues 
 and magnify God." Peter seeing this wonderful change 
 wrought in them, very naturally concluded they were now 
 fit subjects of baptism and therefore "commanded them to 
 be immersed in the name of the Lord." For Dr. Chalmers ■ 
 and all the most eminent divines declare the "original 
 meaning of the word baptism is immersion." If the word 
 means poured, hear how the text would read: "Can any 
 man f eft-bid water that these should be poured, which have 
 received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he command- 
 ed them to be j)oured." How ridiculous! Now substitute 
 the word immersed which should have been given in 'the 
 translation, and it is all natural and plain. 
 
 We now come to the next stronghold in the Methodist 
 Armor, page 85. 
 
 4th. The Baptism of the three thousand. "Then Pe- 
 ter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of 
 
52 
 
 you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they 
 that gladly received his word were baptized , and the same 
 day there were added unto them about three thousand 
 souls." (Acts 2—38—41.) This text is often given by our 
 opponents and urged by them as unanswerable by those 
 who maintain immersion i*o be the only mode. Dr. H. 
 gives us two insurmountable difficulties in the way of im- 
 mersion. 1st, Not time enough, and 2nd, There was not 
 water enough . This is what he say s : ' ' Now, supposing the 
 twelve Apostles to have been engaged in this work, and 
 supposing immersion to have been the mode, it must have 
 been a most laborious, disagreeable, if not impracticable, 
 undertaking to be accomplished in the course of five or six 
 hours. It should be taken into the account, moreover, 
 that at least twenty-four robing rooms, and a dozen dip- 
 ping places must have been obtained for the purpose," &c. 
 
 2nd . ' 'Now, in Jerusalem itself, there was neither a river 
 nor fountain of water. Kedron was little better than the 
 common sewer of the city, and was dry except during the 
 early and latter rains. Siloam was only a spring without 
 the walls, not always flowing, the contents of which were 
 , sometimes sold to the people by measure; and the pools 
 supplied by its puny streams were either used for washing- 
 sheep, and similar purposes, rendering them unfit for cere- 
 monial purposes, or they were owned by persons not likely 
 to lend them for washing apostate strangers in. Tke water 
 used for domestic purposes was obtained from the rains 
 of heaven, and preserved in household tanks, and of course 
 was guarded with the utmost care and used with a rigid 
 economy — it raining there only two seasons in the year. It 
 may be further mentioned that the fountain of Siloam is 
 the only place in the environs of Jerusalem where the trav- 
 eller can moisten his finger, quench his thirst, and rest his 
 head under the shadow of the cool rock and on two or three 
 tufts of verdure. Th a t the case was precisely similar in the 
 
 \ 
 
53 
 
 time of the Apostle," &e., &c. Now we must first notice Ms 
 first objection— " There was not time enough." We think 
 we shall be able to overthrow this fortification of our op- 
 ponent, and the fair-minded reader will conclude before he 
 gets through that there is manifested on the part of some 
 Pedo-Baptist writers, either great unfairness or ignorance. 
 The question is. "Were the three thousand sprinkled or 
 • immersed ?" " Was there time enough to immerse them 
 all in one day? *' Xow, it is a fact, that it takes about as 
 long for a Methodist preacher to sprinkle a candidate as it 
 does for a Baptist minister to immerse one ; from my ob- 
 servation it consumes more time even, so they defeat their 
 own theory in endeavoring to upset ours. But they give 
 the Apostles 6 hours and say it was impossible to bap- 
 tize (immerse) them all in that space of time. Dr. Curtis 
 admirably ventilates this objection. He says : " It is pain- 
 fully little having to discuss questions of time about a mat- 
 ter of this solemn interest ; it is an ordinance that is usual- 
 ly prolonged from its pleasant nature. What antiquary 
 ever denied the immersion of ten thousand in one day in 
 the river Swale near the beginning of the seventh century ? 
 ( )r whoever ventured to question that the baptism of the 
 three thousand on Easter eve, A. D., 404, at Constantino- 
 ple, was by immersion, though disturbed by the officers 
 sent to arrest Chrysost om ? ' ? Remigius , Bishop of Rheim s , 
 immersed three thousand in one day, A. D., 496, assisted 
 by his clergy. These historical facts are too Avell estab- 
 lished to be at all denied. Dr. Curtis relates a circumstance 
 of his own observation. Twenty-seven persons were im- 
 mersed in a stream in a most solemn and impressive man- 
 ner — a scene, he says, so interesting and solemn as never 
 faded from the memories of those who witnessed it, and 
 that the minister immersed the entire twenty-seven candi- 
 dates in eight minutes. In this way the whole of the three 
 thousand might have been baptized in less than one horn 
 and a quarter by the twelve Apostles. Make the calcula- 
 
54 
 
 tion. But it is probable that the seventy Apostles were 
 also present and aided in this grand scene, "for they were 
 all with one accord in the same place," says the Scripture. 
 This would make eighty-two administrators, and if they 
 were all present, they must all have taken part in this de- 
 lightful service, for I have never seen a Baptist minister 
 yet who did not regard it a great pleasure to engage in this 
 holy command. Now allowing one minute for one immer- 
 sion to each one of these 82 administrators— which is twice 
 as long as a Baptist preacher requires now-a-days— and 
 the whole ceremony of immersing the three thousand could 
 have been performed in less than one hour! But the dis- 
 tinguished Dr. Kichard Fuller tells us in his work on bap- 
 tism that he has more than once baptized one,and two hun- 
 dred before morning service on the Lord's day. According 
 to this the twelve Apostles even would have no difficulty 
 in immersing three thousand on the day of Pentecost. It 
 seems to us, therefore, that any objection made by Pedo- 
 Baptists because there was not time enough, is weak indeed 
 and destitute of sound reason. 
 
 But before we leave this difficulty in the minds of our 
 opponents, let us hear what a few impartial and distin- 
 guished Pedo-Baptists say about this matter. 1st. The 
 learned and sagacious Venema, in his "Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, "fairly states : "It is without controversy, that bap- 
 tism in the primitive Church was administered by immer- 
 sion into water and not by sprinkling, seeing John is said 
 to have baptized in- Jordan, and where there was much 
 water, as Christ also did by his Disciples in the neighbor- 
 hood of those places (Matt, iii and John iii). Philip also 
 going down into the water baptized the Eunuch ( Acts 8 ) 
 . . . Nor is there any necessity to have recourse to the idea 
 of sprinkling in - our interpretation of Acts II--14, when 
 three thousand souls are said to be added to Christ by bap- 
 tism, seeing it might be performed by immersion, equally 
 as by sprinkling, especially as they are not said to have 
 
been baptized at the same time . . . The essential act of 
 baptizing in the first and second century, consisted not in 
 sprinkling, but in immersion into water in the name of 
 each person in the Trinity. Concerning immersion the 
 words and phrases that are used sufficiently pro vet his and 
 that it was performed in a river, a pool, or a fountain. To 
 the essential rites of baptism in the third century, pert air; 
 ed immersion and not sprinkling, except in cases @f iieces 
 sity and then it was accounted a half-perfect baptism . . . 
 Immersion in the fourth century was one of those acts that 
 were considered as essential to baptism." Now the above' 
 quotation is from a Pedo-Baptist author, whose fame and 
 reputation for fairness and truth reaches across two Con- 
 tinents, and he says that "there is no proof that the three 
 thousand were baptized by sprinkling, seeing that it might 
 as well have been done by immersion as that was the cus- 
 tom in those times." It looks reasonable that this great 
 and learned man, who was not a Baptist, who had care- 
 fully studied the pages of ancient Church history, and 
 looked impartially into the matter, giving his candid and 
 honest opinion and against the practice of his own people, 
 would more likely be received as correct, than the state- 
 ments of Dr. Hudson, whose fame is confined to the nar- 
 row limits of the North Carolina Conference. 
 
 Once more, Bishop Bossuet thus expresses it: "It ap- 
 pears not, that the three thousand and the five thousand 
 mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, who were converted 
 at the first sermons of St. Peter, were baptized any other 
 way than by immersion ; and the great number of those 
 converts is no proof that they were baptized by sprinkling 
 as some have conjectured. For, besides that, nothing 
 obliges us to say that they were all baptized on the same 
 day, it is certain that John the Baptist, who baptized no 
 less numbers, seeing all Judea nocked to him, baptized no 
 other way than by dipping, and his example shows us that 
 to baptize a great number of people those places were cho- 
 
56 
 
 sen where there was an abundance of water."' We have 
 other similar concessions before us, but surely nothing 
 more is necessary to show there was time enough for im- 
 mersion in this case. 
 
 In the next place we notice the difficulty as to the scarci- 
 ty of 'water. Dr. H., as we have seen, says, "That thf 
 fountain of Siloam is the only place in the environs of Jeru- 
 salem where the traveler can moisten his finger, quench his 
 thirst," &c. This looks like a pretty hard story about ; wa- 
 ter in the great city of the world at that time, and if it were 
 true there would indeed have been great difficulty in the 
 supply of water either for sprinkling or immersion suffi- 
 cient to refute the Apostle's statement as true. The fact 
 is, our opponents have attempted to prove too much in 
 their eagerness to set up their own theory. There is no 
 trouble to get at the truth — here it is: Within the last 
 fifty years the sacred city has been so explored by survey- 
 ors of the highest authority, that a point like this can be 
 settled on data not to be shaken. Dr. Robinson gives us 
 his observations upon Palestine where he personally exam- 
 ined this whole matter with minuteness and care, which the 
 reader will find in his "Biblical Researches," (a valuable 
 Presbyterian work) and from which we learn there was 
 really water enough to have immersed tens of thousands. 
 Refer to pages 479—518. 1st. The pool of Siloam, which 
 Dr. H. says was the only place in which "the traveler could 
 moisten his finger," Dr. Robinson says was fifty-three feet 
 long, eighteen feet broad, nineteen feet deep in parts, with 
 another smaller pool close by. 2nd. "The lower pool of 
 Gilion is five hundred and ninety-two feet long, two hun- 
 dred and sixty feet broad and varies from 2 to 42 feet deep. 
 It covers more than four acres of ground, is rather a lake 
 than a pool in point of size, its sides having a slope just 
 adapted to a descent for immersion. In this spot alone 
 three thousand, or any number, might Imve been baptized 
 in one day. There are many other cisterns or pools in 
 
57 
 
 which immersions could have been performed. In all of 
 these places the sides are more or less sloping, so that, un- 
 less at the time of some freshet, they whould have been sffita - 
 ble for bathing-. " " And there was the pool of Bethesda, 
 where the impotent man lay. It had every convenience 
 and suitability for this rite, three hundred and sixty feet 
 long, one hundred and thirty feet broad, seventy-five feet 
 deep in parts but so arranged round its sides as to af- 
 ford facilities for the baptism of multitudes. " There were 
 < >ther pools— the pool of Hezekiah— see IT Kings. We learn 
 from II Chronicles that there was "much water in Jerusa- 
 lem." Xehemiah speaks of the •"upper water of Gihon," 
 brought straight down to the west side of the city of Da- 
 vid . In Isaiah we read of the ' k waters of the Lower Pool . ' ' 
 In the New Testament, in John, we read of a "pool by the 
 sheep market," and also of "the pool of Siloam," which 
 Dr. H. says is the " only place in the en virons of Jerusalem 
 where the traveler can moisten his finger, or quench his 
 thirst!" On the contrary travelers whose veracity has 
 never been doubted, testify to the great amount of water 
 to be found in and around this great city, and the Scrip- 
 tures themselves give us evidence to the same purport, 
 which together establish the fact that there probably nev- 
 er was a city in the world supplied with a greater quantity 
 ( )f water in proportion to its size. The reader is referred 
 for full satisfaction to the testimony of Josephus, who lived 
 at the same time with our Savior, and in his valuable work 
 gives us the most vivid account of the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, (read it,) also to Dr. Sampson, Barclay, Chase and 
 others who visited in person this sacred city and speak of 
 its abundant supply of water. Bishop Marvin , of the Meth- 
 odist Church, who recently died in St. Louis, in his very in- 
 teresting work, "The East by Way of the West " says on 
 page 360 that Jerusalem was a well watered city. He vis- 
 ited that city in person and returned home a short time be- 
 
58 
 
 fore his death. Will Dr. H. question Bishop Marvin's 
 statement ? 
 
 Will any intelligent reader, alter perusing these writers, 
 ever question the sufficiency of water for immersing the 
 three thousand ? We repeat , there was time enough to per- 
 form the immersion, and water sufficient not only to mois- 
 ten Dr. Hudson's finger, but to immerse his entire body 
 and thousands more in one day by twelve Baptist ministers. 
 
59 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 A Review of Chapter VIII " Methodist Armor," p. 86. 
 " Objections Answered." 
 
 1st. "Buried with Him in baptism." " Know ye not 
 that so many of as as were baptized into Jesus Christ , were 
 baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with 
 Him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised 
 from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted 
 t ogether in the likeness of His death, we sha ll be also in the 
 likeness of His resurrection." (Romans VI, 3-6. Colos. 
 11-12.) The Dr. then comments as follows : "Our Baptist 
 friends falsely assume that the baptism referred to here 
 means ritual or water baptism, whereas, it clearly refers to 
 a Spiritual baptism." If this be so. Dr. H. refutes his own 
 labored argument on page 80 of his book. There he at- 
 tempted to prove that "spiritual baptism was by pour- 
 ing." Says he, " I will pour out my spirit, " &c, and then 
 adds, "Now as the Holy Spirit was poured upon the peo- 
 ple, J Peter poured water upon them as the most fitting- 
 mode of baptism . " He says in another place, 4 • When Peter 
 saw the Holy Spirit poured out, this suggested to him that 
 water|baptism must be performed in the same manner." 
 Now hear what Paul says: "We are buried with Him by 
 baptism." Dr. H. sees his difficulty, he is staggered, and 
 instead of coming out, like most eminent Pedo-Baptist di- 
 vines and honestly admitting that this text teaches the 
 
GO 
 
 mode of baptism by immersion only, he stultifies himself by 
 saying that only spiritual baptism is meant, whereas here- 
 tofore he maintained that pouring was the manner in which 
 spiritual baptism was performed. How inconsistent these 
 doctors of divinity become in time of danger ! At one time 
 the baptism of the Holy Spirit is by pouring when it suits 
 his purpose, and now he says "it is represented by a 
 burial" (an immersion) but has no reference to water bap- 
 tism here. He is certainly hard to please. Now let some 
 of the great Pedo-Baptist authors speak on this point, at 
 whose feet the Dr. and myself might learn wisdom. 
 
 Prof. Stuart states that "most commentators have 
 maintained that burial here lias a necessary reference to* 
 the mode of literal baptism which they say was by immer- 
 sion, because immersion under the wa,ter,ma,y be compared 
 to a burial under the earth" 
 
 John Wesley, the father of Methodism, in his notes on 
 the New Testament, when commenting on this passage of 
 Eom. 6, says: "Buried with Him by baptism, is an allu- 
 sion to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." 
 Will Dr. Hudson dare repudiate and disown his own fa- 
 ther ? He can charge the Baptists of falsely assuming that 
 it refers to water baptism, but what will he say when his 
 father and other learned men of his own Church say the 
 same thing ? 
 
 Joseph Benson, the popular commentator of the same 
 Church says: "We are buried with Him clearly alludes to 
 the ancient mode of baptism by immersion." 
 
 The celebrated Dr. Wall, ( an Episcopalian ) says : 
 "This passage (Kom. 6-4) fixes the question that in an- 
 cient baptism the whole body was put under the wa/ter." 
 
 Dr. Samuel Clarke: "We are buried with Christ by bap- 
 tism, &c. In the primitive times the manner of baptizing 
 was by immersion . It was a very significant emblem of 
 the dying and rising again, referred to by St. Paul in the 
 above passage." 
 
6J 
 
 The Westminister Assembly of Divines, consisting of 
 fifty eminent ministers, on Eomans 6-4 : " In this phrase, 
 the Apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient mode of bap- 
 tism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and as it were, 
 bnry them under water. " 
 
 I have before me the evidence of many others, both of 
 modern and ancient writers, who, with remarkable una- 
 nimity testify to the truthful assumption of Baptists on 
 this passage. In the face of the united testimony of so 
 many learned commentators and authors, who are not 
 Baptists, some recent writers blindly and deliberately en- 
 deavor to mislead their readers, and "like the blind lead- 
 ing the blind " must inevitably fall together in the ditch. 
 Dr. Hudson can't see water baptism in this plain word of 
 the inspired Apostle; he would not believe it :i though one 
 should rise from the dead"' and tell him that immersion 
 alone was practiced by the Apostles. He says : " No refer- 
 ence whatever to the mode of baptism is found here. It is 
 the sound more than the sense that strikes our Baptist 
 brethren. " He then gives us some quotations from " lead- 
 ing Baptist writers," as he says, who disown the above 
 passage as referring to water baptism, and concludes : 
 •'Hence the entire argument, founded on these passages, 
 in favor of dipping, vanishes in a moment." Now, we do 
 not wish to seem so impolite as to call in question the ve- 
 racity of our friend, but any Baptist who reads this asser- 
 tion will smile at Dr. Hudson's credulity and pity rather 
 than be angry at his weak and groundless proofs to estab- 
 lish his sinking cause. 
 
 On page 87 of " The Methodist Armor," the reader a\ ill 
 find one of the most remarkable statements ever made by 
 a Christian writer. Not being satisfied that his arguments 
 already adduced were sufficient to disprove the idea of wa- 
 ter baptism in the passage, "We are buried with Him by 
 baptism," he here gravely denies that Christ was " buried 
 at all. He says, "His precious body was carried into a 
 
62 
 
 room hewn out of a rock and laid upon a wide bench. In 
 this process there was not the slightest resemblance to dip- 
 ping a person under water; no more than when the body of 
 Dorcas was carried up stairs and laid upon a bed. And he 
 must be sadly at a loss for valid evidence in aid of immer- 
 sion who seizes on this allusion to uphold his practice. ' ? 
 We imagine the pious Christian who reads the above re- 
 markable statement of a minister of the Gospel, that the 
 Savior was not buried, that his body Avas taken and laid 
 on a side bench, will turn away in disgust and sorrow from 
 such sacreligious allusions to the final termination of our . 
 Redeemer's earthly career. It is almost a wonder tha,t our 
 friend admitted that Christ ever died at all, in his. eager- 
 ness to find some excuse for denying immersion was the 
 mode of His baptism. It savors more of mockery than of 
 an honest inquiry for truth. Were it not that some infat- 
 uated admirer failed to see it in this light, it would be 
 passed over in silent contempt. 
 
 Hear what the Evangelists say : " Then took they -the 
 body of Jesus and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, 
 as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now, in the place 
 where he was crucified there was a garden ; and in the gar- 
 den a new sepulchre wherein was never man laid. There 
 they laid Jesus. ' ' John XIX-40-42. And chapter XX-5 : 
 "And he (the disciple) stooping down, and looking in saw 
 the linen clothes lying," &c. And verse II: "But Mary 
 stood without, weeping, and as she wept she stooped down 
 and looked into the sepulchre. " Again, Luke XXIV-12 : 
 "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre, and stoop- 
 ing down he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves. " 
 Matthew and Mark also state that they laid the body of 
 Jesus in the sepulchre. Matthew calls it a tomb, chapter 
 27, verse 60. Our English dictionaries define a sepulchre 
 to mean " a, burial place, " "the place where a corpse is bu- 
 ried , " " a grave, " " a tomb. ' ' ( See Worcester Unabridged . ) 
 
 The Psalmist in his prophecy of Christ, chapter XVI-10 : 
 
(58 
 
 •'Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (grave), 
 neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. " 
 See also Acts, 11-27. See also Isaiah LIII-9 : ""He made 
 his grave with the wicked." Paul says: "We are buried 
 with Christ, " &c. The Savior said he would be buried. 
 Matt. XXYI-12, also XII-40. Paul says he was buried, 
 I Cor. XV-3-4. But Dr. Hudson says Christ was not buried, 
 that his body was simply laid up on "a side bench. "' And 
 yet the Scriptures tell us that the disciple, Peter, and the 
 women ran unto the sepulchre, and "stooping down," 
 (looking down into the grave) to see if his body was still 
 down there where they saw r him buried, laid in the "tomb,'* 
 &e. AVe are not told they looked up on the "side bench" 
 to see if he was up there. No, this may suit our friend's 
 wild imagination but robs the grave of all its solemnity 
 and takes away the resurrection. Whatever he may prove 
 in other places, here he fails sadly to make out his case and 
 is clearly non suited. 
 
 But let us recur to the natural and Scriptural meaning 
 i if this burial, before we dismiss this topic. There are three 
 monumental INSTITUTIONS in the Christian religion, given 
 to commemorate the grandest events connected with the 
 history of our Savior while on earth. First, the Lord's, 
 day is commemorative of His resurrection. Not a single 
 first day of the week has since transpired, not one week 
 since the first constitution of the Christian Church, without 
 the celebration of the Lord's supper or the administration 
 of his word before the great assemblies. Thus the Sabbath 
 became a great and perpetual monument of Christ's resur- 
 rection, and with great unanimity is observed to this day 
 by all denominations of Christians. 
 
 2nd. The monumental institution of Baptism. While 
 the Lord's day commemorates merely the time of the res- 
 urrection, this institution commemorates his burial and 
 resurrection. Jesus died, was buried and rose again. So 
 we die unto all authority and hope save that of our Lord 
 
64 
 
 Jesus, the Messiah, and consequently unto sin, in this act. 
 We, as all dead persons are, are then buried with Christ for 
 a short time, lie for a short time in the earth, and we for a 
 short time in the water. We also rise with him ; He rose 
 from the dead and we rise from our death unto sin, to walk 
 and live and rejoice in a new life, He having been delivered 
 for our offences and raised for our justification. 
 
 F rom the day of Pentecost till now not a year, week or 
 day has passed without the repetition of this commemora- 
 tive institution. Till the council of Ravenna , till the reign 
 of Queen Elizabeth in England, this ordinance was signifi- 
 cant of the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For 
 every time we see a person buried in the water and raised 
 out of it by the power of another we see Jesus emblemati- 
 cally buried and raised again. Many millions continue to 
 submit voluntarily to this monumental institution and 
 publishing, without uttering a word to the spectator, the 
 death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. What a won- 
 derfully contrived institution is this, which by positive acts, 
 and ^fhich no mode of reasoning could have suggested, 
 keeps itself forever standing before the eyes of men ! Christ 
 crucified, dead, buried, risen again, ascending, exhibited in 
 all its sacred acts of worship. In our prayers we speak to 
 Him, in our praises we speak of Him, in our positive acts of 
 worship commemorate Him, and in our immersion we 
 imitate Him. How poor and feeble and meaningless do 
 sprinkling and pouring represent Christ in any sense what- 
 ever ! Is not my friend fully answered on his objection to 
 this declaration of St. Paul? 
 
 3rd. The other monumental act of our Saviour is 
 ' ' The Last Supper. ? ' This represents his ' 'broken body and 
 shed blood." The emblems are bread, which he broke and 
 divided with his Disciples and reminded them how his body 
 was to be bruised and broken, and the wine, as he poured 
 it into the cup and assured them, in like manner must his 
 own blood be spilled for the redemption of sinful man. He 
 
65 
 
 notified them as often as they did this, (i.e.) engaged in this 
 Holy exercise, they commemorated his suffering and death. 
 So we are commanded to observe the Sabbath day and 
 keep it holy; to follow Him in baptism, emblematical of 
 his burial and resurrection, as well as to commemorate his 
 death before the world by often assembling ourselves to- 
 gether around His table. • 
 
 2. "The baptism of Christ," page 88, of the "Armor/' 
 Dr. H. says: " 'Following Christ into the water,' 'Going 
 down into the liquid grave,' 'Being buried with the 
 Savior beneath Jordan's rolling waves,' are clap-trap 
 words of much sound but little sense. If you follow Christ 
 strictly in baptism you must wait till you are thirty years 
 old, for he was not baptized until he had reached that age. 
 What was the design of Christ's baptism ? Christ furnishes 
 the answer: 'It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' 
 To fulfil righteousness is to be obedient to law. This law 
 was not the moral, but the law respecting the High Priest- 
 hood. The baptism of Christ was the public, formal inau- 
 guration and consecration of Him to His priestly ministry. 
 The consecration of Aaron to the High Priesthood was by 
 washing, anointing and consecration. Observe how this 
 typical law was completely fulfilled by Christ. 1st . He was 
 washed by baptism. (Could not quite get Him sprinkled 
 here, but washed Him this time.) 2nd. He was anointed 
 by the Holy Ghost. Bt»&. And then consecrated to the 
 priestly office. Thus we see that Christ was a High Priest. 
 That He was called of God to this office as was Aaron. 
 That He was ordained and consecrated to the office of High 
 Priest for ever more, that He might offer both gifts and 
 sacrifices for sin." 
 
 Now I have here given the reader the benefit of Dr. Hud- 
 son's almost entire chapter on "The Baptism of Christ.'" 
 It is truly a logical curiosity. Here our friend is perfectly 
 at sea, without compass, rudder or ballast. He sets on1 
 by saying, "Following Christ into the water," "Going 
 
66 
 
 down into the liquid grave," "Being- buried with the 
 Savior," &c, " are clap-trap words of much sound and little 
 sense*." He finds it easier to ridicule the plain teachings of 
 the Bible than to reply to arguments which he cannot re- 
 fute. He then runs off, away from the simple narrative of 
 this sublime act of Christ, and talks about " Aaron " and 
 the "Priesthood," and the "Holy Ghost," says Christ was 
 "washed by baptism," and then "consecrated to his priest- 
 ly office." Let us come back and see how the Evangelists 
 talk about Christ's Baptism. Matt. III. "Then comet h 
 Jesus from Gallilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of * 
 . him . But John forbade Him , saying I have need to be bap- 
 tized of thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus answer- 
 ing said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it be- 
 rometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered 
 Him . And Jesus when He was baptized , went up straight- 
 way out of the water, " So also Mark 1-9, "Jesus came 
 from Nazareth of Galilee, a nd was, baptized of John in Jor- 
 dan. And straightway coining up out of the water" &e. 
 How plain is this language. Dr. Hudson's fiat-headed In- 
 dian could easily comprehend its meaning. Nothing here 
 about Aaron and the High Priesthood, not the least inti- 
 mation of pouring or sprinkling. These passages are so 
 obvious that it ought not to require an additional word to 
 satisfy every reader that Christ the Redeemer was immers- 
 ed. Turn and rea d the a ccount in Matthew and Mark, and 
 then read Dr. Hudson's articles on these passages and you 
 will see that they are as wide apart a s the North and South 
 poles. 
 
 Is it reasonable that the Holy Spirit should have writ- 
 ten that Christ was baptized " in Jordan," and that " He 
 vame up straightway out of the water" that John would 
 go to the river Jordan and baptize his subjects in that 
 stream, unless the mode were immersion? Surely , the man 
 that can see either sprinkling our pouring in this transac- 
 tion is unwilling to see the truth. When Pedo-Baptists 
 
67 
 
 endeavor to get round this overwhelming truth of Christ's 
 immersion in Jordan, they tell us, as Dr. H. does, that it 
 was simply His initiation into His priestly office. But 
 Christ belonged to the tribe of Judah, and not to the tribe 
 of Levi to which the priestly office was confined. Again: 
 Christ wa s made a priest after the order of Melchisedec and 
 not after the order of Aaron. There is not the least inti- 
 mation that baptism had any connection with the Priest- 
 hood. The man who would make Christ's baptism a priest- 
 ly consecration must deny the Scriptures of Inspiration. 
 
 The rite which John administered to Christ was pre- 
 cisely the one he administered to all who came to him and 
 were baptized in the same river. Christ had nothing to re- 
 pent of. "He knew no sin." There w r as no symbolically 
 washing away of sin in his case. His baptism signified his 
 obedience to law, for he said: "Thus it beeometh us to 
 fulfill all righteousness, " and as Dr. Campbell has it, "To 
 satisfy every institution. " "He entered the stream and 
 was buried beneath the waters as an emblem of his future 
 grave, " says a distinguished writer. Says another writer : 
 "We never find that Jesus speaks of himself in the plural 
 number, and it must therefore be allowed that here he 
 meant John and all his followers. 'It beeometh us' to 
 walk in all his ordinances and commands, to follow his ex- 
 ample in going down into the water, and not say to our- 
 selves, some other way will do as well. " 
 
 Whitsins says: "Our Lord would be baxrtized that He 
 might conciliate authority to John : that by His own ex- 
 ample He might commend and sanctify our baptism ; that 
 by . His baptism He might represent the future condition 
 both of Himself and His followers: first humble, then glori- 
 ous; noAv mean and low, then glorious and exalted; that 
 represented by immeksion, this by emeksion— and finally 
 to declare by His voluntary submission to baptism, that He 
 would not delay the delivering up of Himself to be immersed 
 in the torrents of hell, yet with a certain faith and hope of 
 
68 
 
 emerging. " This beautiful and impressive sentence is the 
 language of one of the most learned and pious Pedo-Bap- 
 tist writers who ever lived. 
 
 Dr. Hudson may talk about "Following Christ into 
 the water, " " Going down into the liquid grave. " &c, as 
 •'clap-trap words of much sound but little sense, " yet he 
 may find it a Herculean task to convince the pious reader 
 of the New Testament , unbiased with party zeal, that it is 
 not his duty to follow the example of Christ by " going 
 down into the water. " 
 
 Dr. Hudson may go on and talk about the High Priest- 
 hood, the Levites and the Rabbis and Aaron, and all that, 
 to draw the mind of his readers from this simple narrative 
 of our Savior's baptism in the river Jordan. He may, like 
 the scuttle fish, muddy the waters in which to make his es- 
 < *ape, but all in vain ; he is caught in his own devices; for while 
 he denies that Christ was immersed, he is not quite brave 
 enough to affirm that he was either sprinkled or poured. 
 He rather inclines to a new mode, for, says he, " He was 
 washed by baptism,*' tho ? he does not say whether He 
 washed Himself or whether John did it. But is it not 
 strange that Jesus should travel such a great distance to 
 get to John just to have a little water applied to him? He 
 was in the city of Nazareth, (see Mark 1, 9,) in Gallilee, a 
 distance of many miles from Jordan ; it required a journey 
 of three days to reach the place where John was baptizing 
 in Bethabara.— John 1-28. See our Savior proceeding on 
 his long journey to reach the river Jordan, to make an ex- 
 hibition of Himself before the multitude in the act of bap- 
 tism, and to proclaim to the world his mission on earth. 
 How sublime the scene ! The Son of God, the Lord of heav- 
 en, the righteous Judge of the last day, the author" of our 
 salvation, the giver of eternal life, standing before his ser- 
 vant on the banks of the beautiful river of so many remark- 
 able events, and demanding baptism at his hands ! John 
 Saw Him approaching and called out : " Behold the Lamb 
 
69 
 
 of God which taketh away the sin of the world ! ' ' He knew 
 big Master at once, but was astonished to hear Him de- 
 mand that He. too, must be plunged in Jordan's waters, 
 that John must administer the ordinance to Him as he was 
 doing to all who professed faith in Him, ^confessing their 
 sins. " "But John forbade Him, saving, I have need to be 
 baptized of Thee." Still he must yield to the command, 
 "Suffer it to be so now. " " And Jesus, when he was bap- 
 tized, went up straightway out of the water. " A voice 
 from heaven is heard ; His Father owns His Son in this His 
 first act of humiliation : the people look on in wonder as 
 they hear the voice: "This is my beloved Son, in whom T 
 am well pleased. ?? 
 
 Ah, reader, have you not witnessed many similar scenes 
 at the baptismal waters? Often on such solemn occasions 
 have we witnessed the falling tears of the spectators, even 
 from the hardest-hearted, at the sight of a number of young 
 Christians going down into the stream, there offering them- 
 selves in this impressive way, before the world, to their 
 Lord and Master. I could here appeal to the consciences 
 of thousands of serious Christians who received their first 
 convictions of the reality of religion. I have witnessed the 
 immersion of hundreds of professed believers, always at- 
 tended with weeping and solemnity upon the part of the 
 spectators, but the writer does not remember ever to have 
 seen -anything of the kind attendant upon the sprinkling of 
 babies or the pouring Avater upon adults, and it always had 
 the appearance more of mockery than of solemnity. These 
 tacts ought forever to silence the charges of rxDECEXCYfmm 
 our opponents! 
 
 But not to weary the reader we will now notice Dr. 
 Hudson's next Article : 
 
 3rd. "Johx Baptizixg ix Jordan," Page 89. 1st. 
 •'It is believed," says Dr. H., "that immersing- persons in 
 Jordan was altogether impracticable." Our author then 
 proceeds to show that here there was too much water to 
 
70 
 
 perform the ordinance by immersion; that the river was 
 too deep. He quotes Thorn, Yolney, Shaw and others to 
 prove that Jordan's waters were too rapid and dangerous 
 for immersion. 2nd. He says: " Judging then, from the 
 places chosen and the fonts constructed by our opponents, 
 and indeed from the nature of the case, ( unless men and 
 women in John's time were twice as tall as at the present 
 day ! ) I contend that clipping persons in the Jordan was 
 altogether impracticable, and unhesitatingly conclude 
 that they were only affused or sprinkled with the water 
 of it." 
 
 Our friend is exceedingly unreasonable in the manage- 
 ment of this controversy. He insisted that the three thou- 
 sand could not have been immersed at Jerusalem on the 
 day of Pentecost. Why? Because water was too scarce ; 
 there was no river there. So also, in the case of Paul 
 and the jailer, and Cornelius, immersion could not have 
 l>een the mode in those places, for there were no streams 
 there, not enough at Jerusalem for a " traveler to moisten 
 his finger. 1 '' And now when he comes to John, baptizing in 
 the river Jordan, he would have his readers believe there 
 was too much water, too deep for baptismal purposes, ex- 
 cept by pouring or sprinkling, unless the men and women 
 were all giants in those days, i. e. " twice as tall as they are 
 now." So if there is no mention of a '' river " in the bap- 
 tismal narrative in the Scriptures, immersion is out of the 
 question, " not water enough!" If the river Jordan is 
 named the same cry of no immersion is heard, too much 
 - water." So that, according to the logic of our friend, a 
 scarcity of water and an abundance of water prove the 
 .same thing. How are we to meet such silly arguments? 
 Why is not a little common sense brought to bear on the 
 minds of* men engaged in religious controversy? Our 
 opponents are hard to please. Like the Jewish children in 
 the markets, "If we pipe to them they will not dance; if 
 we mourn they will not lament." Why, we ask in all can- 
 
71 
 
 do*, should Dr. H. admit that immersion is held by the 
 Methodists to be "equally valid with pouring and sprink- 
 ling," and yet labor so hard to prove that it is not recog- 
 nized in the Bible ? Surely if men would only divest them- 
 selves of prejudice, make truth their guiding principle. 
 Christianity would not be rent and torn by factions and 
 parties to the damage of our common religion. 
 
 The learned and pious Dr. G. Campbell, says that John 
 baptized (immersed) Christ in Jordan, (en Jordane) and 
 adds : "It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence 
 that even good and learned men allow their judgment to 
 be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which 
 they prefer." How true! It is this spirit of party zeal 
 which is the fruitful source of the great mass of error, and 
 which causes our Methodist brethren to cling to it with 
 undying energy. 
 
 Another Pedo-Baptist writer of distinction, Dr. Adam 
 Clarke, says: "The baptism of John was by plunging the 
 body." 
 
 Dr. Macknight, that great Presbyterian, writes: 
 "Christ was buried under water by John." 
 
 Lieutenant Lynch, of the American navy, about the 
 year 1849, made a survey of the river Jordan from its 
 source to where it empties into the Dead Sea, and soon 
 thereafter published the most authentic account ever given 
 of that sacred river, which doubtless my friend, Dr. H.,has 
 read. I make the following extract from that interesting 
 book. The bathing of the pilgrims in the Jordan presents 
 a scene so strangely wild and exciting as to justify the in- 
 sertion of the following graphic description of it : 
 
 "At 8, a. m., we were aroused by the intelligence that 
 the pilgrims were coming. Rising in haste we beheld thous- 
 nnds of torchlights, with a dark mass beneath, moving 
 rapidly over the hills. Striking our tents we hurriedly re- 
 moved them with all our effects to the left. We had scarce- 
 ly finished when they were upon us; men, women and chil- 
 
72 
 
 dren, mounted on camels, horses, mules and donkeys, 
 rushed impetuously by towards the bank. * * * * The 
 party which had disturbed us was the advance guard of 
 the great body of pilgrims which was thought t o be about 
 eight thousand. At 5, just at the dawn of day, the last 
 made its appearance, coming over the crest of a high ridge, 
 in one tumultuous and eager throng. In all the wild haste 
 of a disorderly rout, Copts, Russians, Poles, Armenians 
 Greeks and Syrians, from all parts of Asia, from Europe, 
 from Africa, and from far distant America, on they came ; 
 men, women and children of every age and in every variety 
 of costume; talking, screaming, shouting in almost every 
 known language under the sun. * * * Dismounting in 
 haste, and disrobing with precipitation, they rushed down 
 the bank, and threw themselves into the stream. Each 
 one plunged himself, or was clipped by another, three times 
 below the surface, in honor of the Trinity, and then filled a 
 bottle, or some other utensil, from the river. The bathing 
 dress of many of the pilgrims was a white gown with a 
 black cross upon it. Most of them, as soon as they were 
 dressed, cut branches of the agnus cast us, or willow, and 
 dipping them in the consecrated stream, bare them away 
 as memorials of their visit.'' So Ave see Lieutenant Lynch, 
 who was not writing a book about Church ordinances, and 
 who sa w with his own eyes this river so much in my friend's 
 way, forever silences the objection to its being too deep for 
 John's baptism. For the location above described is at 
 the river where it is supposed those grand scenes took place 
 in the time of our Savior. 
 
 If, as Lieutenant Lynch states, men, women and chil- 
 dren could plunge themselves into the river, thousands at 
 the same time and place, and "dip" themselves or others 
 in its waters, how does my friend get this wild notion that 
 the ordinance of baptism by immersion could not have been 
 performed, " unless people in those days were twice as tall 
 as they are now? " 
 
7a 
 
 One or two more authorities wiM conclude this part of 
 the argument. 
 
 Tertullian, who lived near the time of the Apostle John, 
 expressly mentions that the people were dipped hyJohn in 
 Jordan. 
 
 Olshousen, the great German Reformed commentator, 
 says that John baptized in Jordan, " because deep water, 
 adapted for immersion, was there/ ' 
 
 We might add many more concessions of the most cele- 
 brated writers both of ancient and modern times who do 
 not hesitate to declare that John's baptism was by immer- 
 sion. But our friend Dr. H., and many who blindly follow 
 his method of reasoning, reject the testimony, however 
 strong and unanswerable, which tends to subvert their own 
 unfounded notions." " Convinced against their will, 
 they are of the same opinion still." It is useless, therefore, 
 to say another word about the deep waters of Jordan. We 
 proceed then to his next position, which is this : 
 
 3rd. " That John's baptism was not by immersion is 
 clear from the vast number baptized by him ; that the 
 population of Palestine at the time of John's ministry, 
 could not be less than six millions." He further argues 
 from the Bible: " There went out unto him all the land of 
 Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and all the region round 
 about Jordan, confessing their sins." From this he con- 
 cludes that John baptized three millions, one-half the pop- 
 ulation; that John's ministry lasted only about ten 
 months. He allows "six hours a days and six days a week 
 for baptizing," and upon this calculation, shows that John 
 had to baptize two thousand and two hundred each hour. 
 • : And this calculation shows the utter impossibility of its 
 being done by immersion." Now if the reader will turn and 
 read from page 159 to 172 in the Methodist Discipline he 
 will discover that it requires a much longer period of time 
 for a Methodist minister to sprinkle a child or man than it 
 does for a Baptist minister to immerse his candidate; he 
 
74 
 
 will there see that the ceremony required for the child taken 
 up five pages, and for adults eight pages ; he will see a long- 
 list of questions asked of the candidate commencing with, 
 " Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain 
 pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of 
 the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh , so that thou 
 will not follow or be led by them? " Answek. " I renounce 
 them all," and so on, too long to repeat here; and some 
 half dozen different forms of prayer are offered by the min- 
 ister, including the reading of portions of the New 
 Testament. If John used anything like this form of 
 ceremony before he could sprinkle the people, the objection 
 as to time in baptizing Dr. Hudson's "three millions" will 
 come with tenfold more force against his theory than 
 against the Baptists. 
 
 If, as Dr. H. says, it was utterly impossible to be done 
 by immersion, how is it possible for him to show that it 
 could be done in any " decent " manner by sprinkling? 
 Some of Dr. Hudson's friends get over the difficulty in this 
 way. Dr. Guise, for instance, when speaking of the multi- 
 tude baptized by our Lord's harbinger, says: "It seems 
 to me, therefore, that the people stood in ranks near to or 
 just in the edge of the river, and John passing along before 
 them cast water upon their heads or faces with his hands, 
 or some proper instrument ; by which means he might easi- 
 ly baptize many thousand in a day." (See Mr. Martin's 
 letters to Mr. Horsey, page 145-6.) 
 
 Dr. Arch. Hale gives his sanction to Dr. Guise's plan ; 
 so does Horsey, who also says : "I presume that the mul- 
 titude stood in ranks at the brink, or just in the edge of the 
 river, while the minister sprinkled or poured the running 
 warter upon them." (See Infant Baptism, Stated and De- 
 tended, page 20.) 
 
 In this way the calculation made by Dr. H. that ''two 
 thousand and two hundred must be baptized each hour r 
 for six hours in each of six days in the week and for ten 
 
75 
 
 successive months, the end of John's ministry, to complete 
 his baptism of the three millions. ' ' Dr. Hudson says it was 
 "utterly impossible for it to have been done by immersion, " 
 and his brother, Dr. Guise, shows us how it could have 
 been done by sprinkling. The fact is, I think Dr. H. did not 
 see into what difficulty he was running in making out this 
 vast number as an objection to immersion, but breaks down 
 without giving us any intimation how it could be done by 
 sprinkling and left it to the reader's imagination. And 
 how so grave an author as Dr. Guise should give such a 
 puerile and farcical turn to the conduct of the Forerunner 
 of Christ when administering a solemn ordinance of divine 
 worship is a matter of wonder. Nor can we account for its 
 being approved by others, but on a supposition that the}' 
 feel themselves embarrassed, when attempting to reconcile 
 their own practice with the natural meaning of the language 
 of the Scripture. 
 
 " If, " says a great writer, " the credit of sprinkling can- 
 not be supported without burlesquing the Sacred history 
 and exposing in this manner one of the most exalted hu- 
 man characters to the ridicule of the world, it ought forever 
 to sink into oblivion." Look at the picture they draw of 
 the son of Zacharias, who was sent to prepare the way of 
 the Lord. See him standing in the edge of the river, and, 
 with his naked hand, a squirt, a brush, or a bunch of hys- 
 sop, sprinkling the multitude as they "stood in ranks" 
 along the bank — "two thousand and two hundred every 
 hour in the day for six hours, and six days in every Aveek 
 for ten months," for this is Dr. Hudson's calculation. 
 Does my grave and intelligent Christian friend believe ajiy 
 such farce ? 
 
 According to these authors, there was not half the so- 
 lemnity in John's baptism, that there is in that annual 
 festival of the Romish Church called "The Benediction of 
 Horses." Dr. Middleton says that "this is always celebra- 
 ted with much solemnity in the month of January when the 
 
76 
 
 inhabitants of the city and neighborhood, send up their 
 horses and other animals to the cfonvent of St. Anthony, 
 near St. Mary the Great, where a priest in his surplice at 
 the church door, sprinkles with his brush all the animals 
 singly as they are presented to him, and receives from each 
 owner a gratuity- in proportion to their Zeal and ability. 
 Amongst the rest I had my own horse blest at the expense 
 of about eighteen pence of our money, as well to satisfy my 
 own curiosity as to humor the coachman." 
 
 So we see the priest in his white robe appears to act 
 with more care, more solemnity than the servant of God in 
 his hairy garments. For the priest, tho' paid for his labor 
 at so much per head, cautiously sprinkles the cattle one by 
 one, while John, ( according to Dr. Guise ), beingina hurry 
 to finish his blessing, "passing along before the multitude 
 as they stood in ranks, cast water upon their heads or faces 
 with his hands, or some proper instrument, by which means 
 he might baptize many thousand in a day !" And accord- 
 ing to Dr. Hudson's calculation he would have to "ap- 
 ply" the w T ater to thirteen thousand and two iiundred 
 every day ( Sundays excepted ) for ten months ! Now how 
 many ranks deep the people stood these authors have not 
 informed us, yet there was more than one, for they use the 
 plural, ranks, and if the water was cast on them by some 
 "instrument " or even with the hands, scooped up from the 
 running river, it would have been very unequally divided 
 among the candidates, some receiving more, some less, and 
 the rear rank scarcely any at all. But our authors say 
 nothing about the children in this grea t multitude — the in- 
 fants. Why are they silent on this point and at this par- 
 ticular time? Why should they leave out the infants here, 
 and so strenuously insist they were in the jailer's family, 
 Lydia's, Cornelius' and others ? It is true the infants could 
 not stand in ranks, nor could the administrator take them 
 into his arms one by one, for according to their representa- 
 tion, time would not permit; but then the parents could 
 
77 
 
 take them in their arms, so as to receive some of the water 
 as it was £ c cast ' ' upon them . Why they are so silent about 
 the children in this vast multitude we cannot imagine. 
 
 Then our Savior came to John as he was baptizing in 
 the river Jordan, and demanded baptism for himself. Will 
 our authors inform us whether he, too, Was standing in the 
 edge of the water in the front rank and had some of the 
 water thrown into his face, as it was cast upon the multitude 
 from a brush, a bunch of hyssop, or some instrument in 
 the hands of John? For Dr. H. asserts he could not have 
 been immersed in the river Jordan, for the water was too 
 deep, unless both the Savior and the administrator were 
 "twice as tall as men are now." 
 
 To place Dr. Hudson's argument in its proper light of 
 Jordan's having too much water, we will use Dr. Mills' 
 anecdote in his reply to Dr. Summers. He says : "Diedrich 
 Knickerbocker, in one of the interior towns of New York, 
 is reported to have cut a large hole under his barn door for 
 the large cat to pass through and a small hole by its side 
 to give access to the little cat, thinking, I suppose— since 
 you have thrown light upon it — that the larger orifice was 
 altogether too large for the little cat to pass through ! " 
 
 But we will not pursue this ridiculous farce any farther. 
 When men are pressed with plain Scripture, which militates 
 against principles instilled in their minds from infancy, 
 they resort to all sorts of inventions rather than surrender 
 their predjudices to truth. Let us now turn back and see 
 the natural, plain and easy import of this matter of John's 
 baptism which troubles our Methodist brethren so much. 
 The Evangelists say: "Jerusalem and all Judea and all the 
 region round about Jordan went to him and were bap- 
 tized," but they do not say all the people went ; it was the 
 places, that is, each place was there represented. Just as 
 we say, "North Carolina voted for Gov. Scales in the last 
 election," yet who does not know that only a small part of 
 the inhabitants voted for him? Just so Matthew says, 
 
78 
 
 "Jerusalem came," that is, a great many people from Je- 
 rusalem and Judea, and the country round about Jordan 
 came; these places were fully represented. Besides, John 
 did not baptize all who came. He positively refused the 
 Pharisees and the Sadducees, and they composed a large 
 majority of the Jewish nation . Where Dr. Hudson gets his 
 idea that John baptized three millions we know not ; most 
 certainly nowhere in the Bible. 
 
 Again the sacred writer says that " Jesus made and 
 baptized more disciples than John," and when the disciples 
 were gathered together after His death there does not 
 seem to have been a great multitude. For although great 
 multitudes came to John and multitudes followed Christ, 
 yet comparatively few brought forth fruit to justify bap- 
 tism. Why, then, should men of sense go off into such wild 
 imagination and talk about the impossibility of one man's 
 baptizing three millions in ten months just to get clear of 
 the idea of immersion, and still claim that it is " equally 
 valid with sprinkling or pouring? " The Holy Ghost says 
 John immersed them, (for the word itself in the original lan- 
 guage means that, and nothing else ) and it is not for us 
 poor mortals to say that was " impossible 7 ' and then make 
 ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the world in trying to 
 maintain our false assumptions. 
 
 Prof. Wm. Smith, in his New Bible Dictionary, which 
 lies before me, says : " The language of the New Testament 
 and of the primitive fathers sufficiently points to immer- 
 sion as the common mode of baptism." This is high au- 
 thority from a Pedo-Baptist, and at present Classical Ex- 
 aminer in the University of London and editor of the Dic- 
 tionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Is not our friend 
 fully answered on these points? 
 
 The next position our author takes is that ''John's 
 baptism is not Christian baptism . "—Pages 90 and 91. 
 
 Here we would remark: Unless John really immersed, 
 why do our Methodist brethren so diligently labor to prove 
 
that John's baptism was not Christian? Or why are they 
 so anxious to establish that the baptism of our Savior was 
 not an example for us unless He were truly immersed? 
 The}' would never be troubled a,bout taking Jesus as our 
 example if it did not result in immersion. 
 
 As this last topic has but little to do with our present 
 discussion, we need not spend much time in noticing it here. 
 
 " John's baptism was not Christian baptism," says 
 Dr. Hudson, and yet he does not attempt to give us one 
 word of information as to the object of his baptism. If it 
 be not Christian baptism the reader would naturally in- 
 quire,: What was it then ? If John baptized Christ what 
 else could it be but Christian baptism ? Is not Christ the 
 author of Christianity? And did not John live under the 
 Christian dispensation? Mark calls his ministry " The be- 
 ginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." This was the intro- 
 duction of the New Testament dispensation. 
 
 Joseph Benson, the well known Methodist Commenta- 
 tor, says: "The gospel of Jesus Christ began with the 
 preaching and baptism of John the Baptist." 
 
 Luke says: "The law and the prophets were until 
 John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, 
 and every man presseth into it." 
 
 Peter, in Acts 1-21, asserts the same truth. John's 
 mission was divine. He. was "sent from God." He was 
 the first Christian preacher under this new dispensation. 
 " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 God." John 1-6-7: "There was a man sent from God 
 whose na me was John-; the same came to be a witness of 
 the Light, that all men through him might believe." In 
 him was fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah. Matt. III-8: 
 " For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, 
 saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare 
 ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." John 
 preached the baptism of repentance to all the people of 
 Israel, Acts XTII-2L "Then went out to him Jerusalem; 
 
80 
 
 and all Judea, and all the region found about Jordan, and 
 were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins," 
 Matt. III-5-6. You see he baptized none who would not 
 "confess their sins." The Savior had none to confess. 
 "He knew no sin," therefore John baptized Him, also, in 
 Jordan, in obedience to His command. The great object 
 of John's ministry was to "prepare the way of the Lord, " 
 to proclaim repentance, to announce the immediate ap- 
 proach of the long promised Messiah. His commission 
 was from heaven and he informed his hearers that; the same 
 God who sent him to prepare the way of the Lord, "sent 
 him to baptize with water," Jonn 1-33, and this too was 
 preparatory to the ministry of Christ. Baptism, then, as 
 a divine institution, was unknown previous to the mission 
 of John. 
 
 Now hear what that great commentator, Matthew 
 Henry, says about John: "See what sure grounds John 
 went upon his ministry and baptism. He had a warrant 
 from heaven for what he did. He did not run without 
 sending ; God sent him to baptize ; God gave him both his 
 mission and his message; both his credentials and instruc- 
 tions," ( Expos, on Jno. 1-6-14. ) I repeat again : If John's 
 baptism was not Christian, it devolves on Dr. H. and his 
 Methodist brethren to show r what it was. 
 
 Mr. Erskine says: "John's baptism was termed the 
 baptism of repentance, and baptism to repentance ; because 
 he required of all whom he admitted to baptism a. profes- 
 sion of repentance and exhorted them to such a conduct as 
 would demonstrate their repentance genuine." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Scott, Presbyterian, says: "It does not ap- 
 pear that any but adults were baptized by John. Adult 
 JeAvs, professing repentance and a disposition to become 
 the Messiah's subjects, were the only persons whom John 
 admitted to baptism." (Comment on Matt, iii-5-6.) 
 
 Mr. Burkitt : "John's baptism was the baptism of re- 
 pentance of which infants were incapable." (Expos, notes 
 on Matt, xix-13-15.) 
 
81 
 
 Now hear what the Redeemer says of John : "Fortius 
 is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger 
 before thy face which shall prepare thy way before thee. 
 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of wo- 
 men there hath not arisen a greater than John the Bap- 
 tist.' '—(Matt, xi-10-11 . ) And now see how He answers this 
 question of John's baptism: "And Jesus answered and 
 said unto them, I will also ask you one question, The bap- 
 tism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Answer me. 
 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we shall 
 say from heaven, he will say, Why then did you not believe 
 him? But if Ave shall say, of men ; all the people will stone 
 us, (they feared the people) for all men counted John that 
 he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said un- 
 to Jesus, "We cannot tell.*'— Mark xi-29. 
 
 Again we ask our author: The baptism of John, was 
 it Christian, or was it man's institution? Will he answer? 
 The founder of Presbyterianism, John Calvin, shall an- 
 swer : " For myself I grant that the baptism they had re- 
 ceived was the true baptism of John, and the very same 
 with the baptism of Christ, but I deny that they were bap- 
 tized again." 
 
 Dr. Knapp says that "the baptism of John and the 
 Messiah was one and the same institute of God himself; 
 that the design was the same inasmuch as it had the same 
 regard to repentance of the candidates and their faith in 
 Christ, whether about to come, or having already come." 
 
 But Dr. H says, page 91: "John's baptism was not 
 initiatory into the Church. It did not admit them in- 
 to the Old Testament Church, since those who received it 
 (being Jews) were already members of that Church by cir- 
 cumcision . It did not admit them into the Christian Church, 
 since that Church had not been established." He then con- 
 cludes this subject by saying: "It is rendered still more 
 evident from the fact that Paul iv-bapti zed certain persons 
 at Ephesus who had received John's baptism. "—Acts 19-5. 
 
82 
 
 He here leaves us to conjecture what object the evangelists 
 could possibly have in saying anything at all about the 
 baptism of John . He says, "It was utterly impossible to 
 have been immersion; " he says "it is certain that it was 
 not Christian baptism," and he tells us it had no connec- 
 tion with the Old Testament Church ; that neither he nor 
 his disciples were members of the Christian Church till they 
 were re-baptized? Is Dr. Hudson's conscience easy now, 
 since he has disposed of the Son of Zacharias in this sum- 
 mary manner? Christ says, "Among them that are born 
 of women, there hath not arisen a greater than John the 
 Baptist, " and Dr. Hudson on the other hand would have 
 us believe that John w as just nobody at all. Why should 
 a doctor of divinity, and one who presides over so large 
 and intelligent a body of Christians, so trifle with the word 
 of God? 
 
 It is not necessary to detain the reader about Paul's 
 re-baptizing some of John's disciples; great and learned 
 men of all denominations deny that there was any re-bap- 
 tism taught in the 19th chapter of Acts. One thing is cer- 
 tain, these persons were never baptized by John, for he had 
 been dead about twenty-five years, as the record shows, 
 when Paul was preaching at Ephesus. They said they 
 were baptized " unto John's baptism," not by John. John 
 could not have baptized them, for they had not even "so 
 much as heard, " of the Holy Ghost, while John, we know, 
 was "full of the Holy Ghost," and taught the people that 
 the Savior would baptize into the Holy Ghost. But all 
 this is foreign to the subject of our discussion, viz: The 
 proper mode of baptism. If the Scriptures teach that 
 sprinkling, or pouring, is the proper mode, then we should 
 practice it; but if immersion, then we should certainly hold 
 to this, for there can be but one mode. "One Lord, one 
 Faith , one B a pt i sin . ' ' Eph . IV , 5 . 
 
 We ask the reader now to accompany us to Dr. Hud- 
 son's last strong-hold on page 91 of the Methodist Armor. 
 
83 
 
 and carefully and impartially give us a hearing while we 
 attempt a fair and candid review of this his last chapter 
 as to the mode of baptism. 
 
 4th. "Bapto and Baptizo." Says he: "The argu- 
 ment of the immersionists is : 1 My position is that baptizo 
 always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but 
 m ode.' '—Dr. Carson. He then proceeds: "The hinge on 
 which the whole argument turns, is that the classic mean- 
 ing of the terms, Bapto and Baptizo, is always but one 
 thing, to dip, immerse. Can this be established? No. 
 Let us see. Dr. Dale, ( a learned divine of England ) ren- 
 ders Bapto dip, fourteen times ; dye, fourteen times ; im- 
 bue, seven times; temper, onetime; stain, onetime ; wash, 
 four times; moisten, two times; wet, one time — forty- 
 seven. Of these forty-seven cases as rendered by him we 
 have: 1st. Thirty-three against fourteen for dip. 2nd. In 
 no case was there an immersion, i. e. sinking." 
 
 We will pause here, and see if this definition given by 
 our friend's author will avail him anything in establishing 
 either sprinkling or pouring. He admits fourteen of the 
 forty-seven mean to dip, so here there is no dispute, for no 
 one.can be immersed without being dipped. Thus far he is 
 correct. Next "dye, fourteen times." He of course has 
 reference here to coloring cloth and other articles, and did 
 our friend never witness how this is done? How the old 
 lady dips her yarn, her cloth into the fluid, in order to dye 
 it? Can it be done otherwise? It must be dipped deep 
 down into the liquid and then raised out again, before it 
 can be dyed. Is this not true? No dipping — no dyeing! 
 Here then his own author is in our favor fourteen times 
 more, which make twenty-eight of the forty-seven. Next 
 case. " Imbue, seven times." What does this word imbue 
 mean? Refer to the English dictionaries, and you will see 
 it means nearly the same as to dye. Worcester says, " To 
 tinge deeply— to dye." " Clothes imbued with black cannot 
 afterwards be dyed with a ilgtrtercfclbrv" ( Boyle.) Why ? 
 
84 
 
 Because it has been dipped in coloring fluid until it is over- 
 whelmed with black, so completely as not to admit of a 
 change of color. Again : we sometimes hear of the murder- 
 er imbuing his hands in the blood of his victim— that is, 
 dipped in his blood, &c. So here again we have seven more, 
 which added to the twenty-eight make thirty -five cases in 
 our favor. Next. ' ' Temper, one time. ' ' And how does the 
 smith temper his iron or steel, unless he dips or plunges it 
 in water? Score one more for us. "Stain, one time." 
 Here, too, our dictionaries render this word from the Latin 
 tingOj to stain, to dye, to color, &c, conveying the same 
 idea in a modified sense, so wjiile we cannot clain this defi- 
 nition on our side, it certainly has no resemblance to 
 sprinkling or pouring. "Wash, four times." Everybody 
 knows we cannot wash without immersing the object to be 
 washed in the water. When Ave wash our hands, our 
 clothes, we dip them in water. This gives us forty. ' 'Moist- 
 en, two times;" and "wet, onetime." These last, we ad- 
 mit, may be accomplished either by being dipped or sprink- 
 led. We dip a sponge in water to moisten or wet it; we 
 also sprinkle water on clothes to moisten or Avet them. So 
 instead of fourteen we have forty-three definitions of this 
 writer in our favor, to four against us. And it is remarka- 
 ble that Dr. H. should bring out this author, Dr. Dale, who 
 does not give sprinkling or pouring the first time as a defi- 
 nition of this word bapto. Now take the vote— 43 for im- 
 mersion, 4 doubtful, total 47. 
 
 But as Dr. Hudson has selected the above quotation 
 from "Dr. Dale," (which proves nothing in his favor), we 
 here give him one from Prof. Moses Steuart's learned work 
 upon this controverted subject. The reputation of this 
 learned professor among Pedo-Baptist scholars and di- 
 vines is so great, that Dr. Rosser, of the Methodist Church, 
 in his work on baptism, holds this language concerning 
 him : "The judgment of Prof. Steuart, as a Biblical critic, 
 is of the highest reputation in the United States." Hereis 
 
85 
 
 what he says :—( see page 298,)— "What are the classical 
 meanings of bapto and baptizo? Both these words mean 
 to dip, to immerse, to plunge into anything liquid. All 
 lexicographers of any note, and critics, are agreed in this." 
 And again on page 288 : "The original etymological root 
 of baptizo and bapto, and also of the nouns and adjectives 
 kindred with them, appears plainly to be the Greek mono- 
 syllable bap, the leading and original meaning of which 
 seems to have been dipping, immersing, plunging, soaking, 
 drenching in some liquid ; and as clearly associated with 
 this, the idea of dyeing or coloring, since this was done by 
 dipping. The precise difference between bapto and baptizo 
 is, that while they both agree in one common and original, 
 meaning, that of immersing or plunging, usage has em- 
 ployed bapto to express the idea of coloring as well as the 
 idea of dipping or plunging, while baptizo is not employed 
 in the additional sense of coloring." This is the language 
 of a most Eminent scholar, and as Dr. Rosser says, of the 
 "highest reputation as a critic in the United States." 
 
 Now you will notice that Prof. Stuart says baptizo 
 and its derivatives express only the idea of dipping or im- 
 mersion. Now if we refer to the Greek Testament we will 
 find that this is the word the Apostles invariably used in 
 every instance, and which is expressed in English by the 
 verb baptize. Matt. 3-11 ; Mark 1-8 ; Luke 3-16 ; John 
 1-26; Mark 1-4; John 1-33; I Cor. 1-17. So if these 
 passages had been translated, like all the other words, in 
 the original tongue, and the prepositions connected with 
 them, according to Professor Stewart, they would read 
 thus : "I, indeed, immerse you 772 water, " (not with water,, 
 as we shall show hereafter.) Again: "I indeed have im- 
 mersed you in water." " John answered saying unto them 
 all, I indeed immerse you in water." "John answered 
 saying, I immerse in water." "John did immerse in the 
 wilderness." "And I knew him not, but he that sent" me 
 to immerse in water." "For Christ sent me not to im- 
 
86 
 
 merse, but to preach the gospel." We have taken up these 
 passages as they come in order according to the above 
 references. If King James' translators had not been over- 
 ruled, while they were translating the New Testament from 
 Greek into English, the common reader would never have 
 seen the words baptize, baptism, and the like, in the Eng- 
 lish language. If the learned Pedo-Baptist scholar, Prof. 
 Stuart, is to be believed, immersion is precisely and liter- 
 ally the proper translation in all these instances. Had 
 this been done there never would have been any controver- 
 sy on this subject and the Baptists Avould not be charged 
 of "imposing upon Christians a practice dangerous to 
 health and offensive to delicacy, and really without Scrip- 
 'tnral authority." 
 
 Having just called attention to this word in the Greek 
 Testament which King James forbade to be translated, but 
 simply retained, and by a little change in the orthography 
 in baptizo the final letter o is changed to e, so v&h&ve bap- 
 tize and the noun baptisnia ; the last letter is dropped al- 
 together, so we have baptism. By this ingenious arrange- 
 ment, great latitude is offered the various sects of religion- 
 ists to construe the meaning which these words never had, 
 to suit their own peculiar notions. Bapto, the word 
 which Dr. Hudson's author, Dr. Dale, defines in forty-seven 
 cases, already alluded to, is employed in the Greek New 
 Testament only three times, and its cognate, embapto, 
 three times and in our common version is always trans- 
 lated f 1 dip. " But these words are never used in connection 
 with baptism as a religious ordinance. Baptizo, as I above 
 stated, is invariably used. Now to make this matter plain 
 about King James' translators declining to give us the 
 plain English meaning of this word, and which all the lexi- 
 cographers in the world of any note, say is dipping or im- 
 mersion, if they had applied the same rule to the word 
 which is translated spiinkle, we would have rantize and 
 rantism Avherever the word sprinkle occurs, just as we 
 
87 
 
 have baptize and baptism, in the place of immerse and im- 
 mersion, had these words been translated into English. 
 Every man of intelligence knows that from the days of the 
 Apostles, till the reign of King James, immerse was the 
 commonly received meaning. All history testifies that it 
 was ordinarily practiced for thirteen hundred years. 
 
 Dr. Wall, Dr. Whitby, Prof. Stuart, Bishop Smith, Dr. 
 Campbell, Stackhouse, Knapp, McKnight, and we know not 
 how many other Pedo-Baptists of distinction, make this 
 concession. 
 
 We have made it a point to examine many Greek lexi- 
 cons recently in regard to the signification of baptizo. 
 These authors, with very remarkable unanimity, give the 
 primary and ordinary meaning of the word " immerse, "or 
 its equivalent. Its definite import is as clear and pointed 
 as any other in the Greek language. It is as specific as 
 rantizo, which might, with as much propriety, be rendered 
 immerse, as to render baptizo to sprinkle. But we have seen 
 no lexicon that rendered the word baptizo, to sprinkle. It 
 has never been translated in the New Testament, but mere- 
 ly adopted into our language. The termination of it was 
 simply changed, and baptizo became baptize. To ascer- 
 tain the true meaning of it, like any other word, we must 
 refer to the various Greek lexicons. And here it is proper 
 to say of the Greek lexicons to which we refer, that they 
 were made by men who had no partiality for Baptists. 
 We first refer to Liddell and Scott 's Greek and English lexi- 
 con. This is the standard work and used in nearly all the 
 high schools and colleges of the world, and with which we 
 are sure Dr. Hudson is familiar. "It has been said that there 
 is scarcely a sentence of importance in the whole range of 
 Greek literature that it has not weighed." These learned 
 authors (Episcopalians) as honest scholars, give the fol- 
 lowing as the only meaning of the word baptizo: 1. "To 
 dip repeatedly : of ships, to sink them. Middle voice, to 
 bathe. 2. To draw water. t\. To baptize/ —New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
88 
 
 This great work em anated originally from Oxford , Eng- 
 land, which does not show that this controverted word 
 meant either to pour or sprinkle. And yet we turn to a 
 copy of the same lexicon before us, published in unabridg- 
 ed form by Prof. Henry Drisler, of the United States, in the 
 year 1852, in which tie gives " to pour upon" as the sev- 
 enth definition of this word baptizo. This he has done 
 without authority, so anxious is he to sustain the cause of 
 Pedo-Baptists. He has thus laid himself liable to the 
 charge of literary forgery ; for he represents Liddell and 
 Scott as saying what they have not said. " He deserves," 
 says Dr. Pendleton, "the contempt of the literary world, 
 and the indignant hissings of all the truth-loving portion 
 of mankind." It is said that when Mr. Drisler 's first edi- 
 tion appeared he was so severely criticised by the newspa- 
 pers for taking this unpardonable liberty with these popu- 
 lar and truthful authors, that he promised to expunge his 
 definition "to pour upon" in his next edition. This it 
 seems he never did. So Ave still have in our American edi- 
 tions this unwarrantable meaning of the word. 
 
 But here is what Dr. Charles Anthon says — he is the au- 
 thor of so many Greek and Latin books familiar to the eye 
 of the school boy, and he is also an Episcopalian and Pro- 
 fessor of Greek in Columbia College, New York— this is 
 what he says in his letter to Dr. Palmley : " The primary 
 meaning of baptizo is to dip or immerse, and its secondary 
 meanings, if it ever had any, all refer, in some way or oth- 
 er, to the same leading idea, immersion. Sprinkling on 
 
 POURING ARE ENTIRELY OUT OF THE QUESTION." Yet Dr. 
 
 Hudson asserts that this word " does not uniformly mean 
 to immerse. 1 '' "And therefore (he says) the immersional 
 theory completely breaks down." — See Methodist Armor, 
 page 92. Liddell and Scott and Anthon, the most learned 
 and popular classical scholars of the age, who have had 
 the highest positions in the most noted institutions of the 
 world, declare that to dip or immerse is not only the usual 
 
89 
 
 meaning, but the only definition that can be properly giv- # 
 en to baptizo. But Dr. Hudson, a Presiding Elder in the 
 Methodist Conference of North Carolina, will hardly be able 
 to compete in scholarship with these celebrated Pedo-Bap- 
 tist lexicograpers, and according to their view "the im- 
 mersional theory" does not "completely break down." 
 
 We have other Greek lexicons before us. Here is Groves' , 
 comprising all the words in the writings of the most pop- 
 ular Greek authors and the Septuagint, and the New Tes- 
 tament. Baptizo, he defines "to dip," "to immerse," "to 
 plunge, " "to immerge, " &c. No intimation of sprinkling or 
 pouring. Donnegan, also, says the same. 
 
 We have Dr. N. L. Rice's debate with Alexander Camp- 
 bell. Dr. R gives us the result of his researches among 
 Greek dictionaries. He quotes from twelve. Every one 
 says that baptizo means dip, or immerse, nor do any of 
 the twelve assign to this word any meaning that does not 
 admit of immersion. And Dr. Rice is a Presbyterian. He 
 mentions the names of his twelve authors : Scapula, Hederi- 
 cas, Stephanies, Schleusner, Parkhurst, Robinson, Groves, 
 Greenfield and so on. We could here extend the list of 
 these Greek dictionaries to at least forty more, all of which 
 unite in giving baptizo the meaning to dip, to immerse, to 
 plunge, whilst none of them say it means to pour or sprin- 
 kle. We will mention some of them : Jones, Rost, Pasor, 
 Pickring, Passow, Leigh, Richardson, Castell, Guido, Wil- 
 son, Robertson, Paschal, Butterworth, Ashe and many 
 others, made in different ages, in different countries, by the 
 learned of different denominations, and still agreeing in giv- 
 ing baptizo ( the word always used in the New r Testament 
 to express the idea of baptism) the meaning of to immerse, 
 or to plunge, and none of them indicating remotely that 
 it ever means to pour or sprinkle. Does this look like "the 
 immersional theory completely breaks down ? " Again, we 
 repeat that there is among all these Greek dictionaries <i 
 most perfect unanimity in assigning immerse, or its equiv- 
 
90 
 
 * 
 
 alent, as the ordinary meaning of baptizo. This, alone, 
 instead of " breaking down," ought forever to settle the 
 baptismal controversy. 
 
 Blackstone, the idol of the legal profession, is before us. 
 Here is the rule he lays down : " Words are generally to be 
 understood in their usual and most known signification ; 
 not so much regarding the propriety of grammer as their 
 general an d popular use. ' ' 
 
 Now doesn't everybody see that the " most known sig- 
 nification," and the " general and popular use" of baptize 
 was to immerse. Wherever the ordinance of baptism is 
 spoken of in the New Testament, this word baptizo inva- 
 riably occurs, as we have heretofore shown, and that it 
 cannot in any sense be rendered either to pour or sprinkle, 
 but always and in every case carries with it the idea of im- 
 mersion. It has also been shown from the most noted 
 Pedo-Baptist writers of the world, that immersion was the 
 only mode practiced for about three hundred years after 
 Christ and generally, for thirteen hundred years, and yet 
 with all this array of testimony staring him in the face. 
 Dr. Hudson boldly declares that it is " dangerous to health, 
 offensive to delicacy and without Scriptural authority!" 
 And his brother, the editor of the Richmond Christian Ad- 
 vocate, says "it ought never to be practiced on females, or 
 if it should, it ought to be by moonlight by a blindfolded 
 minister and only in the presence of females!" And yet 
 they say as' a mode, it is equally as valid as pouring and 
 sprinkling in the Methodist Church ! There must be some- 
 thing the matter with men who talk and write books so 
 utterly contrary to truth. 
 
 But to return. We will here give a few more quota- 
 tions from Dr. Hudson, to show the reader how he gets at 
 the meaning of baptizo. It is a curiosity, it is laughable, 
 it is ridiculous. Here they are, page 92, "Methodist Ar- 
 mor:" 1. "Of a frog pierced and slain," Homer says. 
 u He fell without even looking upward, and the lake ( ebap- 
 
( 
 
 91 
 
 teto) was tinged with blood/' He then adds: "Anybody 
 knows that the lake could not possibly be immersed in the 
 blood of a frog, but that the blood of the frog tinged the 
 water with a red color." "One who argues in this manner 
 never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause 
 he would defend. A candid mind will disdain to take the 
 help of falsehood, even in support of the truth." 
 
 Now we will give this " frog" a passing notice, more 
 for Dr. Hudson's information than to honor so frivolous 
 an allusion with an argument . We have the w r orks of Ho- 
 mer before us. Here is a little poem called "The Rattle of 
 the Frogs and Mice," and is attributed to Homer, though 
 it is thought by critics to be a spurious production. How- 
 ever, here it is: " Ebapteto (Yaimati Fmen horphureo." 
 Our friend's translation of the passage is : " Thefrogfell," 
 (after being pierced and slain by the mice) "without even 
 looking upward , and the lake was tinged with blood . ' ' Dr. 
 H. . thinks he has found here, if nowhere else, one instance 
 where baptizo cannot mean immerse. After searching 
 through the whole range of classical literature, after he 
 finds all the lexicons against him, and the writers of the 
 Old and New Testament, he has at last succeeded in finding 
 in this "Battle of the Frogs and Mice "—attributed to Ho- 
 mer, who lived, if he lived at all, hundreds of years before 
 Christ— a case where baptizo does not mean to immerse ; 
 neither does he claim it to mean to pour or sprinkle. But 
 my friend knows that this word as well as others may be 
 used in a metaphorical or figurative sense, without inval- 
 idating or changing its primary signification. The lake 
 was said to be "tinged" with blood, that is to say that 
 part of the water in the lake, Avas so colored with blood 
 that it had the appearance of being wholly imbued or im- 
 mersed in blood. This is clearly the intentional use of the 
 word here; it is to be understood allusively and not realty; 
 relatively rather than absolutely. If a body had been bap- 
 tized or immersed it could not ha ve been more wet than 
 
92 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar's was, so if the lake had been dipped in 
 blood it could not have put on a more bloody appearance, 
 caused by the blood of the slain frogs after the battle. 
 Such expressions are allowed poets to give a high coloring 
 to their ideas. It was very common in the late war to hear 
 such hyperbolical expressions as, the fields of battle ran 
 with blood, and the whole country covered with the slain. 
 
 We speak of a person's being' immersed in debt, plung- 
 ed in afflictions: such expressions are called figures of 
 speech. The word dip is often used in the same manner. 
 We speak of the " dip of the magnetic needle ;" and in some 
 places there is a practice which ladies call "dipping snuff." 
 Milton says: "A cold, shuddering dew dips me all over." 
 An object might be wet or moistened by being dipped, so 
 also the same can be done by being sprinkled, and yet who 
 would be so simple as to suppose or conclude therefore that 
 dip and sprinkle were synonymous, meant the same thing. 
 And Dr. Hudson himself says, speaking of receiving mem- 
 bers in the church: "Methodism sweeps them in by hun- 
 dreds and thousands; it sweeps in thousands at a haul." 
 Here the words sweep and haul, used to represent the recep- 
 tion of members in the Methodist Church, must be highly 
 figurative, otherwise they would be absurd and nonsensical, 
 as the w T ord "sweep" ordinarily implies a broom, and 
 " haul " the idea of pulling or dragging. So, we see, it will 
 not do to deny the ordinary meaning of words, because 
 speakers and writers sometimes use them in a metaphori- 
 cal sense. We must stick to the rule laid down by Black- 
 stone, viz : "Words are generally to be understood in their 
 usual and most known signification." (Yol. I, page 59, 
 Chitty's Blackstone.) 
 
 Again: 2nd. Dr: Hudson proceeds thus : "Hippocrates, 
 a Greek scholar, says of dyeing substances : 1 When it drops 
 upon garments they are (bapteti) dyed or stained/ 
 c Here we see,' says he, 'immersion is out of the question.' " 
 
 3rd. "Aristophanes, speaking of an old comic writer, 
 
93 
 
 says: 'Smearing himself (baptomenos) with frog-colored 
 paint." Here the term cannot mean dip or plunge." 
 
 4. "Aristotle speaking of a coloring substance: "Be- 
 ing pressed, it moistens ( baptei ) and dyes the hands.' No 
 immersion here. ' ' 
 
 5. " Plutarch says : 'Thou may est be bathed ( baptizee ) 
 but it is not permitted thee to go under the water.' " 
 
 6. " Clemens Alexandrinus says of a penitent : ' He was 
 baptized a second time with tears.' He adds: 'Could a 
 man be immersed literally in his own tears ? An utter im- 
 possibility.' " So we would ask— can Methodist preachers 
 "sweep thousands of people at a haul," literally into the 
 Methodist Church? It would be as "utterly impossible" 
 to take a broom and "sweep thousands" of people at a 
 "haul" into the Methodist Church, as for a man to drown 
 himself in his own tears, "literally." 
 
 Dr. H. then goes on to say: "We see now without quot- 
 ing more instances, that bapto and baptizo do not always 
 and uniformly mean to dip, plunge, or immerse and there- 
 fore the immersional theory completely breaks down." 
 
 ' ; Though old divines could tame the Greek 
 
 And learned what it designed to speak, 
 
 Yet Hudson finds it srangely wild, 
 
 Chasing it hard through flood and field, » 
 
 And strives with all his might and main 
 
 To overtake it, but all m vain. 
 
 0 Luther, Calvin, Poole and Wall, 
 
 And lexicographers one and all, 
 
 What pity, ere you drew the quill. 
 
 These doctors of superior skill 
 
 Were not at hand to show you how 
 
 Baptizo may be rendered now!" 
 
 Now if the reader will turn to chapter IV, page 91, of 
 the "Methodist Armor," he will see that we have quoted 
 Dr. H. in full on his efforts to prove that bapto and bap- 
 tidzo, in the original language, cannot be relied on to sup- 
 port the " immersional theory/' He gives us first, one Dr. 
 Dales' forty-sewn definitions of bapto, to which Ave have 
 
94- 
 
 heretofore paid attention, and, as we think, have shown no 
 damage done to the "theory" there. He next tells ns about 
 Homer's wounded "Frog," about some one's smearing 
 himself with "Frog-colored paint," how garments are 
 dyed, and, lastly, of a "penitent baptized in tears" and 
 then comes to the inevitable conclusion, saying, "Therefore 
 the immersion a I theory completely breaks down." Poor 
 frog ! "He fell without even looking upward, and the lake 
 was tinged with blood!" In like manner, as the frog 
 "pierced and slain" went down into the lake, Dr. Hudson 
 sees the immersional theory of the Baptists completely 
 broken down! But enough of this puerile sport. The 
 reader will pardon the writer for his frivolous manner in his 
 criticisms of the language and ideas of a doctor of divinity, 
 and for allowing himself to thus be led off the grave and 
 solemn issue between us. 
 
 Let us return to the "Armor." The author calls our 
 attention to "the distinction between sacred and secular 
 meaning of words." "That words change their meaning 
 in the course of time." That "in the Greek language the 
 word Presbyter, meant simply an old man; but in the Bible 
 the same word means a preacher, old or young. In the old 
 Greek language a pastor meant a keeper of sheep; in the 
 Bible it signifies a man in charge of a church," &e. "It 
 follows conclusively," says he, "that if baptizodidmeanin 
 the Greek classics, to dip, or immerse, it proves nothing 
 unless it can be shown that it means the same thing in the 
 New Testament." He says : "The conclusion of the whole 
 matter to which we come is: 1. There is nothing in the 
 history of John's baptism, nothing in the practice of the 
 Apostles, nothing in the miscellaneous allusions to baptism 
 in the Epistles, nothing in the meaning of the word bap- 
 tize, to authorize the belief that any particular mode of 
 baptism is essential to the validity of this rite." ( Armor, 
 pages 92-93.) 
 
 We pause here to notice these points. First, as to the 
 
95 
 
 words "changing their meaning,'' We don 'i intend to let 
 him off here so easy as he imagines. For on such princi- 
 ples, and by such reasonings, the natural and primary 
 meaning of any word, in any law, or in any lang uage might 
 be quickly explained away. "Were this principle of inter- 
 pretation universally admitted no law upon earth could 
 maintain its authority. The obligation of laws and obedi- 
 ence to la w-givers, would be at an end. Nor could any fact 
 or doctrine contained in the Bible stand its ground against 
 tie operation of this principle. By rejecting the, natural 
 sense and primary meaning of inspired terms when we find 
 them contrary to our inclination, and by adopting a sec- 
 ondary or allusive inference as often as we find an occasion, 
 it is an easy matter for the most ungodly person to form a 
 creed of his own, let the real meaning of prophets and 
 Apostles be what they may. Grant but the liberty of tak- 
 ing the principal words of a law, a narrative, or of a doc- 
 trine, in a secondary and remote sense and a person of 
 genius might safely evade any law, subvert any doctrine 
 and misrepresent any fact contained in the Bible. While 
 the writer's knowledge of language, ancient or modern, is 
 very limited, still he ventures the assertion that there are 
 few terms in any language but what are as liable to im- 
 proper and secondary acceptation as the word baptism. 
 Why then, in the name of common .sense, should this 
 emphatieal term b&piizo, be singled out as most equivocal 
 of all others in its meaning? Why so much to do to evade 
 its natural force, and yet admit it to be "equally valid? " 
 One thing is certain, the solemn use of water is not denied 
 by our Pedo-Ba ptist brethren, a nd if it be omitted ba ptism 
 itself is wanting. If it be used contrary to divine order 
 and primitive practice the ordinance is corrupted, and so 
 corrupted as not to deserve the original name. Why 
 should this word baptizo of all others express three differ- 
 ent actions, immerse, sprinkle, pour? A word that has 
 three senses equally proper and natural to it is indeed a 
 
96 
 
 most accommodating one. It has no determinate sense at 
 all. It is a>mere term without an idea and deserves to be 
 banished from the language to which it belongs. 
 
 But Dr. Hudson says immersion is valid baptism, 
 equally valid with sprinkling and pouring, and then, alas! 
 he represents the folly of this admission and sets about to 
 get it out of his way by spending all his ingenuity to prove 
 that it is not of divine authority, and that it is both " dan- 
 gerous and indecent." Equally valid ! Strange word ! Its 
 meaning occasions no dispute in ancient or modern writ- 
 ings where the sacred institution is not referred to. In all 
 others it is clear, it is plain. No three or four dilferent 
 senses are required for it to perform. It is used to express 
 how people in all ages and in all countries, however cold, 
 plunge their bodies for health and amusement. Even in 
 our own country it allows persons of both sexes for medi- 
 cal purposes and pleasure to practice it without censure. 
 But just as soon as the term is considered as a part of 
 Christian worship, all is darkness and confusion ; danger- 
 ous and indecent, if immersion is mentioned. All the lexi- 
 cons, all the dictionaries, all history, become at once the 
 objects of inquiry in order to trump up some other mean- 
 ing to this troublesome word, but all in vain. It is there, 
 and there it will remain as long as Christ has a people on 
 earth to follow his example in the baptismal waters. It 
 will stand as it has done the storms of persecution, ridicule 
 and contempt, whatever becomes of pouring and sprinkling. 
 The word is as uncompromising in its significance, as any 
 other in the language, when used in secular ma tters, and it 
 is never called upon to yield its usual vocation, until the 
 holy ordinance is wanted . Then our opponents would have 
 it become a "Proteus or a chameleon," for it must as- 
 sume different appearances to suit the demand; change its 
 shape or color as may be required. If you desire sprink- 
 ling, it is your devoted servant; and you may sprinkle 
 head or face, the hands or feet, for it makes no objection so 
 
97 
 
 water be " applied " to the subject . Have you a preference 
 for pouring? Still it is at your service: for whether you 
 pour much or little on the face or neck, on the fingers or 
 toes, it will sanction your deed. Are you for washing? 
 Why that is all right— you may dip a towel in the basin, in- 
 stead of your fingers, and apply it to the face or to the 
 hands, or to any part of the body you please, for it will be 
 quite satisfied so you but apply the water in some form or 
 other, and you are at your option. If you happen to be 
 "fond" of water, and to prefer immersion, this goo^-natur- 
 ed word can't refuse ; for it is equally valid, altho' it as- 
 sumes in this last, a form both "dangerous and indecent." 
 ( See Methodist Armor, pages 81-93.) So our Methodist 
 friends are satisfied so water is applied, little or much, to 
 any part of the body, to unconscious babes, penitent sin- 
 ners and believing saints. 
 
 " If water only be applied, 
 That will suffice, can't be deny'd. 
 Each one may choose his manner now ; 
 If each is pleased, no matter how. 
 No matter how ? Then why is't there? 
 And why the crown or face prefer? 
 * Why should the region of the nose 
 Be deemed more fit than of the toes ? 
 Why should you not baptize the hands, 
 To execute divine commands ? 
 The feet, to run the Christian road ? 
 The shoulders, to sustain the load? 
 The neck, the Christian yoke to bear, 
 And serve the Lord with holy fear? 
 Why not the sacred rite impart 
 About the region of the heart ? 
 What, in the nature of the case, 
 Should make you, Doctor, choose the face? 
 
98 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 We affirm, that the classical usage of baptizo estab- 
 lishes the position of Baptists. 
 
 If w§ have not satisfied the reader that Dr. Hudson's 
 theory on this point has been met, let us look at it again. 
 He quotes from some of the old Greek writers, Hippocrates, 
 Aristotle and others. The first lived about 430 years be- 
 fore Christ and Aristotle died 332 years before the Chris- 
 tian era. Plutarch died about 140 years after Christ. By 
 referring to Prof. Stuart, ( that learned author so often al- 
 luded to) on the " mode of baptism," (pages 14-20) the 
 reader will see that he has gone through the whole range 
 of classical and sacred literature, reciting numerous exam- 
 ples including those mentioned by Dr. H., and although 
 seven hundred years intervened between the birth of Pindar 
 and the death of Plutarch, .yet he shows usbylnnumerable 
 quotations from these ancient authors, that baptizo was 
 used by them to express immersion or its equivalent, and 
 never, in one single instance, the idea of either sprinkling- 
 or pouring. Most of these Greek writers lived before bap- 
 tism was instituted, and knew nothing of immersion as a 
 religious ordinance. There was no controversy as to the 
 meaning of baptizo, during the classic period of Grecian 
 history, and the most obvious meaning then given to it 
 was that of immersion. No man who has any reputation 
 to lose, as a Greek scholar, will deny that, up to the time 
 of the introduction of the New Testament, this word meant 
 to immerse, and that usage had fully established this 
 meaning. And Prof. Stuart concludes, after going over the 
 whole ground and considering allits meanings, "that there 
 
99 
 
 is no proof in it all that the word is ever used in any other 
 than one of the two following senses : " 
 
 1st. "To dip, plunge, immerse anything in liquid." 
 
 2nd. "To overwhelm, literally or figuratively.'* (See 
 Biblical Repos., April 1833, page 288-179.) 
 
 The only possible exception to the above, made by 
 Prof. Stuart, is the case of Dionysius, commenting upon 
 Homer, II, XII, 333, where it is said ofAjax, that he struck 
 Cleobulous across the neck with his heavy sword, li and the 
 whole sword became warmed with blood." Baptisthentos 
 is the word used in Greek, and Prof. S. allows that "the 
 sword was so dipped or immersed in blood as to become 
 heated. " The above is the language of Moses Stuart, pro- 
 fessor of Andover University, and not a Baptist ; and if 
 Dr. Rosser, of the Methodist Church is to be believed, Dr. 
 Hudson's theory of the "secular and sacred meaning of 
 this word/' is at an end forever ; for says Dr. Rosser : "The 
 judgment of Prof. Stuart, as a Biblical critic, is of the high- 
 est reputation in the United States.'' * 
 
 When the Savior made his appearance among men, he 
 found this word in common use; so did the Apostles, and 
 consequently used it, as they found it like all other words 
 in the language. Surely, neither the Savior nor his Dis- 
 ciples, would attempt to change the meaning of words from 
 their ordinary use when they wished to impress the minds 
 of their hearers with truths so important. In his positive 
 command, to teach and to baptize, there was no uncer- 
 tainty what was meant. Our Methodist friends have just 
 as much reason to attach some other meaning to the word 
 "teach" as they have to construe the word baptize to 
 mean anything but to dip or immerse. They have just as 
 much cause to say that " teach," in the 28th chapter of 
 Matthew, 19th verse, means to punish, as to say that the 
 word baptizing in the same verse means sprinkling- or 
 pouring. "Why? Been use the word "teach" (matheten- 
 sati) in the Greek Testnment, menus literally, to disciple; 
 
100 
 
 and if you will consult your English dictionary, you will 
 find the secondary meaning of the verb, to disciple, means 
 to punish. Now let us be fair ; if we change the meaning of 
 one, let the other be treated likewise. Then the verse will 
 read : "Go ye therefore, and punish all nations, sprinkling 
 or pouring them in the name of the Father and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 This example illustrates the folly of avoiding the ordi- 
 nary meaning of words to carry a point, and it seems to 
 me sufficient to carry conviction to the most biased mind 
 as to the Scriptural mode of baptism. 
 
 "For," says a fine writer, "the whole certainty of lan- 
 guage rests upon this principle of construing words by their 
 natural and usual meaning. All our assurance from Scrip- 
 ture, even of eternal happiness for the righteous, rests upon 
 it, as well as the eternal punishment of the wicked. When, 
 for instance, in arguing with a Universalist, we set before 
 him the terms 'eternal' and 'everlasting,' he will of course 
 plead that these terms do not fully and fairly mean with- 
 out any end, and would cite us to the 15th verse of the 45th 
 chapter of Ecclesiastes, in which place the word 1 everlast- 
 ing ' in one sense is at an end. And have we to go through 
 the whole range of Greek literature, and give up the eterni- 
 ty of the blessedness of heaven, if there shall be one or two 
 cases found, in which, figuratively or literally, the word 
 may possibly have reference to a less duration? Surely it 
 is sufficient if we establish a prevailing usage. We are then 
 entitled to claim that as the sense of the promise or the 
 threatening of Scripture, unless a different meaning can be 
 proved in this case. The burden of showing an exception 
 is thrown on the side of the objector." 
 
 We think this position is so impregnable and so plainly 
 taught in the Scriptures, that Dr. H. has but one alterna- 
 tive left him here, and that is to fall back on his Church Dis- 
 cipline and gi ve up the New Testament argument. On page 
 43 of the " Armor," he quotes from the XXII Article of the 
 
101 
 
 Discipline, which reads thus: ''Every particular Church 
 may ordain, change or abolish rites and ceremonies,' ' &c, 
 and Dr. H. then explains: "It teaches that whenever a 
 ceremony becomes a hindrance to the real progress of the 
 Church, it is to be laid aside. When new ones are needed, 
 they are to be used. The law of expediency is to reign as 
 to these matters." Here, and here alone, Dr. Hudson can 
 rest his case. Here is sufficient authority for human insti- 
 tutions, and for all his theories, which he has failed to find 
 in the Scriptures. But the blessed Savior speaks to all who 
 assume the authority to '* ordain,. change or abolish rites 
 and ceremonies'' belonging to His Church, or fix any "law 
 of expediency ' ' ' ' to reign ' ' therein, thus : ' ' But in vain they 
 do worship me. teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men." Matt. XY-9. "It is a dangerous thing in the 
 service of God, to decline from His own institutions ; w 7 e 
 have to do with a God avIio is wise to prescribe His own 
 worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and pow- 
 erful to revenge what He has not prescribed." — Bishop 
 Hail. 
 
102 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Argument taken from the Old Testament. 
 
 Now, if the reader is not fully satisfied, we ask him to go 
 with us a little further while we turn back to the pages of 
 the Old Testament. Here the word baptize or baptism is 
 nowhere found expressed in the English language. Why is 
 this ? It is not because the original word baptizo in the 
 Septuagint is not there, for we find it in the Greek version 
 of the Bible, just as it is in the New Testament. But in 
 every instance it has been translated into plain English, 
 and not transferred and retained as it is in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 This is a very significant fact. In the Old Testament 
 wherever the word is used, it has no reference to ■ the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, for it was not then instituted. There 
 was nothing in the way, and the seventy learned men, ap- 
 pointed by King James, have given us the English meaning 
 of baptizo, just as they did all other words. Hence baptize 
 or baptism does not occur at all in the Bible, but its plain 
 meaning in English. The word, however, occurs only fif- 
 teen times, says Dr. Barnes. The Old Testament was first 
 written in Hebrew, and then from Hebrew translated into 
 Greek, by the Alexandrine Sanhedrim, over two hundred 
 years before Christ, which is called the Septuagint version. 
 It was this version the Savior and his Apostles read, it be- 
 ing at that time found and used in all the Jewish 
 Synagogues. 
 
 Dr. Barnes, says: "The true way to ascertain the 
 meaning of this word baptizo among the Jews, is to exam- 
 ine carefully the fifteen places where it occurs in the Old 
 
103 
 
 Testament." He says: "In Hebrew, the word is tabal, 
 and always rendered in Greek baptize " He then gives ns 
 the fifteen places as follows. 
 
 I. Leviticus 4-6: " And the priest shall dip his finger 
 in blood. 1 * 
 
 II. Leviticus 24-6 : " Shall dip them in the blood of the 
 bird that was killed over running water." 
 
 III. " And dip them in the blood of the slain bird and 
 in the running water." 
 
 IV. Numbers 19-18: "And a clean person shall take 
 hyssop and dip it into the running water." 
 
 V. lluth 2-14 : " And Boaz said unto her at mealtime, 
 Come thou hither and eat of the bread and dip thy morsel 
 in the vinegar." 
 
 VI. Exodus 12-22 : "And ye shall take a bunch of hys- 
 sop and dip it in the blood." 
 
 VII. Dent. 33-24 : " And let him dip his foot in oil." 
 
 VIII. Ezek. 23-15: " Exceeding in dyed attire." 
 
 IX. Job 9-31: "Yet shaft thou plunge me in the 
 ditch." 
 
 X. Levit. 9-9 : "And he dipped his finger in the blood." 
 
 XI. I Sanrl 14-27: "And he put forth the end of his 
 rod, and dipped it in the honey comb." 
 
 XII. II Kings 8-16: " And he took a thick cloth and 
 dipped it in the water," &c. 
 
 XIII. Josh. 3-15: "The feet of the priests that bear the 
 ark were dipped in the brim of the water." 
 
 XIV. II Kings 5-14: "And he went down and dipped 
 himself seven times in Jordan." 
 
 XV. Gen. 37-31: "And they took Joseph's coat and 
 killed a kid and dipped the coat in the blood." 
 
 Now nobody has ever questioned the translation in 
 II Kings where it is said Naaman dipped himself in Jordan, 
 and if the same rule had been observed in Matthew, it 
 would have read, they were dipped by John in Jordan, just 
 as it is in Kings. Indeed, had this same word been trans- 
 
104 
 
 lated from Greek into English in the New Testament as it 
 was invariable done in the Old, we never should have had 
 all this controversy about the " mode" of Christ's ordi- 
 nance. In every instance where the word baptize and bap- 
 tism now occurs in the English language, if the original 
 word had been translated as it was done in the Old Testa- 
 ment we would have immerse or dip, and immersion or dip- 
 ping throughout the New Testament. There is such an 
 abundance of proof of this fact, and that too, from Pedo- 
 Baptist writers of all ages and of the most celebrated schol- 
 ars of the world, both of ancient and modern times, that it 
 no little surprises us, that a Christian man and a Doctor of 
 Divinity, should write and publish a book in which he states 
 in the most positive manner, that it is a practice both 
 "dangerous to health and offensive to delicacy and really 
 without Scriptural authority." 
 
 Nay, more; he says on page 93, Sec. 3: "To require 
 immersion in order to admission into the Church is contra- 
 ry to the teaching of the Bible and is to 'teach for doctrine 
 the commandments of men.' And to exclude pious Christ- 
 ians from the Lord's table beca.use they have not been im- 
 mersed is narrow-hearted bigotry." He thus " eats "his 
 own words; for, speakingof the Holy Scriptures as we have 
 before seen, he says: " Whatsover is not read therein, nor 
 may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man 
 that it should be believed as an article of faith." And yet 
 right in the face of this general rule of the Methodist Dis- 
 cipline and which he endorses, he, calls us "narrow-hearted 
 bigots, " because we strictly adhere to and carry out in our 
 practice the very same principle ! 
 
 He farther states on the same page of his book, Art . 4 : 
 "Baptism is enjoined upon all nations, and pouring is 
 adapted to all climates, but immersion is not. How could 
 immersion be performed in those countries where for six 
 months in the year, every pond, river and ocean is con- 
 verted into solid ice? " Then, I would say, how would Dr. 
 
105 
 
 Hud son get along in such a country if he were there ? Would 
 he take the little babes in his arms and pour " solid ice'' 
 over their tender bodies and call it baptism or would he 
 pour or sprinkle a few pieces on the head of a man or a 
 woman, and think that sufficient? Whatever difficulties 
 he may see in cold climates, the Baptists have none, for 
 they believe what the Holy Ghost says : " Go teach all na- 
 tions, immersing' them,'' &e. Besides, as we have before 
 shown, the Greeks occupy and live in these cold climates, 
 even in " Snowy Thrace ;" still immersion only is practiced 
 by them as a Christian ordinance, and, just as we Baptists 
 utterly ignore any other mode. And notwithstanding they 
 reside in those cold climates and often have to break the 
 ice to immerse their candidates they largely outnumber Dr. 
 H.'s boasted thousands, including babies, "penitent seek- 
 ers/' and all. It is no uncommon thing in the cold winters 
 of this country for Baptist ministers to plunge their sub- 
 jects in the chilly waters covered with ice, and that too, 
 without any danger to their health, or offensive to the most 
 delicate sensibilities of any one, except it be to some vulgar- 
 minded person. 
 
 Article 5 of page 93, he says : " Baptism by sprinkling 
 can be performed on persons who profess religion on a dy- 
 ing bed, but immersion cannot." Now what does the Dr. 
 mean by this ? The inference is clear that unless the dying 
 man is baptized, his chances for heaven are gone, although 
 lie professes to have his sins pardoned. All his repentance 
 and solemn professions of conversion just before his soul 
 takes its everlasting flight, are vain, unless he can have the 
 preacher to come and sprinkle a few drops of water on his 
 head ! The Baptists have no trouble in such cases. They 
 do not believe God would require impossibilities of the dy- 
 ing penitent . Nothing is said about the thief 's baptism as 
 he was dying with the Saviour on the cross. "This day 
 thou shalt be with me in paradise," proclaimed his pardon, 
 and was enough' to fill his soul with joy. Immersion, it is 
 
106 
 
 true, was impossible in his case, but sprinkling or pouring 
 was not, and yet it was not required either by him or for 
 him. This is another argument that the ordinance by 
 sprinkling was not known at that time, and that it was not 
 administered in any such cases at all in any form. 
 
 Article 6, on the same page, closes his chapter 8, thus : 
 " Baptism by pouring comports with decency and proprie- 
 ty, but does immersion? " 
 
107 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Concluding Remarks on the Mode of Baptism. 
 
 We think we have established the fact that baptizo 
 means to immerse and nothing else, when translated into 
 English. It is strange indeed that writers who claim to 
 teach the truth, should endeavor to attach three meanings 
 to this word, since the most learned authors of every age 
 have been unable to discover one solitary example where it 
 ever means sprinkling or pouring. We know some of them 
 deny this ; still when critically put to the test the same 
 truthful conclusion is invariably reached . To say the word 
 means to sprinkle and pour, as well as immerse, gives it 
 three entirely different actions. 
 
 The absurdity of this claim is thus exposed by Dr. 
 Richard Fuller. He says : " Suppose the word saw, meant 
 a saw, an axe, and a nail; how would a carpenter know 
 what we mean when we a sk for a saw ? Would he hand me 
 an axe or a nail? To say that a word has three distinct 
 literal meanings, is to say that it means neither of them. 
 If there were such a word we should have to employ some 
 other word to show which of the three things Ave intend. 
 Ride, for example, means one thing ; it means to ride. It 
 cannot mean ride and eat and walk. Baptizo no more 
 means to sprinkle or pour, than it means to fly." "No 
 man," says he, "in his right mind would think of immer- 
 sing an object, say an apple, and then contend he had 
 sprinkled it." 
 
 "This remark," says President Shannon, "is as appli- 
 cable to the Greek as to the English. Indeed, it is well 
 known that the Greek excels in the expression of different 
 shades of ideas with precision and certainty by the same 
 words." 
 
108 
 
 The Rev. J. M. Pendleton thus fairly states: "Now if 
 the word baptize in the New Testament means sprinkle or 
 pour as Pedo-Baptists insist, and if baptism is an £ appli- 
 cation of water/ is it not infinitely remarkable that water 
 is never said to be baptized upon the subject of the ordi- 
 nance, and that the water is never said to be applied ? If 
 baptize means sprinkle or pour, the water is baptized, not 
 the person. We cannot speak of sprinkling- a man without 
 an ellipsis or figure of speech. And no one Avould expect to 
 find a figure of speech in the Apostolic commission. Sprink- 
 ling implies the scattering of the particles of the substance 
 sprinkled. A man cannot be poured, because pouring im- 
 plies a continuous stream of the substance poured. I say 
 again if baptize in the NeAV Testament means sprinkle or 
 pour the Avater is baptized. But noAA T here is water found in 
 the objective case, after the verb baptize, in the active voice, 
 nor is it found in the nominative case to the A 7 erb in the 
 passiA^e voice. We neA r er read I baptize water upon you ; 
 but I baptize you. It is neA r er said AA T ater Avas baptized 
 upon them ; but it is said £ they Avere baptized, both men 
 and Avomen.' The subjects of the ordinance Avere baptized , 
 the Avater was not. And, therefore, baptize in the New 
 Testament, signifies neither pour nor sprinkle. But sub- 
 stitute immerse for it and 1ioaa t plain and beautiful is every 
 baptismal narration! I immerse you, not the Avater. 
 They Avere immersed , that is the ' men and AA 7 omen . ' Those 
 who do not look upon this statement of the matter as con- 
 clusiA^e against sprinkling and pouring, ought to apply 
 themseh^es at once to the study of the English Grammar, 
 even if they are Doctors of Divinity." 
 
 The celebrated Church historian, Neander, in his letter 
 to Jucld, says: "As to your question on the orignal rite 
 of baptism, there can be no doubt Avhatever that in primi- 
 tiA^e times the ceremony Avas performed by immersion, to 
 signify a complete immersion into the neAv principle of life 
 diAine, Avhich Avas imparted by the Messiah. When St. 
 
109 
 
 Paul says that through baptism we are buried with Christ 
 and rise again with Him, he unquestionably alludes to the 
 symbol of dipping into and rising again out of the water. 
 The practice of immersion in the first centuries was beyond 
 all doubt prevalent in the whole Church." 
 
 I might here quote other passages from this learned 
 Lutheran , of similar import, but surely this ought to satis- 
 fy any honest inquirer after truth. 
 
 That popular English divine, Dr. Whitb}', says: ''Im- 
 mersion was religiously observed by all Christians for 
 thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, and the 
 change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance 
 from the author of the institution, being that it was first 
 introduced by the Romanists. ?? 
 
110 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Greek Prepositions. 
 
 Great importance is attached to the use of the Greek 
 prepositions by Pedo-Baptist writers, to disprove the idea 
 of immersion . They say that these prepositions translated 
 "in," "into," and "out of," prove nothing of themselves ; 
 because, they say, they as often mean "unto," "to," "at," 
 "nearly," "with" and "from," and are so translated in 
 various places in the New Testament. If this be so, then 
 there is nothing certain in the use of language. The writer 
 once heard a series of sermons delivered by a popular 
 Methodist minister, whom he highly esteemed,' in 
 which he assiduously attempted to prove that these 
 prepositions were improperly translated where they were 
 employed to describe the baptism of the Saviour and the 
 Eunuch that where it is said they " came up straightway 
 out of the water" ought to have been translated, from in- 
 stead of " out of" and that Philip and the Eunuch did not 
 go down "into" the water, but "at or near 'by, " &c. 
 
 We again beg the reader to observe what that great 
 law commentator, Blackstone, laid down as a rule in the 
 use of language, elsewhere quoted. "Words are generally 
 to be understood in their usual and most known significa- 
 tion ; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as 
 their general and popular use." 
 
 We will first consider the preposition en. Prof. Mell 
 says : " The primary meaning of en is in, and not 1 with ' or 
 • at.' " He says that " 4 en' occurs in the New Testament 
 two thousand seven hundred and twenty times." 
 
Ill 
 
 It is translated 'at' in our common version only seven- 
 ty-six times. In more than forty of these seventy-six 
 places it occurs before the name of a city, as at Jerusalem, 
 &c, when it might be properly translated 4 in.' In about 
 twenty more of the seventy-six places referred to it occurs 
 in such expressions as these : at that day, at that hour, &c, 
 so that it may be affirmed that not ten times in nearly 
 three thousand does the Greek preposition en mean simply 
 k at ' in our English version . 
 
 Still we are gravely told that en is as frequently trans- 
 lated at, to or with, as it is in. It is true our translators 
 have translated 11 en udsiti" " with water," which certainly 
 ought to have been in water. Let us see how it is in other 
 portions of the Bible. It is said John was baptizing il en 
 eremg" in the wilderness, when if en is rendered with, it 
 would read, baptizing with the wilderness. So with. John 
 when at Jordan : '"They Avere all baptized of John with the 
 river Jordan. ' ' Now suppose we try the Pedo-Baptist view, 
 and substitute sprinkling or pouring in these sentences. 
 It would be : " John was sprinkling or pouring with the wil- 
 derness," and "they were- all poured with the river Jor- 
 dan ! ' ' What stupid nonsense ! 
 
 Now let us briefly notice that other common preposi- 
 tion eis, which literally means into, but which our oppo- 
 nents contend ought to be translated to ; that Philip and 
 the Eunuch only went to theAvater and not into it. If this 
 be so, then Joseph was not required to "flee into Egypt," 
 and in Matthew, 8th chapter, the devils did not "enter into 
 the swine," and the swine did not "run into the sea," and 
 the keepers of the swine did not " go into the city." 
 
 Again, how could the "new wine break the old bottles," 
 without being put into them? It is said in Matthew 25- 
 46, "And these shall go away £ into' everlasting punish- 
 ment, but the righteous ' into ' life eternal." According to 
 their theory they would get the wicked and the righteous 
 to, at, or 72f?&7* fry those places. But they readily admit that 
 
112 
 
 it means into, unless baptismal waters are referred to. 
 This little word em is a strange word indeed, if what they 
 say of it be true. It will take a man into a country, into a 
 city, into a house, into a ship, into heaven, into hell, into 
 any place in the universe except the water. Poor, afflicted 
 word ! It seems to be seized with hydrophobia every time 
 it is required to go into the water ! So says the Rev. J. M. 
 Pendleton in his "Three Reasons/' 
 
 Such are some of the absurdities of our Pedo-Baptist 
 friends to evade the force of the English translation of the 
 Scriptures, and of the original Greek. If the reader desires 
 to investigate the use of these controverted terms farther, 
 he may consult Drs. Carson, Curtis, Mell, Pendleton, Pen- 
 gilly and Booth. 
 
 In concluding this part of the discussion, Ave maintain 
 that no cause can be true which requires its advocates to 
 resort to such wormings and quirkings to support it. No 
 wonder the infidel thanked the Pedo-Baptist minister when 
 he tried to snow that the Eunuch went to the water, but 
 not into it. Eor he said he never could believe that Daniel 
 was cast into the lions' den, or that the Hebrew boys were 
 cast into the ffery furnace, and now lie saw there was no 
 miracle about it. 
 
113 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 When and How Pouring and Sprinkling Originated. 
 
 The reader is, by this time, desirous of knowing at 
 what period and on what accounts the custom of pouring 
 and sprinkling was first introduced. We have shown by 
 quotations from the standard histories of the world that 
 immersion, was generally practiced by all the Churches for 
 thirteen liundied years after Christ. 
 
 Mr. Wall, that great English divine and eminent 
 scholar, who has explored all the voluminous writers of an- 
 tiquity, has discovered that the first case on record of 
 pouring or sprinkling took place about the middle of the 
 third century of the Christian era. The man's name was 
 Xovatian, and it occurred on this wise: "Xovatian was 
 taken very sick and was like to die, and had not been bap- 
 tized. He asked and obtained leave of the Pope to be bap- 
 tized in the bed where he lay (if such a thing could be called 
 baptism) and was sprinkled over in bed; or water poured 
 a. 11 o ver him , as the word signifies . " Mr . Wall then goes on 
 to say : u Xo vatian recovered of his sickness. There was a 
 vacancy in the See of Rome at that time, (A. I). 251.) A 
 man by the name of Cornelius and this Xovatian were 
 rival candidates of the office. Cornelius received a major- 
 ity; and Xovatian claimed also to be chosen. Cornelius 
 writes a long letter to Fabius, the Bishop of Antioch, in 
 which he describes the case of Xovatian, and says that he 
 came not lawfully to his order of priesthood, much less 
 was he capable of being chosen Bishop; for, says he, all the 
 clergy and a great many of the laity, were against his be- 
 
114 
 
 ing chosen Presbyter; because it was not lawful for any 
 one that had been poured over in his bed, as he had been, 
 ( and not baptized ) to be admitted to any office of the 
 clergy." ( See Wall's Hist., part II, chapter IX, Sec. 2.) 
 Here is the first case of either sprinkling or pouring, for 
 baptism, and here we see a serious objection taken against 
 Novatian, on account of his imperfect baptism, or rather 
 no baptism, an objection in which "all the clergy united," 
 and he therefore failed of his being Bishop. 
 
 But this was not the only objection to Novatian, even 
 if he had been baptized, ( immersed ) if it was done while 
 was sick. For there was an Act of Council affirmed by the 
 12th Canon which would prevent him from office. It reads 
 thus : "He that is baptized when he is sick ought not to be 
 made a priest, for his coming to the faith is not voluntary, 
 but from necessity." In the second place, as to the mode. 
 While Novatian was living, one Magnus submits this ques- 
 tion to Cyprian, viz.: "Whether they are to be esteemed 
 right Christians, who are not washed in the water, but only 
 sprinkled?" Cyprian answers, that "the baptism was to 
 be esteemed good, *' necessitate cogente,' necessity compell- 
 ing t*o it, and God granting his indulgence." Now this is 
 the first case to be found on record where sprinkling or 
 pouring as an ordinance is mentioned, and what is also 
 worthy of notice, even at that time baptism was not re- 
 garded as valid unless it was voluntary on the part of the 
 candidate; infant baptism was not yet known. 
 
 Thus began this substitute for Christian baptism, and 
 from this period, A. D. 250, onward, sprinkling was permit- 
 ted, but only in case of necessity and in prospect of death, 
 for it was falsely believed that the ordinance was necessary 
 to salvation. "France," says Mr. Wall, "seems to have 
 been the first country in the world where baptism by affu- 
 sion was used ordinarily for persons in health." This affu- 
 sion, or pouring, in the Church of Rome was first tolerated 
 in the eighth century, while immersion was still the estab- 
 
115 
 
 lished law of the Church: and so things stood for several 
 hundred years. 
 
 Sir David Brewster, the editor of the Edinburg' Ency- 
 clopedia, says : "The first law for sprinkling was obtained 
 in the following manner: Pope Stephen II being driven 
 from Home by Astolphus, King of the Lombards, in 758, 
 fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the 
 crown of France. While there, the monks of Cressy , in Brit- 
 tany, consulted him, whether in case of necessity, baptism 
 performed by pouring water on the head of the infant would 
 be lawful. Stephen replied that it would.'' So we see that 
 it Avas only in case of necessity that the Pope at this time 
 would ajlow sprinkling or pouring to be lawful baptism. 
 Immersion was the only mode except in cases of necessity, 
 till the Council held at Ravenna, in the year 1311, declared 
 immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. 
 
 In Scotland, sprinkling was never practiced till after the 
 Reformation : and in England, even in the reign of Edward 
 VI, immersion was usually observed . Queen Elizabeth and 
 Edward were both immersed, as the record shows. Royal- 
 ty did not think, like my friend, that it was either indecent 
 or dangerous to their health to follow the example of 
 Christ. 
 
 Dr. Wall and Prof. Stuart, two of the most learned his- 
 torians of modern times and both Pedo-Baptists, tell us 
 that during the reign of Elizabeth, from A. D., 1558 to 1603, 
 sprinkling was not allowed except in cases of weak children 
 "not strong enough to be brought to the baptismal fonts.'" 
 "It Avas about this time," says Dr. Wall, "that many 
 proud ladies and gentlemen first, and then by degrees the 
 common people, Avould obtain the favor of the Priest to 
 have their children pass for AA r eak children too tender to 
 endure dipping in Avater." 
 
 Noav if I have not shoAvn that sprinkling and pouring 
 as an ordinance of baptism first originated amid the cor- 
 ruptions Avhieh crept into the Christian Churches, that the 
 
11(5 
 
 first case which ever occurred in the history of the world 
 was that of Novatian above described, and that for fifteen 
 hundred years after the death of Christ, it was used only in 
 exceptional cases ; I say if this has not been fully shown, 
 there is nothing that can be shown. The man who is not 
 convinced by the testimony so fairly given to support this 
 fact "would not be persuaded though one should rise from 
 the dead." "Such a man, if he had a purpose to accom- 
 plish by it, would deny that the sun shone in the firma- 
 ment of heaven during these fifteen centuries." 
 
 What, then, is to be thought of a Methodist minister, a 
 Doctor of Divinity, and one who writes and publishes books 
 for the public to read, who boldly declares : " There is no 
 command to baptize by immersion;" that "the weight of 
 evidence is in favor of sprinkling or pouring;" that "im- 
 mersion is without Scriptural authority, and of really 
 primitive practice?" I say, any man who makes such 
 broad and groundless assertions ought to pause and study 
 at least the alphabetical portions of Church history. I 
 think if he would do this and study to a-rrive at truth with- 
 out prejudice, candor and honesty would induce him to 
 publish a new edition of the "Armor," and expunge such 
 unauthorized and offensive statements. It is wonderful in- 
 deed how early education and training, combined with pre- 
 judice, can hold a good and devoted Christian man in bonds 
 of iron and will not permit him to break the fetters of his 
 bondage and stand out in the broad sunlight of truth. 
 
 We have now concluded our task which we assumed 
 in reply to Dr. Hudson's chapters on the Gospel Church 
 and the mode of baptism, and leave it to the reader to 
 judge between us. What we have written, we have written. 
 While we have at times used strong language, we have not 
 intended, to offend, and certainly have not written aught 
 with malice. 
 
117 
 
 i 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 We next invite the reader to follow us in the examina- 
 tion of the Doctor's chapter IX, on Infant Baptism, page 
 94, " Armor." Before we take up his line of argument, we 
 attempt first to prove that the Pope of Rome, "that man 
 of sin, " is the author of infant baptism. 
 
 For fifteen centuries infant baptism has existed in the 
 corrupt Romish apostacv, and all "the Churches" in 
 Europe, which can trace their origin to Rome have main- 
 tained Its existence since their origin. It is found in this 
 country as well as in Europe, connected with all those 
 ecclesiastical organizations whether founded by Wesley, 
 Calvin, Luther or Henry the Eighth, and held in impor- 
 tance in proportion as they approximate in form to the 
 Romish Hierarchy. Had there never been a kind of super- 
 stitious faith that in baptizing infants the original sin at- 
 tached to them was in some mysterious way washed away , 
 we should never have heard of such a custom, or of infant 
 church membership. Had the New Testament been the 
 only guide of professing Christians, in regard to the Church, 
 that it is a company of believers, baptized upon a profes- 
 sion of their faith, and associated together to "keep the 
 ordinances once delivered to the saints " by Christ and his 
 Apostles, the world avouM not have to Avitness the schisms,, 
 the confusion and animosities which rend and distract 
 Christian bodies to the mortification and anguish of the 
 true and humble followers of Christ. 
 
118 
 
 There is no mention of it anywhere in the Scriptures, 
 nor did the Apostles or early disciples ever practice it. The 
 Papacy found its origin, and whatever changes or modifi- 
 cations this Mystery of Babylon may undergo to suit the 
 different times and nations, its wicked influence and power 
 can never be utterly destroyed so long as infant baptism, 
 the " main pillar and ground " of it remains. Infant bap- 
 tism has never been the occasion of any good. Its influ- 
 ence has been evil and only evil continually. 
 
 The Baptists and those who have held similar views, 
 under whatever names they have been called, from the 
 earliest introduction of it, have never ceased to resist its 
 propagation and wage an unceasing war with tongue and 
 pen against it, even tho' in ancient times it subjected them 
 to the stake, the gibbet and death in all the cruelties human 
 fiends could invent; and in modern times to imprisonment, 
 the confiscation of their property, and everywhere the ob- 
 jects of hatred, scorn, persecution and contempt of all re- 
 ligious sects combined. 
 
 The reader may think these are very strong assertions , 
 but if we fail to prove them it will not be for the w r ant of 
 abundant authority accessible to the searcher after truth. 
 
 For more than two hundred years after the Christian 
 era, there is no trace of infant baptism found in any his- 
 tory. We never find any mention of it till the notion pre- 
 vailed that baptism is essential to salvation. This corrup- 
 tion crept into the churches and increased with Papal 
 pow r er till it became one of the chief instruments in perpet- 
 uating its supremacy. 
 
 Some time during the third century it is recorded that 
 a certain wealthy lady whose name was Quintilla, wrote a 
 letter to Tertullian, the Bishop of the Church at Carthage, 
 to get his sanction to baptize her infant, and his answer to 
 this letter has been preserved and contains the first allu- 
 sion t o the baptism of children which is recorded in the an- 
 nals of Church history. He said to her: "Those who ad- 
 
119 
 
 minister baptism know very well that it is not to be rashly 
 given.'' He went on further to show to her in this same 
 letter, at length, that children should first be instructed, 
 and when they understand Christianity, let them profess it 
 and then be baptized. 
 
 Cyprian, the successor of Tertullian in the Church at 
 Carthage, received a letter from a man by the name of 
 Fidus, asking how soon after birth it might be proper to 
 baptize? Cyprian it seems was not able to answer this 
 strange and new question, but called a council of sixty- 
 seven of his brother bishops of North Africa who gave it as 
 their opinion, "that a child might be kissed with the kiss of 
 charity as a brother, so soon as it is born." It was this 
 same Cyprian, who gave it as his opinion that water poured 
 about a person in bed ( if he were sick and could not be im- 
 mersed) would answer in the place of baptism. But his- 
 tory informs us that neither Cyprian nor his sixty-seven 
 bishops could influence mothers to baptize their infants 
 till another solemn council was called by the priests and 
 bishops, about the beginning of the fifth century, more on 
 account of their, purses than the souls of the little babes, 
 and passed a decree that i: infants ought to be ba ptized for 
 the remission of sins and that all w ho denied this doctrine 
 should be accursed." Previous to this, great multitudes 
 of believers, grieved at this and other corruptions creeping 
 into the churches, had withdrawn and formed separate so- 
 cieties of their own, retaining the simplicity of the ordi- 
 dances as practiced by Christ and his Apostles. 
 
 The Catholic bishop, Augustine, represents them as 
 asking, "What good the sacrament of Christ's baptism 
 could do unconscious infants ?" They were told that " who- 
 ever denies that little children by baptism are freed from 
 perdition and eternally saved, that they be accursed.'' 
 This was about the year 417. The Pope thus introduced 
 and established infant baptism and baptismal salvation, 
 and issued hisfulminating decree against those who oppos- 
 
120 
 
 ed it, with his death penalty affixed. But the stubborn- 
 hearted, (and as Dr. H. calls them), the narrow-hearted 
 Baptists resisted this satanic custom ; they refused to bap- 
 tize their children ; they disowned the baptism of the Catho- 
 lics by refusing to receive them into their churches till they 
 had been baptized by themselves. This the Catholics call- 
 ed re-baptism, or ana-baptism, and thus the name Ana- 
 Baptists, which has been applied to us almost to the pres- 
 ent day. The strong arm ol the secular power was turned 
 against them. A decree was procured from the Emperor 
 that not only those who re-baptized but those who denied 
 the baptism of infants should be put to death. 
 
 Says Gibbon, the historian: "By this law, three hun- 
 dred bishops ( pastors ) and several thousand of their mem- 
 bers were torn from their churches, stripped of their pos- 
 sessions and banished to the islands." The doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration, gave rise to infant baptism, pur- 
 gatory, and all those abominable customs, such as being- 
 daubed with priests' spittle, walking from the water with 
 lighted tapers, confirmation by bishops, &c, having their 
 origin and propagation in a wicked superstition and greed 
 for gain , in ancient times, and fragments of it still clinging 
 to large bodies of zealous and useful Christians of modern 
 times. 
 
 In the year 1842, a manuscript of Hippolytus, was 
 found in an Armenian convent onMount Athos,in Turkey. 
 This work has been carefully examined by eminent scholars 
 a nd there is no doubt of its being genuine. It appears that 
 this man, Hippolytus, was pastor of the Church at Pontus, 
 near the mouth of the Tiber river, in Italy, and that he had 
 been a pupil of Iraeneus, and wrote this work about 225 
 years after Christ. Speaking of baptism he says: "We in 
 our day never defended the baptism of children, which had 
 only begun to be practiced in some regions, unless it were 
 as an exception and innovation. The baptism of infants 
 we did not know." 
 
121 
 
 Dr. Bun sen, the translator, adds: "The baptism of new 
 born infants was utterly unknown to the early churches, 
 not only down to the end of the second century, but indeed 
 to the middle of the third.'" And Dr. Bunsen was not a 
 Baptist. * 
 
 Clemens and Ignatius, who were cotemporary with 
 Paul and John, and whose writings are held in high esteem 
 among scholars, mention nowhere the baptism of children 
 and only of those who were instructed and believed. 
 
122 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Infant Baptism, Page 94, " Akmok." 
 Dr. II . says: 1. "In tracing back the history of the 
 Jewish Church, we find that infants were members of that 
 Church. This right of infant membership was established 
 when that Church was organized." "Every man child 
 among you shall be circumcised." " He that is eight days 
 old shall be circumcised. ' ' " He that is uncircumcised shall 
 be cutoff." 
 
 2. "The door through which children entered into the 
 Old Testament Church was circumcision." 
 
 3. "'The visible Church of God has always been the 
 same. The Christian Church to-day is the Old Testament 
 Church purged from the apostate Jews. And around this 
 purged Church, the New Testament Church was formed. " 
 
 4. "The right of infant membership existing in the 
 Church has never been repealed. It stands intact to-day. 
 
 _No change has occurred. No proclamation has been made 
 repealing the law of infant membership. And it is a well 
 known fact that a law once passed remains in force until 
 formally repealed. Now as infants were members of the 
 Jewish Church, and as the Gospel Church is but a continu- 
 ance of the Jewish, and no repeal having taken place of this 
 law of infant membership, the conclusion is inevitable tha t 
 the right of infant membership remains intact." 
 
 5 . " Circumcision with other forms of the Jewish Churcl i 
 gave way to baptism in the Christian Church. Baptism.. 
 
123 
 
 like circumcision, is an initiatory right of admission into 
 the visible Church. As circumcision was the gate for the 
 Jew and the Gentile proselyte into the Jewish Church ; so 
 baptism is the door into the Christian Church. Once more, 
 baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of God's cov- 
 enant. The children of believers hold a similar relation to 
 the Christian Church as the Jewish children did to the Jew- 
 ish Church, the former entering the Church by baptism, the 
 latter by circumcision." 
 
 As a proof of the above, Dr. H. quotes Romans 11, 18,- 
 24. This is the same old story held by mostPedo-Baptist 
 authors. Since they cannot find any authority for infant 
 baptism in the New Testament, any practice of it by Christ 
 or his Apostles, they infer it by claiming the Christian 
 Church is a substitute or continuation of what they call 
 the " Jewish Church,'' which included infants. 
 
 The Jewish theocracy and the Christian Chinch are 
 not identical. 
 
 The word Church does not occur in the Old Testament ; 
 but for the sake of the argument, let us call that organiza- 
 tion of the Jews, "The Old Jewish Church, " and proceed to 
 show that the Christian Church is in no way identical with 
 it or a u continuance " of it. , 
 
 1st. According to the prophets a new kingdom was to 
 be set up, while the Jewish organization - , which had been in 
 existence for centuries, was to pass away. ''And in the 
 days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a king- 
 dom, which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom 
 shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces 
 and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for- 
 ever." Daniel II, 14. The language is clear that this neAV 
 kingdom refers to the one Christ was to set up, and it was 
 to be a new one — not a " continuance " of the old or even a 
 substitute for it. There is no intimation that the old 
 Jewish kingdom was to be re-organized or continued in any 
 form. John referred to it when he said, " Repent ye: for 
 
124 
 
 the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Was this the old 
 Jewish Church? 
 
 In the beginning of his ministry Jesus proclaimed this 
 new kingdom was at hand. "The time is fulfilled, and the 
 kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye and believe the gos- 
 pel." Mark 1-15. The prophecy of Daniel is fulfilled. A 
 new dispensation is at hand. Such language had never- 
 been heard before : " Repent ye and believe the gospel." A 
 new era has commenced. Christ said: "The law and the 
 prophets Avere until John : since that time the kingdom of 
 God is preached and every man presseth into it." This 
 does not look like the old Jewish Church and the one Christ 
 set up were the same. If infants were members of the old 
 Church, how could they be members of this new one which 
 required repentance and faith before they could be included 
 in it ? There surely can be no argument here for infant bap- 
 tism, no intimation of it. 
 
 Again : John the Baptist told the members of the Jew- 
 ish Church to repent and bring forth works meet for repent- 
 ance before he would receive them to baptism. He called 
 them a "generation of vipers." They might be worthy 
 members of the old, but utterly unfit for the Church of 
 Christ. The Saviour told Nicodemusthathe must be born 
 again before he could become a fit subject for his Church, 
 and yet he was an officer of high rank in the Jewish Church. 
 He said to the scribes, who were the doctors in the Jewish 
 Church : "Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, 
 for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that 
 are entering to go in." 
 
 Now, according to this language of the Saviour, both 
 kingdoms were in existence at the same time. If Christ's 
 kingdom was not in existence it could not be "shut up," 
 and if they were the same the scribes were already in it. 
 But they were not in it, for he tells them, "ye neither go in 
 yourselves neither suffer others," &c. If then they were in 
 the Jewish Church and not in the Christian Church, they 
 
125 
 
 certainly could not be the same, or one the "continuance'' 
 of the other, notwithstanding Dr. H. declares that "the 
 Christian Church to-day is the Old Testament Church." * 
 * * He says " around this purged Old Testament Church, 
 as a nucleus, the New Testament Church was formed." He 
 quotes John the Baptist and Paul in Romans 11 to prove 
 his assertion. He says : "By the good olive tree, Paul can 
 mean nothing but the Jewish Churches," &c. The Apostle 
 seems to me hereto ad vance a different idea from my friend. 
 He says to the Jews that God has not cast off all Israel, 
 tho' as a nation they rejected Christ and put him to death, 
 yet a remnant should be saved according t o the election of 
 grace. He says to the Gentiles: "Boast not against the 
 branches," the natural branches, the Jews. Do not exult 
 over them as if you were naturally better than they and 
 were in no danger. 
 
 In Ephesians, II, 11-13, "Wherefore remember, that 
 ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called 
 uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the 
 flesh made by hands; that at the time ye were without 
 Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
 strangers from the covenants of promises, having no hope 
 and without God in the word ; but now in Christ Jesus ye 
 who were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ." 
 Paul completely refutes the identity idea of the two 
 Churches at the beginning of the chapter, Romans II. Says 
 he: "For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, 
 of the tribe of Benjamin." He was therefore a circumcised 
 member of the Jewish Church, and yet he became a member 
 of the Christian Church by repentance, faith and baptism. 
 Why was this, if, as Dr. H. asserts, the two Churches were 
 one and the same ? If baptism has taken the place of cir- 
 cumcision, why was Paul commanded to receive baptism, 
 having also been circumcised? Dr. H. says: "Baptism, 
 like circumcision is an initiatory rite of admission into the 
 visible Clmrch. As circumcision was the gate for tlie Jew 
 
126 
 
 and the Gentile proselyte into the Jewish Church, so bap- 
 tism is the door into the Christian Church.'' He says, 
 "Baptism like circumcision, is a sign and seal of God's 
 covenant." 
 
 II. The Two Covenants Examined. 
 
 There are two, the covenant of circumcision and the 
 covenant of grace. 
 
 Our Pedo-Baptist friends insist that there was but one 
 covenant — they ivill not say covenants — while Paul speaks 
 of " covenants, " " covenants t>f promise, " the " two cove- 
 nants, " &c. How they can make the covenant of circum- 
 cision and the covenant of grace one and the same defies 
 comprehension. The gospel covenant, or -covenant of 
 grace, was not made with Abraham, it was confirmed to 
 Abraham. It was made before; it must have been in ex- 
 istence or it could not have been confirmed, for the confir- 
 mation of anything implies its previous existence. Paul 
 says: "The covenant that was confirmed before of God 
 in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years 
 after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of 
 none effect." The covenant with respect to the Messiah 
 was confirmed to Abraham when he was seventy-five years 
 old, (Genesis 12,) and the covenant of circumcision was 
 made with him when he was ninety-nine years old. (Gene- 
 sis 17.) So there were twenty-four years intervening be- 
 tween the two transactions. Now if the gospel covenant 
 was made with Abraham, and if circumcision wa s the seal 
 of that covenant, then it had no seal for twenty-four years 
 after it was made. And if this covenant of grace was made 
 with Abraham by what provisions were those saved who 
 lived before Abraham, Abel, Enoch and others? 
 
 Dr. H. can here see how absurd is his theory that the 
 gospel covenant and Jewish circumcision a re the same and 
 from it argue that infant baptism is taught in the Script- 
 ures. Neither circumcision nor baptism is anywhere refer- 
 
127 
 
 red to by the sacred writers as a ' 4 seal ' ' of a covenant. Cir- 
 cumcision is called a "token of the covenant" God made 
 with Abraham, and a " seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 which he had, yet being uncircumcised." It was never a 
 seal of the righteousness of any other man. 
 
 Again , the seal of circumcision was applied to but one sex 
 and if baptism comes in the room of circumcision, why are fe- 
 males included ? The whole Jewish Church was composed 
 entirely of males. If therefore you could prove everything 
 else, you would still have no warrant for the baptism of fe- 
 male infants, according to the argument of circumcision. 
 The painful ordinance of circumcision was administered to 
 infants, not for moral but for physical reasons, and only to 
 males. " Circumcision was a seal to none but Abraham," 
 says Dr. MelL There is only one place in the Bible where 
 circumcision is called a seal, and then it is said to be a seal, 
 not of the faith of Abraham but of the righteousness of the 
 faith which he had. See Rom. IV-2 : ff And he received the 
 sign of circumcision ; a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 which he had, yet being uncircumcised . ' ' This does not say 
 as our opponents quote it, that circumcision was a sign and 
 seal of Abraham's faith, but a seal of the righteousness of 
 that faith. 
 
 Circumcision was a seal only to Abraham, and not of 
 his faith but of the righteousness of his faith. Baptism is 
 nowhere in the Scriptures said to be a seal of anything to 
 its subjects. The only "seal" whick Ave find in the New 
 Testament is in reference to the Holy Spirit, if whereby he 
 is sealed to the day of redemption.'' Eph. IV-30. When 
 sinners believe in Christ, they are sealed with that Holy 
 Spirit of promise which is the i; earnest of their inheritance 
 until the redemption of the purchased possession." Eph. 
 1-1*3. " And this is not applicable to unconcious babes but 
 to the intelligent believer in Christ." In fact, this whole 
 subject of the Abrahamic covenant is so involved in the 
 mysteries of God's eternal purposes, it is wonderfully 
 
128 
 
 strange that our Pedo-Baptist friends seek to find in it any 
 intelligent support for infant baptism, Can it be possible 
 that God has so concealed the evidences of one of His posi- 
 tive commands, as to require us to resort to the deep and 
 hidden mysteries of the Old Testament to find what is our 
 dut v ? The gospel and its ordinances were never designed 
 for infants, but only for those old enough to understand it 
 and believe it . The new or gospel covenant is thus express- 
 ed : " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make 
 a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Ju- 
 dah . I mWt put my law in their inward parts, an d write it in 
 their hearts ; and I will be their God , and they shall be my peo- 
 ple. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, 
 and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they 
 shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest 
 of them, saith the Lord." ( Jer. XXX-31-33-34. Seealso 
 Heb. VIII-10-11.) God's law is to be written in the mind 
 and heart of all included in this new covenant. Does not 
 this effectually exclude infants, as they are all to know 
 him, from the least unto the greatest? If you make the 
 Abrahamic covenant and the gospel covenant the same, it 
 is an argument against the baptism of infants. There is a 
 covenant by which infants are saved, but it is not the Abra- 
 hamic or gospel covenant ; it is the covenant of the Father 
 with His Son in which he engaged to die to redeem them. 
 
 That distinguished Pedo-Baptist divine, Prof. Stuart, 
 after going over the# whole ground, concludes by saying: 
 "The Abrahamic covenant furnishes no ground for infant 
 baptism." Again: If the Jewish nation was a Church of 
 God it could not be the same as the Christian Church, or 
 sustain any relation to it . The Saviour said to his disciples 
 that "He had chosen them out of the world, therefore the 
 world hateth you." — John 15-19. And yet these disciples 
 were members in good standing in the so-called Jewish 
 Church; they had all been circumcised. But this availed 
 them nothing. The religion of the Jews and the wicked- 
 
129 
 
 Bess of the Gentiles stood on the same level. Thev all were 
 required t o repent, believe and be baptized before they were 
 admitted into the Christian Church. Paul makes this mat- 
 ter plain in regard to the religion of the Jews and the 
 Church of God : " For ye haA^e heard of my conversation in 
 time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I 
 persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it."— Gal. 1-13. 
 It is true that God had given to the Jew the revelation of 
 his will and thus he had the advantage . ' ' What advantage 
 then hath the Jew, or what profit is there in circumcision ? 
 Much every way : chiefly because tha t unto them were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God." — Romans 3-1. But when the 
 Jews rejected Christ these privileges were withdrawn from 
 them and conferred upon the Gentiles. 
 
 Dr. Barnes, that great Presbyterian divine, says : "The 
 Gentiles had been like the wild olive, unfruitful in holiness ; 
 that they had been uncultivated by the institutions of true 
 religion, and consequently had grown up in the wildness of 
 sin and nature, Avhile the Jews had been like a cultivated 
 olive, long under the training and blessing of God." But 
 if we were to grant that the Christian Church was a contin- 
 uance of the old Jewish organization, this would not prove 
 infant baptism, for infants were born in the "Jewish 
 Church " and not admitted into it by circumcision as is al- 
 leged. Circumcision kept them in the Jewish nation; it 
 was not, as our opponents say, an "initiatory rite" at all. 
 "And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his fore- 
 skin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his 
 people. ' ' (Gen. XVII, 14. ) But what will they do with the 
 female children ? Since they were not circumcised, and bap- 
 tism comes in the room of circumcision and the one is the 
 "continuance" of the other, they must find some other 
 reason for baptizing the female babes. But the Bible no- 
 where intimates that baptism takes the place of cir- 
 cumcision. 
 
 How such an idea ever got into the minds of our breth- 
 
130 
 
 ren is beyond the reach of imagination. If it had been the 
 ease, why did the Church of Antioch, send Paul and Bar- 
 nabas up to Jerusalem to obtain information in regard to 
 the doctrine that "except they be circumcised, after the 
 manner of Moses they could not be saved," which certain 
 men taught that came down from Judea? (Acts. XY.) 
 How easily could this trouble have been settled by teach- 
 ing them that baptism had taken the place of circumcision 
 and silenced their dissensions. But no such thinghadever 
 entered their minds. It would have been so natural for 
 them to have spoken of this substitute in their dispute 
 with the Judaizing party, if at that time there had been 
 any practice of it among the churches. Yet not the most 
 distant allusion is even made, that baptism was now sub- 
 stituted for circumcision. 
 
 To keep their nationality Paul made no objection to 
 the Jews circumcising their children ; but when they wished 
 to connect it in any manner with the idea of salvation,- he 
 expressly told them that" circumcision profiteth nothing/ ' 
 It is clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if baptism 
 became a substitute for circumcision it would have been so 
 stated in the discussion in the Council held at Jerusalem 
 where the Apostle and Elders met to settle the dispute 
 about keeping up the practice of circumcision among the 
 churches . Had there been a Ped o-Baptist brother there he 
 would have told them how baptism had been adopted as a 
 substitute and thus endeavored to silence their cavils . But 
 Paul and Barnabas and Peter and John decided the matter 
 in a different way, and left it to the invention of wicked men 
 who imposed it upon their superstitious followers long after 
 Christ and his Apostles had gone home to the Father. 
 
 If we take a mere inference as authority for one of the 
 ordinances of the Church we run into inextricable mazes 
 without hope of rescue. If the "Church of England'' 
 should infer the union of Church and State from the Jewish 
 theocracy ; if the Pope of Rome should , on the sa me ground , 
 
181 
 
 maintain that one man should be at the head of "'the 
 Church'' like the Jewish High Priest; that the sacrifice of 
 the mass is Scriptural, because the priests in the "Jewish 
 Church " offered sacrifices for the sins of the people ; that 
 the Pope is infallible, because the High Priest could deliver 
 oracles by consulting Brim ; that there are seven sacra- 
 ments, because the number seven forms a conspicuous fig- 
 ure in the Hebrew ritual ; that women may baptize their 
 infants, because a Jewish mother circumcised her child, I 
 say, if all such inferences are advocated, what answer could 
 our opponents return ? For the baptism of infants rests 
 on the same foudation and is supported by the sa me argu- 
 ments. 
 
132 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Christ's Kecognition of Infant Baptism." Page 96 
 " Armor." 
 
 ''Proofs." " There were brought unto him little chil- 
 dren tha/t he should put his hands on them and pray, and 
 the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little 
 children and forbid them not to come to me, for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them 
 and departed thence." Matt, XIX-13-15. "And they 
 brought unto him also infants that he would touch them : 
 but when his disciples saAv it they rebuked them . But Jesus 
 called them unto him and said, Suffer little children to come 
 unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
 God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive 
 the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter 
 therein." Luke XVIII-15-17. 
 
 Dr. Hudson then proceeds to comment as follows: 
 i 'Suffer little children to come unto me * * * * for of 
 such is the kingdom of God." 
 
 He says: "What is the meaning of the kingdom of 
 God?" "The kingdom is sometimes used .to* signify the 
 visible Church on earth." " The kingdom of heaven is like 
 a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every 
 kind."— Matt. 13-47. " Then again," he says, "it is used 
 to mean the Church of God in a state of glory. \ Now this 
 I say brethren, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom 
 
133 
 
 of God. ' If we take the first meaning then the passage 
 would read : ' For of such is the visible Church, or such be- 
 longed to the Church on earth.' The Church Avas then the 
 Old Testament Church. The day of Pentecost had not 
 come ; the Christian Church come of the Old into the New. 
 These children being the children of Jewish parents had 
 been introduced into that Church by circumcision. They 
 were then members of that Jewish Church." " Hence," he 
 says, "such are members of the Church, of the kingdom of 
 God. ' ' ' ' Or, ' ' says he, ' ' let us take the other meaning that 
 the kingdom of God means the heavenly state. Then it 
 teaches that all children are born into a salvable state. 
 The atonement of Christ puts them in a state of salvation. 
 The Bible authorizes us to baptize all persons avIio are fit 
 subjects, be they infants or adults. If a grown person be 
 a fit subject, or if a child be a fit subject, baptize him. And 
 for this reason it is not necessary to have an express com- 
 mand to baptize infants. There is no command to baptize 
 persons ten, twenty, fifty or one year old. The command 
 is to baptize all who are fit subjects of the kingdom, young: 
 or old." He then concludes this part of his argument in 
 the following language : " We are shut up to one of two 
 conclusions : either infants are not fit to go to heaven, or 
 admit their fitness for baptism. For if you admit their 
 fitness for heaven that implies that they have saving grace, 
 and saving grace is universally conceded to be the ground 
 of baptism. We must believe then either the horrid doc- 
 trine of infant damnation, or the doctrine of infant bap- 
 tism. " 
 
 Now let us briefly review this stronghold of Methodism 
 in support of infant baptism. The passages of Scripture 
 above quoted by Dr. H. and so much relied on by our op- 
 ponents in proof of their teaching, say not one word about 
 infant baptism or infant Church membership. Those who ; 
 brought little children, desired that Christ should touch 
 them ; and, .he took them np in his arms, put his hands on 
 
134 
 
 them and blessed them. Ahi how much would Dr. H. and 
 his friends give, if the Scripture had said, and He baptized 
 them, instead of saying, " He blessed them." But it is dis- 
 tinctly declared that "Jesus did not baptize at all, but his 
 Disciples." And if the baptism of the children was here in- 
 tended why did the Apostles rebuke them who brought 
 them to the Saviour? If it had been customary for little 
 children to be brought by their parents to have them bap- 
 tized, does it not seem strange that the Apostles would here 
 rise up and rebuke them in the presence of their master ? 
 
 But, you ask, for what purpose then were these chil- 
 dren taken to Christ ? The text shows us. "Then were 
 brought unto him little children that he should put his 
 hands on them and pray" Who has the right to infer 
 that these children were baptized? Or that baptism was 
 even mentioned? But Dr. H. says, "such are the members 
 of the Church.' 1 Now Christ said no such thing. He said, 
 " of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 Dr. Barnes puts it right in his notes on this passage. 
 Says he : " Of such as these, that is, of persons of such tem- 
 pers as these, is the Church to be composed. He does not 
 .say of those infants, but of such persons as resemble them, 
 or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven 
 made Up : it is proper then that He should pray for them." 
 Dr. Barnes is high Presbyterian authority. 
 
 But let our Savior tell us what he meant. In Matt. 
 18-3, "Except ye be converted and become as little chil- 
 dren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God." Here 
 is the resemblance between little children and converted 
 persons, who alone are fit subjects for Church membership, 
 but not one word about infant baptism. The beautiful 
 lesson taught in the above passage is destroyed by strain- 
 ing it to teach infant baptism. The idea that Christ wish- 
 ed to impress on parents was, that their children should be 
 objects of deep solicitude and prayer ; that they should be 
 brought to him by faith for his blessing, but not for bap- 
 
135 
 
 tism, for that he has forbidden, by commanding; those who 
 are to be baptized, first to believe. It does not matter 
 whether the kingdom of heaven means the Church visible or 
 invisible. Christ does not say, as Dr. H., that children are 
 members of it, but that its members are like children. He 
 does not say His Church is composed of children, but of 
 such as are like children. 
 
 Kitto, that great scholar and author, and a Pedo-Bap- 
 tist says: "In reference to infant baptism which it is so 
 common to seek for in these passages, there is clearly not 
 the slightest trace to be found. ?? 
 
 Bishop Taylor, another eminent Pedo-Baptist says: 
 "To rely on this text as proof of infant baptism, proves 
 nothing so much as the want of a, better argument.'' 
 
 But, Doctor, we are not done with you here yet. You 
 say that "baptism is an outward sign of inward grace ; that 
 is your reason for baptizing adults. For the same reason 
 we baptize children. The moral state decides the question 
 of baptism, and not ages or classes of persons." Now this 
 is reasoning upon the supposition that adults and young 
 children are in all respects alike. There are many points of 
 difference. The adults are in a state of grace ; infants are 
 in a state of nature. Adults have been regenerated by the 
 spirit of God ; infants are yet in the flesh, and they that are 
 in the flesh cannot please God. Adults have believed in 
 Christ; infants have never heard of Christ, and "how can 
 they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? ' ? While 
 it is true, as Christ says, that those who are like children 
 in certain respects are prepared for admission to the king- 
 dom of heaven, and that which causes their fitness for ad- 
 mission, is the very thing in which they are dissimilar to 
 infants in a state of nature. For, " Except a man be born 
 again he cannot see the kingdom of God. " 
 
 Your idea that infants, in a state of nature are fit sub- 
 jects for admission into the kingdom of heaven, is opposed 
 to your doctrine of "total depravity.'' If, as you preach. 
 
136 
 
 all are totally depra ved, how can infants, while in a state 
 of total depravity, be fit subjects for admission into the 
 kingdom? " That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that 
 which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." — John 3-36. "In 
 Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything-, nor 
 uncircumcision, but a new creature.' 1 — Gal. 5-15. 
 
 You contradict in your argument, both Christ and 
 Paul, as well as your doctrine of total depravity, when you 
 assert that infants a re proper subjects for Church member- 
 ship, taught in the passage, "Of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven." If that which is born of flesh is flesh, and if they 
 that are in the flesh cannot please God, then infants, while 
 in a state of nature, cannot please God, and are therefore 
 not suitable subjects for His kingdom*. When you say that 
 all infants in a state of nature, are prepared for heaven, 
 you contradict Christ and his Apostles. But, if you mean 
 to say that all are changed into the spiritual state after 
 their birth, and while infants, then you contradict not- on- 
 ly the Scriptures, but universal experience and observation. 
 For we have never seen any one grow up holy and sinless 
 from infancy. But if you mean to say that those only Avho 
 die in infancy are "born of the Spirit," and are saved, we 
 agree with you. If those only who die in infancy are re- 
 generated, why do you insist that all infants are fit sub- 
 jects for the ordinance? How can you tell at what hpur 
 the child may die, and who of the children will die in their 
 infancy, and finding* this how can you tell the time they ex- 
 perience the new birth ? Whether before, or in the "arti- 
 cle " of death? According to this theory dead infants only 
 would be the proper ones for the ordinance, and like our 
 Methodist brother in Asheville a year or two ago, who bap- 
 tized the dead infant, this would be more consistent with 
 your principles and less hurtful to the Avorld, than your 
 present practice. 
 
 But, I would ask my friend again, that if all infants arc 
 eligible to Church membership and to baptism, why do you 
 
187 
 
 not baptize others besides the children of your members? 
 There are thousands of children around you, but because 
 their parents are Avicked, or not among your membership, 
 you never raise your voice in their behalf in order to put 
 the "seal" on them also. 
 
 But to conclude this part of the reference toDr.H.'s ar- 
 gument on infant membership, we ask, if infants in a state 
 of nature are entitled to baptism, and in consequence to 
 Church membership, why are they not also required t o par- 
 take of the holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? The 
 Roman Apostacy, from whom you receive this rite, more 
 consistent than you, did for many centuries admit infants 
 to "the Eucharist.' 7 You preclude a large number of your 
 own Church members from this solemn service, and then 
 call us a set of "narrow-hearted bigots,'' because, on an 
 entire different ground, you are not invited to the Lord's 
 table with us. 
 
 TIL " The Apostles Preached the Doctrine of Infant 
 Church Membership." Page 97, "Armor/' 
 
 Dr. H. says: "Peter in his pentecostal sermon declared, 
 : The promise is unto you and your children.' The promise 
 referred to is that which is contained in the Abrahamic 
 covenant.' " He says : " Never was there a better time for 
 Peter t o declare the repeal of the law requiring the children 
 to be brought into the Church than this." . . . This pas- 
 sage is considered one of their strongest texts in support 
 of infant baptism. I think Ave can shf>w that the Apostle 
 never even thought of such an absurdity. As our friend 
 quotes only so much of this text as suits his purpose, let 
 us examine the subject as it is. On that memorable day 
 the people were pierced to the heart at the preaching of the 
 Apostles, and said: "Men and brethren what shall we do?" 
 " Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, ever y 
 one of you in the name of Christ, for the remission of sins, 
 and ye Shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the 
 
188 
 
 promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that 
 are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 Now it is clear as the noonday sun that the persons to 
 be baptized were first to repent, and cannot here possibly 
 allude to unconscious babes. But you say the promise is 
 to your children. The term children here evidently means 
 posterity, not infants. Nothing is more common in the 
 Scriptures than to speak of the Jewish nation as the chil- 
 dren of Israel. Peter says to them, " Ye are the children of 
 the prophets." But this promise was not only to the Jews 
 and their posterity (children) but to Gentiles, "to all that 
 are afar off'," with this restriction on the promise, "even 
 as many as the Lord our God shall call." The Scripture 
 goes on further to say: "Then they that gladly received 
 his word were baptized." Infants could not "receive the 
 word," therefore were not baptized. Those only who re- 
 pented were baptized, not 'the "penitents and their chil- 
 dren." 
 
 " The promise is to you and your children." What 
 promise? Evidently the Holy Ghost. "And ye shall re- 
 ceive the Holy Ghost." It was not a promise of baptism. 
 If infants were to be baptized without repentance and faith 
 in Christ, then all the aliens and idolators among the 
 Gentiles, for they are included in the expression " all that 
 are afar off. " There is the same authority to baptize these 
 as the children — "you and your children and all that are 
 afar off'. ' ' Grant your position, then 1 1 all the w orld and the 
 rest of mankind " are equally included in the promise, while 
 Peter limits it to those Avho " repent and believe." If this 
 text, then, is one of the strongest proofs for infant baptism, 
 the cause of my friend is desperate indeed . But Dr. H . next 
 refers us in support of this subject to 
 
 IV. Family Baptisms- Page 98, "Armor." 
 "Proofs." "And a certain woman named Lydia, a 
 
139 
 
 seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped 
 God, heard us : whose heart the Lord opened that she at- 
 tended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And 
 when she was baptized and her household, she besought us, 
 saying, If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into 
 my house and abide there. And she constrained us." — 
 Acts 16, 14-15. Dr. H. says: " Notice, nothing is said 
 about her family exercising any religious duty, but it is 
 said of her, ' The Lord opened her heart, and she attended 
 to the things spoken by Paul.' As an adult person she re- 
 pented and believed; and as nothing is said about her fam- 
 ily repenting and believing, but that they were baptized, 
 the inference is that her family consisted of children too 
 young to believe and that they were baptized on the faith 
 of the mother." 
 
 So our author sticks to " inference," since he cannot 
 find a single verse or sentence in the Scriptures in support 
 of his infant baptism. Not one word is here said about 
 children in Lydia's household. Before he can claim this as 
 Scriptural authority for infant baptism, he must show that 
 Lydia Avas a mother, and that she had children too young' 
 to believe, neither of which he can or ever will be able to 
 prove. She may or may not have had children ; she may 
 have had a husband ; she may have been a widow ; she may 
 have been an old maid ; it is all a matter of "inference." 
 She was in the city of Phillippi, some three or four hundred 
 miles from her house, for she lived in Thyatira, away off in 
 Asia Minor, and if she had a husbancl and little infants, it 
 would have been natural for him to leave her at home with 
 the children while he traveled abroad to sell his merchandise. 
 
 The most reasonable inference is that her household 
 consisted of persons in her employ; that they believed and 
 were baptized as well as Lydia. One thing is certain 7 
 whether they were the offspring or servants of Lydia, they 
 were men, for in verse 40 of this chapter we read that as 
 soon as Paul and Silas were liberated they returned to the 
 
140 
 
 house of Lydia and saw the brethren and comforted them. 
 There were no others thereat that time whom the Apostles 
 Avould call "brethren" for they were the first converts at 
 that place and composed the household of Lydia . To seize 
 upon this Scripture as a proof of infant baptism only shows 
 how weak and untenable is their ground for its support. 
 To say that the term household necessarily includes in- 
 fants, the reader is reminded that there are in every neigh- 
 borhood whole families in which there are no small children, 
 and whole families have often been baptized and not a sim- 
 gle infant among them. When there is no mention of the 
 act claimed in the Scriptures, the burden of proof rests with 
 our opponents. 
 
 Now we come next to consider "The Jailer's Family.'' 
 "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
 shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him 
 the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 
 > **A he took them the same hour of the night, and washed 
 th m stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
 way." Acts XVI-3 1-34. Dr. H. adds: "The term house- 
 hold ' in the ordinary sense includes all the children of the 
 family. When it is said : ' Joseph nourished his father and 
 his brethren, and all his father's household with bread ac- 
 cording to their families,' little children are included. " 
 He says : "Many attempts have been made to prove that 
 there Avere no children in these families, but all such at- 
 tempts are vain." The probabilities are against all such 
 reasoning. Besides these families, Paul baptized the 
 "household of Stephanas." . . : . He says: "Who can be- 
 lieve that not one infant Avas found in all these families," 
 &c. He says: "The practice* of infant baptism does not 
 rest on inference," &c. 
 
 This part of Dr. H.'s argument is weak indeed. Any 
 one who reads the account can see that infants are not al- 
 luded to in the jailer's family. Paul and Silas "spake unto 
 him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
 
141 
 
 house.'' Surely they would not preach to infants. It is 
 said that "the jailer rejoiced, believing in God, with all his 
 house/' Could infants believe and rejoice? It is said of 
 Crispus: "He believed on the Lord with all his house/' 
 Acts. 18-8. As to the household of Stephanas, it is said 
 that they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
 saintSv" How could infants minister to the saints? 
 Now in all these cases of household baptisms, they 
 are said to believe, to rejoice, to administer to the wants 
 of the saints — not one word about the parents bringing 
 their children to have them baptized. It is clear then that 
 they either had none, or if they did there were no Pedo-Bap- 
 tists at that time. There is no allusion in all these pas- 
 sages to any "vows, promises and obligations'' made and. 
 assumed by their parents or sponsors at their baptism. 
 There is scarcely a Baptist minister of much prominence 
 and who has advanced in life, who has not baptized more 
 entire households than are mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment, and thus upsets our friend's assertion when he says : 
 "Now, if our modern preachers follow them, (Apostles) 
 they will baptize entire families, and if they go on in doing 
 so, it is certain that they will baptize infants." . . . 
 
 In conclusion here, celebrated Pedo-Baptist writers 
 shall speak for us. Neander, to whom we have before al- 
 luded, as being undoubtedly the first Church historian of 
 his age, speaking of these household baptisms, says: "We 
 cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the ex- 
 istence of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 
 1 Cor. 16-15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as 
 from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, 
 who were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults." (See 
 page 101, 102, Planting and Training of the Church.) 
 
 Dr. Wall, in his "History of Infant Baptism," on the 
 very first page of his preface says that "among all the per- 
 sons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there 
 is no express mention of auy infant." We might quote 
 
142 
 
 from others, celebrated in the world of .scholars, of similar 
 import, but this is enough. 
 
 Dr. H. says, in his " Historical Statement," (page 99, 
 " Armor.") " From the year 400, A. D., to 1150, no soci- 
 ety of men in all the period of 750 years ever pretended to 
 say that it was unlawful to baptize infants. Irenaeus, who 
 lived in the second century, declares expressly that the 
 Church learned from the Apostles to baptize children. So 
 far as history affords any light, the baptism of children 
 was practiced down to the eleventh century. About 1130 
 a body of Christians called Waldenses entertained the idea 
 that infants were incapable of salvation and therefore re- 
 jected infant baptism. About 1520 the Ana-Baptists re- 
 newed this objection, which the Baptists took up and stout- 
 ly maintain:" 
 
 We pause here to notice the above astonishing state- 
 ment. 
 
 We have followed him through the Scriptures and ask 
 the unprejudiced reader if it has not been shown conclusive- 
 ly that there is neither precept nor example for infant bap- 
 tism, in all God's word? It is nowhere hinted, much less 
 stated, that infants are entitled to this ordinance. It is 
 nowhere enjoined upon parents to see that their infants 
 have this rite. The teachings of the Scriptures are neither 
 doubtful nor contradictory. Doctors of Divinity may con- 
 tradict each other and themselves, but God's word is not 
 a book of doubtful oracles. It speaks plainly. "Though a 
 fool he may not err therein." 
 
 Reader, when you are told that the Scriptures teach in- 
 fant baptism, ask the preacher to show it to you. If it is 
 there it can be found. But he will perhaps tell you that it 
 is inferred from the commission, " Go baptize," &c. ; but 
 you will tell him this is only a commission to baptize be- 
 lievers; it does not say believers and their children. "He 
 that believeth and is baptized," &c. Then he will refer you 
 to Matt. 19, Jesus said: "Suffer little children to come 
 
148 
 
 unto me/' &e-, and you reply they did not come to be bap- 
 tized, but to be prayed for. "And he laid his hands on 
 them and departed." Not a word about baptism here. 
 
 Then he will point you to Peter's sermon : "The prom- 
 ise is to you and your children. " But you will tell him this 
 is a promise of the /' Holy Ghost," not of baptism, and this 
 is not to unconscious babes; it is limited to them "whom 
 the Lord our God shall call," to those who can hear and 
 believe. But he will tell you that whole families were bap- 
 tized, and with an air of triumph say there must have been 
 little babes in some of them . But when you turn and read, 
 you find that all who were baptized in these instances were 
 able to hear a,nd believe in God, rejoiced in God, spake with 
 tongues, glorified God, ministered to the saints, and in 
 Lydia's family they are called •■■ brethren ; " and when you 
 reflect for a moment you call to mind a number of families 
 who have been baptized within your own observation 
 which contain no infants in them. And failing in this — 
 finding neither precept nor example in the New Testament, 
 not even an allusion to infant baptism — he will tell you that 
 it is certainly taught somewhere, for unless it were, Wesley, 
 Coke and Asbury, and their successors, our bishops and 
 elders and circuit riders, all good men, would not have 
 practiced it. He will refer you to the Old Testament and 
 tell you about the covenant with Abraham, the seal of cir- 
 cumcision, and that it was applied to children ; and then 
 argue that this covenant includes Christians too ; for Paul 
 says, " All that believe are the children of believing Abra- 
 ham," and if his children by nature were circumcised, his 
 children by faith must be baptized. You say, very true, his 
 children by faith are to be baptized , but they are belieA^ers, 
 not the infant offspring of believers. Moreover, the chil- 
 dren of the Jews were circumcised because God expressly 
 commanded it to be done, and it was confined to the male 
 children. But Christian parents were never commanded to 
 baptize their infants. Believers only are commanded to be 
 
144 
 
 baptized, and this virtually excludes infants who are not 
 capable of believing. Not a single infant was ever baptized 
 •by Christ or his Apostles. Unless Christ commanded it or 
 authorized it, it is simply impious to impose it on fond 
 parents, and cause them to sin against God, even though 
 great and good men have taught it in opposition to the 
 Word of God. 
 
 If baptism sealed the conversion of children, if by the 
 act itself, they Were regenerated, as was first taught by 
 Wesley and others, there would be some excuse for this 
 course, but they do not say now that it does have that ef- 
 | feet, for all who observe know, that a baptized child grows 
 up a sinner just as the one who is not baptized. No man 
 or woman believes that the sprinkling of -a little water on 
 a baby's face changes its heart, and makes it a new crea- 
 ture in Christ. We say it is a sin, because it brings into 
 the visible Church, unconverted, unbelieving sinners, who 
 grow up in the church as such, and in this way has been 
 the cause of untold suffering, enough to make the true fol- 
 lowers of Christ to weep tears of blood. For the first two 
 or three centuries there is no mention of it in the churches ; 
 the members were all professed believers and were shining 
 lights in the world, holding the ordinances as they received 
 them from the Apostles. 
 
 But when infants began to be brought into the Church 
 its spirituality was gone. In the course of a few genera- 
 tions, like the national churches of Europe at the present 
 day, it had swallowed up the world. No Pagan, not even 
 the tiger-hearted Nero himself, was so cruel in his persecu- 
 tion of the Christians, as this body of baptized infants be- 
 came, when it grew up to power and influence. Nothing 
 which the most infernal hatred could suggest, and the most 
 diabolical ingenuity could invent was thought too hard for 
 these baptized ones to inflict on those who professed faith 
 in Christ, and would not conform to this unscriptural rite 
 of infant baptism. This has continued through every age .< 
 
145 
 
 It has not been confined to Roman Catholics. Whenever 
 and wherever, those who receive infant members, gain the 
 power, they have become the persecutors of those who de- 
 nied its divine authority. They were driven out to live in 
 the caves and dens of the earth, hunted down like wild 
 beasts, and thousands were slain for the testimony of 
 Jesus; not by Pagans; not by infidels; not by the non- 
 professor and people of the world ; but by those made mem- 
 bers of the Church by this " blessed" ordinance of infant 
 baptism ! 
 
 Our Pilgrim Fathers of New England, persecuted the 
 Baptists and the Quakers and condemned them to banish- 
 ment and death. 
 
 Cranmer was officious in, bringing the Baptists to the 
 stake. 
 
 Calvin procured the execution of one Servetusfor his re- 
 ligious opinion. 
 
 Luther urged the princes to persecute those who would 
 not conform to his views. All these were the advocates of 
 infant baptism. 
 
 Because the Baptists will not fall down and worship 
 this child of the "Harlot of Babylon," they are made the 
 butt and ridicule of Pedo-Baptists in their sermons and 
 books, in their conversations at the fireside— everywhere — 
 and would, if they had the power, exterminate them from, 
 the face of the earth. 
 
 But Hr. H. says: "Irenaeus, who lived in the second 
 century, declares expressly that the Church learned from 
 the Apostles to baptize children." Now we say Irenaeus 
 declared no such thing, and defy our friend to prove it . It 
 is ,said dying men will catch at straws. The cause must be 
 a, weak one indeed which requires such support. For here 
 is what Irenaeus wrote, so often alluded to by our oppo- 
 nents in'support of infant baptism : " Christ passed through 
 all ages of man, that He might save all by Himself; all, 
 I say, who are by Him regenerated to God — infants, and 
 
14(5 
 
 little ones, and children, and youths, and persons advanc- 
 ed in years." I have here quoted the whole passage so 
 often resorted to by Pedo-Baptists for aid and comfort 
 since they cannot find it in God's word. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge, a. learned Pedo-Baptist, says in refer- 
 ence to it : " We have only a Latin translation of this work, 
 and some critics have supposed this passage spurious ; or 
 allowing it to be genuine, it will not be granted that to be 
 regenerated signifies baptized." (Page 493, Doddridge's 
 Miscellaneous Works. ) 
 
 Another learned writer, Winer, says: "Irenaeus does 
 not mention it (infaut baptism) as has been supposed." 
 The term is rennscor in the original and means to regener- 
 ate. How they can get comfort here I can't see, unless re- 
 generation and infant baptism are one and the same. Be- 
 sides, they would make Christ the administrator, while it 
 is said, " Christ baptized not ." So we see Irenaeus does not 
 say one word about baptism. 
 
 But Dr. Hudson, in his " Historical Statement,'' ad- 
 mits there is no trace of infant baptism prior to the year 
 A. D. 400, but from then up to 1150 he says, "no society 
 of men ever pretended to say that it was unlawful to bap- 
 tize infants." And on page 100 he says : " Since the Infor- 
 mation of Liither by far the greater part of Christians have 
 believed and practiced the baptism of infants ; that the 
 number of Christians in the whole world is put down by 
 Prof.,Schem as 418,000,000 ; all of those, except about 4,- 
 000,000 belonging mainly to the Baptist Church, believe 
 in and practice infant baptism." 
 
 Now let us see. Soon after the Reformation the Pedo- 
 Baptists of Germany formed a project to collect and em- 
 body in a permanent form the factis in the history of the 
 early Christian Churches. A large number of the most 
 learned men in all Europe engaged in this investigation. 
 All the great libraries and stores of knowledge were explor- 
 ed by them. Lutheran princes and wealthy nobles joined 
 
147 
 
 in the enterprise. Neither money nor labor was wanting 
 to carry it on. Their plan was to take up each century by 
 itself. This wdrk was published at Magdeburg, and its au- 
 thors are called the " Magdeburg Centuriators." It was 
 executed with great care and has ever been regarded as a 
 most reliable record of Church, history. The following lan- 
 guage is found in this history : " They ( the Apostles ) bap- 
 tized only the adult or aged, whether Jews or Gentiles. As 
 to the baptism of infants we have no example. As to the 
 manner of baptizing, it was by dipping or plunging into 
 the water.'' 
 
 Thus they speak of the first century, and of the second 
 century they say : " It does not appear from any approved 
 authors that there was any change or variation' from the 
 former century in regard to baptism." 
 
 The learned Erasmus, says in his notes on Romans the 
 Gth. "It is nowhere expressed in the Apostolic writings 
 that they baptized children.'' 
 
 John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, 
 says: "It is nowhere expressed by the Evangelists that 
 any one infant was baptized." 
 
 Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, is a stand- 
 ard work for Pedo-Baptists. A good Methodist friend of 
 mine has it. A short time ago I looked into it, and was 
 astonished to find this honest statement : ( Page 287, vol. 
 2 . ) " Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor 
 
 his Apostles In support of a contrary opinion the 
 
 advocates ( of infant baptism ) informer ages, ( now hardly 
 any) used to appeal to Matt. 19,14, " Suffer little chil- 
 dren " &c. ; but their strongest argument in its favor is the 
 regulation of baptizing all the members of a household or 
 family; (I Cor. 1G, 17, Acts 8, 8,) but in none of these in- 
 stances has it been proved that there were little children* 
 among them. And even if there were, there was no neces- 
 sity for excluding them from baptism in plain words, since 
 such exclusion was understood as a matter of course." 
 
148 
 
 This is interesting reading from high authority. He 
 goes on to tell how and why it was introduced amid the' 
 corruptions that crept into the churches. Turn to it and 
 read, Doctor, for I suppose you have the work in your li- 
 brary. 
 
 Turn to the North British Preview, (August, 1852,) the 
 organ of the Presbyterians in Scotland, and read : "Script- 
 ure knows nothing of the baptism of infants. There is ab- 
 solutely not a trace of it to be found in the New Testament. 
 History confirms the inference drawn from the sa- 
 cred volume. Infant baptism cannot be traced higher than 
 the middle of the second century, and even then it was not 
 universal. Some, indeed, have argued that in the silence of 
 Scripture, it is fair to presume that a custom whose exist- 
 ence is sure in the second century must have descended 
 from the Apostles ; but the presumption is wholly the oth- 
 er way." Such is the language of this eminent writer, Rev. 
 Dr. Hanna, a son-in-law of th'at noble Presbyterian divine, 
 Dr. Chalmers. 
 
 We have already shown when infant baptism was first 
 introduced and the reasons which gave rise to it; that 
 about the year 417, the Pope issued his decree against the 
 Ana-Baptists for refusing to sanction infant baptism, and 
 thousands of them were banished or put to death. And 
 yet Dr. H. would have you believe that there was no oppo- 
 sition to it up to the eleventh century when the' £ Waldenses 
 rejected it; that about 1520 the Ana-Baptists renewed this 
 objection, which the Baptists took up and stoutly main- 
 tain. 77 He surely reads history through dimmed glasses. 
 
 If the reader will have the patience to follow us to the 
 close of this little volume we will prove that the Baptists, 
 tho 7 in ancient times called by different names, have stood 
 up against the world, the flesh and the devil, as they do 
 now, for lo these eighteen hundred years, and solitary and 
 alone have handed down to us in its purity the Book of 
 Books, and alone have kept the doctrines of Christ and His 
 
119 
 
 Apostles as they were once delivered to the Saints. 
 
 The Doctor now gives us a few words on f Objections," 
 (P. 100.) He says: "1$ is asked, what is the benefit of 
 baptism to children? what does the child know about it?" 
 "But don't you see," he says, "that these objections bear 
 just as hard against circumcision instituted by God as 
 agninst infant baptism? What was the benefit of circum- 
 cision to children only eight days old? What did these in- 
 fants know about it? We answer, God saw benefit in it, 
 else He would not have commanded it. Again, the stale 
 objection is : ' There is no express command for infant bap- 
 tism.' But there is a command for circumcision in the Old 
 Testament, and baptism takes the place of circumcision." 
 
 We reply, the Bible nowhere says that baptism has 
 taken the place of circumcision, nor can it so be inferred. 
 How do they know it to be so ? The Apostles and primi- 
 tive Christians never heard that it did, and never practiced 
 it. Peter knew nothing of it, otherwise when they of the 
 circumcision contended with him, (Acts XI) lie would have 
 told them that those who had been baptized could not be 
 considered uncircumcised and unclean, since baptism had 
 taken the place of circumcision. Paul and Barnabas, and 
 the Apostles and Elders, at Jerusalem, knew nothing of its 
 substitution for circumcision, or else how natural it would 
 have been for them to have stated the fact, and thus si- 
 lenced the Judaizing teachers. ( Acts 15.) 
 
 Again : it is certain that baptism did not come in the 
 room of circumcision, because, those who had been circum- 
 cised were also baptized, and some who had been baptized 
 were also circumcised. Christ and has Apostles had been 
 circumcised in their infancy, yet they Avere subsequently 
 baptized. How can they reconcile such fiction? But he 
 says there is a. command for circumcision. That is true; 
 it was to be done when the children were eight days old. 
 i )nly the male children were commanded to receive this rite 
 and all the slaves ; "he that is born in thy house or bought 
 
150 
 
 with money of any stranger/' &c. (Gen. 17.) The cere- 
 mony Avas performed in their houses by their parents. So if 
 baptism is a substitute for it, it should be confined to 
 males, to children when they were eight days old, and to 
 grown up and old men who are in the employ of these re- 
 ligious parents, however wicked, for the command also in- 
 cluded them in the Abrahamic covenant. It must also 1^e 
 performed by the parents of the children at home to carry 
 out the similarity ; it was not commanded to be done by 
 the priests and in their Synagogues. 
 
 But as to the " benefits" or object of circumcision, it is 
 clearly taught that it was to keep up the nationality of 
 the Jews, and was a sign of the covenant made to Abra- 
 ham (see verse 8) that he should possess the land of Canaan 
 for an inheritance, and on his part the condition was that 
 every man-child should be circumcised. But what in the 
 name of common sense has all this to do with Christian 
 baptism ? If it had n ot been introduced from the idea that 
 in some way baptism was essential to salvation, we never 
 should have heard of such a thing as infant baptism. 
 
 If we were to suppose the principles of Pedo-Baptists 
 to prevail in the world, where w^ould believers' baptism be? 
 It would soon be banished from the face of the earth. There 
 would be no gospel baptism. One of the institutions for 
 which our Saviour labored, suffered, toiled and died, would 
 have no place among Christians. What a horrid idea! 
 For human tradition to array itself in opposition to one 
 of the ordinances of heaven and destroy it, is enough to 
 make the humble follower of Christ, and those who love His 
 appearing, to wage an unceasing war against it! Just 
 think for a moment. Let all the children in the world be 
 baptized, and you could no longer preach, " He that believ- 
 eth and is baptized shall be saved;" "Kepent and be bap- 
 tized;" ' 'Then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 tized ; ' ' ' 'They were baptized, both men and women. " There 
 would be no men and women to be baptized, for they all 
 
151 
 
 were baptized in their chilhood. It would not be necessary 
 to believe, repent and be baptized, for such preaching would 
 be nonsense. There would be no distinction between the 
 Church and the world ; the Avhole world would be Church 
 members, for it is admitted that when children are baptiz- 
 ed they are Church members. And when Christ said : ' \ The 
 world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, 
 even as I am not of the world," (Jno. 17-14) could no 
 longer be said, for all the world would belong to the Church. 
 And then how would these texts sound : " The world hath 
 not known me/' (verse 25,) "The world by wisdom knew 
 not God," (I Cor. 1-21,) "The whole worldliethin wicked- 
 ness?" There w r ould be no world to preach to, as every 
 body would belong to the Church. 
 
 Again, the Doctor says : "IJut waiving this point, will 
 you show an express command for admitting w omen to the 
 communion table?" and acids : " There is none." We must 
 notice this Female Communion. 
 
 Another Pedo-Baptist writer says : "It is nowhere re- 
 corded that the Apostles administered the ordinance of the 
 Lord's Supper to women, yet no one doubts tha*t they did, 
 and no one thinks of excluding women from this ordin ance 
 because of the omission in the record." 
 
 It is thus our opponents argue to establish infant bap- 
 tism. But if they can show as much proof for it as w r e can 
 show for female communion, we will surrender. Let us try 
 it, and see if we can't shoAv that the Apostles did administer 
 the Lord's Supper to females, and enjoined it on them to 
 partake of it equally and as expressly as it -w as enjoined on 
 the males. 
 
 1st . Females were baptized and added to the churches. 
 J jjd\ a was baptized, "and believers were the more added 
 to the Church, multitudes both of men and women." — Acts 
 14. "But when they believed Phillip, .... they were bap- 
 tized, both men and women."— 8-12. But it is nowhere 
 positively stated that infants were baptized and added to 
 
152 
 
 the Church. " These all continued with one accord in pray- 
 er and supplication, with the women and Mary, the m other 
 of Jesus." And this you cannot say of infants. Paul en- 
 joined it upon females to partake of the Supper. He says : 
 "Fori have received of the Lord that which I delivered 
 unto you." '' For we being many, are one bread and one 
 body, for we are all partakers of that one bread. '' He was 
 writing to the Corinthian Church, which was composed in 
 part of females and the word all included them. Again: 
 " And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine 
 and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." 
 1£ And all that believed were together and had all things 
 common." — Acts 2, 42-44. There is no distinction here as 
 to sex. The passage as clearly includes females as males. 
 " And upon the first day of the week when the disciples 
 came together to break bread," &c. — Acts 20-7. The term 
 disciples includes females, for Luke expressly calls them so. 
 "Now, there was at Joppa a certain disciple named" Ta- 
 bitha."— Acts 9-36. Whenever the disciples are mentioned 
 the reference is to females as well as to males. a By this 
 shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love 
 one to another," is said equally of both sexes. 
 
 And I will here conclude this subject of female commu- 
 nion, by offering another proof which completely upsets 
 my friend's assertion that there is no express command for 
 admitting women to the communion. AVe have shown al- 
 ready that there is as much authority for women as men 
 to partake of the Lord's Supper. Wherever reference is 
 made to the duties exclusive^ of males in the New Testa- 
 ment, the term aneris invariably used in the Greek, which 
 means man and man only. But when the Lord's Supper 
 is spoken of, the term anthropos is used, which includes 
 both sexes. For instance: " Let a man (anthropos) ex- 
 amine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of 
 that cup." The Greek lexicons all say that anthropos 
 is common gender and means mankind, the human race. 
 
kc. The same word is used by Christ when he speaks of 
 himself as the Son of Man, when lire know that he Avas of 
 the seed of woman, the son of Mary., but not of Joseph. If 
 you deny this, then you cannot proye that woman is sayed 
 at all! There is u one mediator between God and man," 
 (nnthropos) but there is no mediator for the •woman. 
 "Lord what is man ( nnthropos) that thou art mindful of 
 him. * ' ' 1 Man, (anthropos ) that is born of woman is of few- 
 days, and full of trouble. " And even to this day, we use 
 the term man in the same sense, which in a general way, 
 means also woman. And to cap the climax, the Scrip- 
 ture makes it too plain to even discuss the matter further. 
 "So God created man in his own image; in the image of 
 God created he him, male and female created he them." 
 And Paul settles it, (Gal. 8-28.) " There is neither Jew 
 nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
 male nor female, ' 1 &o. 
 
 In a word, let a very distinguished Pedo-Baptist writer 
 answer 1113' friend. He sa} T s : "I am not going to take the 
 ground which by some Pedo-Baptists has been assumed, 
 viz : that Ave haA^e no direct and explicit authority for the 
 admission, of Avomen to the Lord's table; because it has al- 
 ways appeared to me hardly consistent Avith manly fair- 
 ness and candor, and calculated to expose to a sneer rather 
 than recommend to acceptance, the cause it is meant to 
 s n ppor t . ' ' — Dr . War dl a w . 
 
 And lastly on this point — that there is no command for 
 admitting women to the communion table — hear how Dr. 
 H. contradicts himself. On page 41 of his book, he says : 
 "Both the bread and wine were originally administered by 
 our Lord to the Apostles, and both elements were ordered 
 to be given to the lay people until the coming of Christ. 
 The command is, 'Drink all of you." " Now, how will you 
 reconcile your own statements, Doctor? You declare here 
 by emphasizing the Avords, " Drink ail," that thecommand 
 of our Savior embraced nil the members of the Church. 
 
154 
 
 And are not women members as well as men? And yet you 
 May on page 100 that there is no command for admitting 
 them ! We leave you to extricate yourself the best you can . 
 
 Again he says : ''There is no command requiring bap- 
 tism as a pre-requisite to the communion, yet a certain 
 Church 'acts as though there was. There is not a remote 
 hint, much less a command, in the Bible, authorizing the 
 practice of close communion, yet the very Church that ob- 
 . jects to infant baptism because there is no express, " Thus 
 saith the Lord," rigidly enforces the law of close commun- 
 ion without a single hint of Bible authority for so doing.'* 
 
 Armor," pages 100, 101. Here the Doctor closes his 
 argument on infant baptism. 
 
 In reply to this last assertion of his, we are relieved 
 from a portion of our task by introducing to the reader two 
 of the most fair-minded and distinguished Pedo-Baptist 
 writers of modern da/fce, the one a Methodist and the other 
 a Presbyterian. What they say shall be our answer.. First, 
 the Rev. F. G. Hibbard, who has no superior in the M. E. 
 Church, is the author of a book published by the Methodist 
 Book Concern, and is therefore endorsed as much higher au- 
 thority by the Methodist Church than Dr. H. Here is what 
 he says : " Before entering upon the argument before us it 
 is but just to remark that in one principle the Baptist and 
 Ped o-Baptist Churches agree. They both agree in rejecting 
 from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying 
 the rights of Church fellowship to all Avho have not been 
 baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essential to con- 
 stitute visible Church membership. 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 Chris- 
 tian Churches, have only acted upon a principle held in com- 
 mon with all other Christian Churches, viz : that baptism 
 is essential to church membership. They have denied our 
 baptism, and as unbaptized persons we have been excluded 
 
155 
 
 from their table. That they err greatly in their views of 
 Christian baptism, we of course, believe. But according to 
 their views of baptism, thej^ certainly are consistent in re- 
 stricting thus their communion. 
 
 •' We would not be understood as passing a judgment of 
 approval upon their course; but we say their views of bap- 
 tism force them upon the ground of strict communion, and 
 herein they act upon the same principles as other Churches, 
 that is to say, they admit only those whom they deem bap- 
 tized persons to the communion table. Of course, they 
 must be their own judges as to what baptism is. It is evi- 
 dent that, according to their views of baptism, Ave can ad- 
 mit them to our communion ; but with their views of bap- 
 tism, it is equally evident they can never reciprocate the 
 courtesy. And the charge of close communion is no more, 
 applicable to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the 
 question of Church fellowship with them is determined by 
 as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant 
 Church, so far, I mean, as the presentsubject is concerned; 
 that is, it is determined by valid baptism. 
 
 "Now, this being the case, does it not become a measure 
 of responsible moment to decide upon the question of the 
 mode of baptism? Indeed, so awful are the aspects of this 
 subject, that thousands have feared to assume a decided 
 position in reference to it . They have held to exclusive im- 
 mersion, and at the same time have held to Catholic com- 
 mumion, or communion with persons who have not been 
 immersed, an anomaly and absurdity that presents a sin- 
 gular contrast to the characteristic symmetry of Christian 
 theology." 
 
 I don't think any Baptist could state it more plainly 
 and in more elegant language. Those who hold to immer- 
 sion as the only mode, and yet practice open communion, 
 are well characterized as forming an u anomaly and absur- 
 dity " among Christians. This thing of close conmiunion 
 as practiced by the Baptists, and so often misrepresented 
 
150 
 
 by Pedo-Baj)tist .speakers to prejudice the minds of the 
 people against them, will never be surrendered as long as 
 there is a class of Christians who adhere strictly to God's 
 word as their guide. Second. TTe submit the declaration 
 of the Rev. Dr. Griffin , who ranks among the highest Pres- 
 byterian authors. 
 
 He says : "I agree with the advocates for close commu- 
 nion in two points : 1st. That baptism is the initiating or- 
 dinance which introduces us into the visible Church; of 
 course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible 
 Churches. 2nd. That we ought not to commune with those 
 who are not baptized, and of course, are not Church mem- 
 bers, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious 
 Quaker so far depart from his principles as to wish to com- 
 mune with me at the Lord's Table, while yet he refused to 
 be baptized, I could not receive him ; because there is such 
 a relationship established between the two ordinances that 
 I have no right to separate them, in other words, I have no 
 right to send the sacfed elements out of the Church. The 
 only question then is, whether those associations of evan- 
 gelical Christians that call, themselves Churches, and that 
 X)ractice sprinkling, are real Churches of Christ ; in other 
 words, whether sprinkling is valid baptism. If nothing bur 
 immersion is baptism, there is no visible Church except 
 among the Baptists." 
 
 These two learned Christian writers, though differing 
 with us as to what constitutes gospel baptism, fairly and 
 nobly put us right before the world on the subject of close 
 communion. 
 
 Dr. Hudson says: "There is not a remote hint in the 
 Bible, authorizing the practice of close communion." 
 
 Dr. Hibbard, of much higher authority in the Methodist 
 Church, says: "The charge of close communion is no more 
 applicable to the Baptists than to us.*' 
 
 If this be true, then, as stated by these eminent writers, 
 it comes of an unchristian spirit in Dr. Hudson to call us 
 
a set of " narrow-hearted bigots" for practicing and carry- 
 ing out the very same principle which his Church does. In 
 conclusion: while we extend the hand of Christian fellow- 
 ship to all our brethren of every name, we reserve the same 
 right to ourselves claimed by them, viz: to be our own 
 judges as to whom we receive into our Church fellowship. 
 AVe do not, as Dr. Hudson asserts, believe either in " infant 
 damnation or in infant baptism." 
 
 AVe not only love our little ones with the warm tender- 
 ness which God has implanted in our hearts, but we love 
 them because our gracious Redeemer loved them, took them 
 in his arms, prayed for them, blessed them and died for 
 them. But also because He did not baptize them, appoint 
 their place in the Church, and put them under responsibili- 
 ties beyond their power, neither do we. We cannot see how 
 infant baptism brings a babe into some new covenant re- 
 lation to Christ which did not before exist. If our babes 
 die unbaptized, we believe they are saved by the grace of 
 Jesus without faith, repentance, or any other religious act. 
 AVe cannot feel the consistency of baptizing the infant out 
 of the Church and of leaving him there till, by conversion, 
 he is allowed to come in, because his conversion has made 
 him fit for heaven . 
 
 Nor can we allow him to fall into the dangerous no- 
 tion, that because he was baptized in infancy he has in some 
 way become the child of a covenant with God, to which he 
 was not a party, %nd so be deluded by the conception that 
 now lie is not to be converted and saved exactly as all mi- 
 baptized children are. If his baptism has engrafted him 
 into Christ and His Church, he must feel that there is a 
 moral relation existing between him and God, which un- 
 baptized children do n ot sustain . AVe should leave this mat- 
 ter to the faith of the child when he can, of his own choice, 
 follow Him in baptism, a renewed and willing disciple. 
 
 AA'e object to infant baptism, then, because it vitiates 
 the purity of Christ's Church, as is seen in all the State 
 
158 
 
 Churches of Europe; that it attaches an importance to 
 baptism which does not belong to it, and so perverts the 
 design of this gospel ordinance by exalting it above its 
 proper position ; and in that it places the baptized child in 
 a relation to which he is a stranger in the gospel. It as- 
 sumes that he is neither fit for hea,ven if he dies unbaptized, 
 nor fit for the full fellowship of the Church on earth if he is 
 baptized. Infant baptism among Protestants is on the 
 wane and must go as a thing of the past, while we, as Bap- 
 tists, loyal to our principles, our God, our country, and 
 our ancestry, pray for its speedy overthrow. "We do not 
 forget that Baptist bones have lain for ages bleaching in 
 the Alpine snows of Switzerland ; that Baptist sobs still 
 haunt the coal holes of Bonner in which they were thrown 
 for resisting this dogma of Rome ; that the praises of Bap- 
 tist martyrs are still echoing up and down Lollard's Tower 
 to the music of their chains ; and that the pavements of 
 Smithfield still cry out to the fitful winds which flitted 
 Baptist ashes up aiid down over the heads of their bloody 
 persecutors. 
 
159 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The Rise and Progress of the Baptists. 
 
 The writer now enters upon this closing chapter with 
 deep and increasing interest. The genealogy of our an- 
 cestors forms a pleasant theme, especially when we can read 
 of their heroic deeds and hair-breadth escapes in times of 
 great danger. The child delights to hear his parents relate 
 some thrilling story of their grandsires of colonial times, 
 and kindles with enthusiasm as the simple but touching in- 
 cidents are related to him. The Chinese hold to ancestral 
 worship and can trace their parentage, it is said , back to a 
 thousand years, while we, many of us, scarcely know who 
 our grandfathers were. 
 
 Still there is an increasing desire to learn something of 
 the lives and times of those who ha ve preceded us in the 
 race of human existence. The history of men and nations 
 has employed the grandest talent of all ages and of all lan- 
 guages. Our libraries are filled with their works, and ea- 
 gerly sought and read by people of both sexes. 
 
 Now, while the student, from youth to manhood, revels 
 in historical literature of this kind, it seems strange indeed, 
 that those who profess Christianity should be acquainted 
 not only with the history of their own country, but even 
 with that of the remotest nations and should at the same 
 time seek to know nothing of Church history. Except the 
 study of the Bible, the life of Christ, the writings and acts 
 of the Apostles, what could be more intensely interesting 
 to the Christian than the study of the history of the 
 churches which succeeded those planted in the days of the 
 
160 
 
 Apostles, and which, have existed for eighteen hundred 
 years, preserving pure the faith and practice of their primi- 
 tive fathers, through all the dark ages and persecutions 
 down to the present time? Is it not interesting to know 
 that the kingdom spoken of by Daniel, that was to stand 
 forever, and ultimately to fill the whole earth, is daily ful- 
 filling that remarkable prophecy? Is not the heart of the 
 true Christian made to rejoice in tracing back the history 
 of the Church, when he sees the declaration of the Savior, 
 and His promise to the first Church organized still verified : 
 "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it?" 
 
 To learn that ever since the rise of the "Mad of Sin." 
 there has been a succession of "witnesses for God," "wit- 
 nesses for the truth," who have kept the ordinances and 
 discipline which the Master and inspired Apostles committ- 
 ed to their sacred keeping. 
 
 Who can read, unmoved, the history of our brethren, 
 as they bore themselves as true and faithful witnesses for 
 the truth, when the powers of darkness and the gates of 
 hell, ceased not in their at'tempts to prevail against them? 
 When " Apostate Koine, for 1300 years has employed 
 armies and crusades, inquisitions and tortures, prisons, 
 famine, and the stake, to break in pieces this kingdom, and 
 exterminate these witnesses from the face of the earth? 
 Will you not ask who have been these suffering witnesses, 
 during the past eighteen centuries? In what lands and by 
 what names have they been preserved, nourished from the 
 face of the serpent, in the mountains and caves of the wil- 
 derness? " Will you not seek to know what were the pecu- 
 liar doctrines, which in every age distinguished this body 
 of witnesses, under what form of Church government did 
 they exist, how did they observe the ordinances of God's 
 house, did they a dmit of human traditions, did they recog- 
 nize human legislation in the churches? Are not these 
 questions of paramount concern to all Christian denomi- 
 nations, since, if not from the New Testament, certainly 
 
161 
 
 from the history of these, the form, subjects, ordinances 
 and doctrines of the true churches of Christ can be learned? 
 
 The studv, then, of the history and lives and testimony 
 of those preceding us, who have been "faithful and true,'* 
 is certainly of great advantage. Did not Paul recount the 
 faith and sufferings and patience of the holy men and 
 prophets who had lived before his day, to animate the zeal 
 of his brethren? So we may study with great advantage 
 the history of holy men and martyrs, through whom the 
 Church of Christ and its doctrines and ordinances have 
 been transmitted to us in their primitive integrity and 
 purity. 
 
 Who can imagine the feelings of the Christian traveller 
 visiting those Alpine hills in which the witnesses of Jesus 
 hid and were nourished in those fearful times? Wandering 
 through those mountains and deep forests, he enters per- 
 il aps, the very caverns in which they hid and which they 
 made to echo with their songs of praise. If a visit to the 
 homes of the ancient patriots and philosophers of Athens, 
 the rostrums from which they spake, the tombs in which 
 they slept, could so influence the heart and ardor of Cicero, 
 in imitation of their virtues, how must a visit to the vales of 
 Piedmont, and the mountains of Wales, affect the heart 
 and mind of the Christian of these times ? And especially 
 if he be a Baptist, would his heart warm up with sympathy 
 and amazement while contemplating the lives and charac- 
 ters of his brethren, who gave up their lives in order to pre- 
 serve and transmit, pure and unmixed with human tradi- 
 tion, the principles which Baptists still maintain ! 
 
 For more than a century our opponents have made 
 continuous efforts to depreciate the claims of Baptists to 
 ancient origin. Since they cannot claim an origin prior to 
 the days of Luther, Calvin and the Wesleys, they seem de- 
 termined that no one shall believe that the Baptists shall 
 claim an origin beyond the davs of Roger Williams. But 
 we shall attempt briefly to show in the following pages f hat 
 
162 
 
 the Baptists alone of all den om in ations, had their rise with 
 John, the forerunner of Christ, and have maintained in 
 continued succession, the principles and faith of the Apos- 
 tles down to the present time. 
 
 Mosheim, that great and learned historian, says in his 
 Vol. Wj page 427 : "The true origin of that sect which ac- 
 quired the name of Ana-Baptists, by their administering 
 anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their 
 communion, and derived that of Menonists from that 
 famous man, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity:' 
 And Mosheim was a Lutheran. 
 
 Zwingulius, who lived contemporary with Luther, said: 
 £ Ana-baptism is no novelty, but for 300 years has caused 
 great disturbance in the Church, and has acquired such 
 strength that the attempt, in this age, to contend with it. 
 appeared vain and futile.'' 
 
 Hear what Cardinal Hosius says: "If the truth of re- 
 ligion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerful- 
 ness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the 
 , opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer 
 than that of the Ana-Baptists, since there are none, for 
 these 1200 years past, that have been more generally pun- 
 ished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly under- 
 gone, and even offered them selves to the most cruel sorts of 
 punishment, than these people. 
 
 The author of the above passage Avas the most learned 
 Catholic of his day, was the President of that celebrated 
 Council of Trent in the year 1560. The reader will bear in 
 mind that the name Ana-Baptist w as applied to our ances- 
 tors because they required re-baptism of all those who left 
 the Catholic Church and asked admittance into theirs, just 
 as we do in this day of all who come over to our faith from 
 other denominations. 
 
 While, then, the Protestant Church must date its origin* 
 from the 19th day of April, A. D. 1529, that memorable 
 day on which fourteen cities of Germany protested against 
 
163 
 
 a decree of the Diet of Spires, which had met in the March 
 preceding; while the Presbyterian Church must date its 
 origin from the autumn of 1537, the year in which John 
 Calvin published his Confession of Faith after his public de- 
 bate with Peter Caroli, and constituted his first church in 
 Geneva ; whilst the Scotch Presbyterians must date their 
 .origin to John Knox, A. D. 1558, and the English Presby- 
 terians from the year 1572, when a small church was first 
 organized in Wadsworth, a village near London ; while the 
 Seceders must date their origin in 1733, when Erskine, Wil- 
 son and Fisher were excluded from the regular Presbyterian 
 Church and organized one of their own ; the Methodists from 
 John Wesley in the year 1729; the Quakers from George 
 Fox in 1625 in England ; we say, while all these sects are 
 of recent origin, not one of them yet 400 years old, not one 
 of them able to furnish a model of their peculiarities from 
 Scripture, or antiquity, greater than we have stated, the 
 Baptists can trace their origin to apostolic times, and pro- 
 duce unequivocal testimony of their existence in every cen- 
 tury down to the present time ; and the, model of their pe- 
 culiarities is found plainly laid down in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The distinguishing features and principles of the Bap- 
 tists may be laid down as way-marks to guide us in tracing 
 their rise and progress from the beginning of the Christian 
 era, and ma,y here be stated in a few and simple lines : 
 
 1st. Immersion, the only baptism taught in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 2nd. Believers the only Scriptural subjects of baptism'. 
 
 3rd. Baptized believers alone compose the Church. 
 
 4th. Freedom of conscience and entire separation from 
 ( Jhurch and State. 
 
 Now all who believe and practice the principles laid 
 down above are Baptists and all who do not are not Bap- 
 tists. In this way we can show that there has been a reg- 
 ular succession of Christian people who have strictly ad- 
 
164 
 
 Iiered to these principles through each succeeding age-from 
 John the Baptist down to the 19th century. 
 
 "But to show what succession really is we must go to 
 the sources of Church history and examine the faith and 
 practice of those various Churches claiming to be Apostolic. 
 
 For the first one hundred years we have chiefly in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, as recorded by St. Luke, the early, 
 history of the Church at Antioch, where the first tendency 
 to Judaism was manifested. The Apostles and Church at 
 Jerusalem had been appealed to about the trouble. They 
 called a meeting. "The apostles, and elders and brethren 
 send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles 
 in Antioch and Syria, and of Silicia. For as much as we 
 have heard that certain which went out from us have 
 troubled you with words subverting your souls, saying you 
 must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no 
 such commandment." Now t if such was the condition of 
 the Church at Antioch with Paul and Peter and Barnabas 
 in its midst, what may we expect after the lapse of 60 years, 
 when Paul and Peter were long since dead? For it was 
 about 60 years after these occurrences alluded to in Acts, 
 and in Paul's letter to the Galatians, that a remarkable 
 man whose name was Ignatius was pastor of the Church at 
 Antioch and is the author of several Epistles, which have 
 been found and translated into English. 
 
 In the year 107, Trajan, Emperor of Kome, while on 
 his march against the Parthians, entered the city of Anti- 
 och. He ordered Pliny and his other generals "not to seek 
 out the Christians, but if information was lodged against 
 them they must be punished." Ignatius informed against 
 himself and declared his faith before the Emperor. He was 
 sentenced to be carried to Kome and thrown to the wild 
 beasts. While on his way he is said to haA^e written letters 
 to the Ephesians, to the Romans, Polycarp and others 
 which are now found in our large libraries. The faith of 
 this man was very strong, for in his letter to the Komans, 
 
165 
 
 lie says : " I write to the churches and I declare to all that 
 willingly I die for God, if it be that you hinder me not. 
 Let me be devoured of the beasts, by whose means I am en- 
 abled to obtain God. I am God's wheat, and by the teeth 
 of the beasts am I ground, that I may be found God's pure 
 bread. Bather entreat kindly the beasts that they may be 
 a grave for me, and may leave nothing of my body. Then 
 I shall be in truth a disciple of Jesus Christ when the world 
 
 seeth not even my body May I be rejoiced of the 
 
 beasts prepared for me ! and I pray that they be found 
 ready for me, and quickly devour me," &c. This remarka- 
 ble letter is too long to quote here. In these letters Igna- 
 tius writes in the same style of the Apostles. He recog- 
 nizes the independence of the Churches— that each Church 
 had its own pastor and managed its own affairs as Bap- 
 tist Churches do now. 
 
 It was during this period that the Jews had a contest 
 with the Syrians, about Caesarea,, which city stood on the 
 boundaries of both kingdoms and was claimed alike by 
 both. The dispute was referred to the Emperor Nero, who 
 decided in favor of Syria ; the Jews flew to arms, butchered 
 Romans and Syrians, which brought the combined armies 
 of Rome and Syria against them, and after a siege of five 
 months, the city and temple of Jerusalem were utterly de- 
 stroyed, eleven hundred thousand lives were lost, and 
 ninety thousand persons led into captivity. Thus after 
 fifteen hundred years of existence the Jewish nation lost its 
 distinction. ( For a vivid and fearful description of the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem read Josephus.) 
 
 After the destruction of the Jewish capital the churches 
 enjoyed peace for several years, till about the close of the 
 first century. There is no mention either in the Scriptures 
 or in the writ ings of the early fathers, of any other baptism 
 but immersion during this century. The first mention of 
 this divine ordinance, is found in Matthew the third chapter. 
 John was the first to administer it. The way of John's 
 
166 
 
 administering it occasioned his being called the Baptist ; 
 or as the Dutch called him, the Dipper. The river Jordan 
 was the stream first selected as a most suitable water in 
 which to immerse those who repented of their sins. John 
 had been preaching and baptizing about six months when. 
 Jesus presented himself a candidate for this ordinance, and 
 John led him down into the sacred river and immersed him. 
 Such is the language of Scripture. There is nothing more 
 certain than that immersion was the only baptism known 
 up the close of the first century. 
 
 Barnabas, the companion of Paul, says: " Blessed are 
 they who putting their trust in the cross, descend into the 
 water." 
 
 Hermes, whom Paul salutes in the church at Borne, has 
 left on record the same idea of immersing the candidates in 
 water: "Men descend into water under an obligation to 
 death, but ascend out of it again to a new life." The most 
 authentic historians declare immersion to have been the 
 only mode during^ the first three centuries. 
 
 Neander says it was "perfomed by immersion/ ' 
 
 Mosheim, in his great history, says it was done "by 
 immersing the candidate wholly in water." 
 
 Bingham, one of the best authorities who has ever 
 written on the subject, and a Pedo-Baptist, says: "As 
 this dipping was the original Apostolical practice so it con- 
 tinued the universal practice of the church for many ages. " 
 
 That fine critic and scholar, Professor Stuart, had be- 
 fore him a class in college reading and translating from the 
 Greek Testament. When they came to the 16th verse of 
 the 16th chapter of Mark, one of the students translated, 
 " He that believeth and is Sprinkled shall be saved." The 
 professor replied, ''Sprinkled is not correct." The student 
 said "it was the practice of their denomination." "That 
 is not the question," replied the professor, " You are now 
 translating the Greek Testament, and the word means im- 
 merse." He was too honest as a, scholar to degrade his 
 
167 
 
 reputation to gratify denominational custom. 
 
 We might multiply quotations in proof of immersion's 
 being the only mode of baptism in early times, and in this 
 particular the Baptists of this day are the same in faith and 
 practice. 
 
 2nd. Believers are the only Scriptural subjects of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 This is one of the cardinal differences between Baptists 
 and other denominations ; for they hold that believers only 
 should receive the ordinance and it Avas so held by the ear- 
 ly Christians. 
 
 This principle denies infant baptism. The one is an- 
 tagonistic to the other. There is a regular chain of wit- 
 nesses against infant baptism, from its first introduction 
 to the present time. 
 
 Neander, says : " It cannot possibly be proved that in- 
 fant baptism was practiced in the Apostolic age." 
 
 Dean Stanley, who is one of England's greatest divines, 
 and of the very highest human authority, says: "In the 
 Apostolic age, and in the three centuries that followed, it 
 is evident, that those who came to baptism, came in full 
 age, of their own deliberate choice." He says: "For the 
 first thirteen centuries, the almost universal practice of 
 baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament , 
 and which is the very meaning of the word "baptize;" 
 those who were baptized were submerged, plunged under 
 water of their own choice." So we see, while immersion 
 was their only mode in ancient times, it was also confined 
 to those who believed, and came of their own accord for 
 this rite. 
 
 The third distinguishing feature of these Christians was. 
 baptized believers alone composed the Church. The com- 
 mand, " He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved,*' 
 was the key note in all the churches, and we read of no oth- 
 ers who in those days were enrolled as members. A con- 
 verted church membership, as held by us now, withstood 
 
. 168 
 
 the corruptions introduced by the Catholics, after the 
 death of those distinguished as leaders in the second and 
 third centuries. 
 
 Tertullian was a lawyer at Carthage. He was convert- 
 ed and joined the church at that city. This was a little 
 over two hundred years after Christ. Religion became 
 popular and many sought admission into the churches. 
 Tertullian insisted on examining and re-baptizing those 
 that could not make it appear that they had been baptized 
 by churches of the same faith and order. 
 
 Origen, who as a, leader appears on the stage of action 
 in the year, A. D. 230, Avas a native of Alexandria, and 
 born of Christian parents. He advocated believers' bap- 
 tism essential to Church membership. 
 
 Justin, the martyr, lived in the second century and ad- 
 vocated these same gospel principles. "As many as are 
 persuaded and believe that those things which are taught 
 by us are true, and do promise to live according to them, 
 are directed first to pray, and ask God, with fasting, the 
 forgiveness of their sins: and we also fast and pray with 
 them. Then we bring them to some place where there is 
 water, and they are w ashed in the name of the Father, &c. 
 After he is baptized and becomes one of us, we lead him to 
 the congregation of the brethren, when, with great fervency, 
 we pour out our souls together in prayer, both for our- 
 selves and for the person ba ptizecl Bread and a cup 
 
 of wine are then brought," &c. What a similarity here 
 shown to that of Baptist practice now ! In fact, we recog- 
 nize the very same principles and customs which have ever 
 distinguished us. 
 
 So during the first three centuries, Christian congrega- 
 tions all over the East subsisted in separate, independent 
 bodies, composed only of those who believed and were bap- 
 tized. All this time they were Baptist churches. 
 
 Let us look at the fourth century. This was the time 
 of the Emperor, Constantine the Great, so well related in 
 
169 
 
 history. We call up a few witnesses of this period whose 
 records ha ve outlived the ravages of time. 
 
 Ephraim Syrus says that in his time ' k it was the cus- 
 tom, when any one was baptized, to declare that he had 
 forsaken the devil and all his works," &c, that u the bap- 
 tized first confessed their sins, and testified their faith be- 
 fore many witnesses/ ' 
 
 Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, who lived at 
 this time, said : '' To be baptized and plunged into water 
 and then to emerge, or rise out of it again, is a symbol of 
 our descent into the grave, and of our ascent out of it, and 
 therefore Paul calls baptism a burial, when he says we are 
 buried with him.'- We might add many other authorities 
 of this age, who, fourteen hundred years ago, spoke just 
 like our Baptist preachers dp now on this subject. 
 
 AVe are now approaching the fifth century, but we must 
 go back a little and see how the early Christian sects start- 
 ed up. 
 
 Just before Constantine, Decius sat upon the throne, 
 and issued his edict that all persons in the empire should 
 conform to Pagan worship. This decree rent asunder the 
 churches, many became apostate and thousands suffered 
 death. When peace was restored these apostates applied 
 for re-admission into the churches. 
 
 Novatian, a Presbyter in the Church of Rome, opposed 
 the re-admission of the apostates, and a contention arose 
 between him and the pastor, Cornelius, who favored their 
 reception. 
 
 Novatian separated from the Church, with many oth- 
 ers who took sides with him, and became the head of a 
 sect, which was known by his name for many centuries. 
 One No vat us, of Carthage, coming to Rome, united with 
 him and their combined efforts were attended with great 
 success, and the Novatianists formed the first most power- 
 ful body of Christians who dissented from the corruptions 
 and human traditions which had crepf- into the churches. 
 
170 
 
 They held terms of admission with them to be " a virtuous 
 believer, and if you will accede to our confederacy against 
 Sin, you may be admitted among us by baptism, or if any 
 Catholic has baptized you before we will re-baptize you."— 
 Rob's History. They were at a later period called Ana- 
 Baptists and a succession of them, we shall prove, has con- 
 tinued to the present day. 
 
 "During this period, says Lardner, "the Navatian 
 Churches were very prosperous and were planted all over 
 the Roman Empire." But the rising power of the Catholic 
 interest, its union with the sword, the ambitious character 
 of its officers, the greedy spirit of its Bishops prompted 
 them to crush everything in opposition. They, consequent- 
 ly, robbed the Nbvatianists of their Churches, and drove 
 them into obscurity. These holy people now retired from 
 public notice, and a succession of them will be found under 
 another name. 
 
 We now turn our attention to Africa, for it was about 
 this time (the 4th century) when the Novatians had spread 
 over Italy and other provinces that one Donatus, in Africa, 
 rose by his superior abilities and virtue, and protested 
 against the vices which distracted the churches in that re- 
 gion. A controversy arose and spread over all the pro- 
 vinces, so that in most cities there were t wo bishops, one at 
 the head of the Catholic party and the other presiding over 
 the Donatists. These dissenters in Africa were called Do- 
 natists from the name of their reformer. 
 
 Says Gibbon: "They admitted none to fellowship with- 
 out a personal profession of faith; and them they baptized. 
 They baptized converts from paganism and re-baptized all 
 those persons who ca/me over to their fellowship from other 
 communities ; they were very careful to remove from their 
 places of worship everything that bore any resemblance to 
 worldly communities. While the Catholics under Con- 
 stantine were ornamenting their sanctuaries, »so as to re- 
 semble heathen temples, the Donatists cleared the walls 
 
171 
 
 and floors of their houses of worship of all vestiges of the 
 ancient superstition." Their churches amounted to four 
 hundred . 
 
 The Donatists and Novatianists closely resembled each 
 other in doctrine and discipline. 
 
 Says Crispin, a French historian: " These two sects 
 held, 1st, For purity of Church members, by asserting that 
 none ought to be admitted into the Church, but such as are 
 visibly true believers and real saints. 2nd, For purity of 
 Church discipline. 3rd, For* the independency of each 
 Church, and 4th, They baptized again those whose first 
 baptism they had reason to doubt . They were consequent- 
 ly termed Re-Baptizers and Ana-Baptists." 
 
 Osiander says, "Our modern Ana-Baptists were the 
 same as the Donatists of old." 
 
 Fuller, the English Church historian, asserts that the 
 . Baptists in England in his days were the Donatists new 
 dipped. 
 
 In the year A. I)., 314, Constantine witnessed the dis- 
 putes between the Donatists and Catholics. The Catholics 
 appealed to him for support. In answer he appointed 
 commissioners to hear both sides, but failing to obtain 
 satisfaction, the emperor condescended to hear the parties 
 himself, but could not effect a reconciliation. The Dona- 
 tists said : " What has the emperor to do with the Church? 
 What have Christians to do with kings? or wha t have Bish- 
 ops to do at court?" Constantine, seeing his authority 
 questioned by these Baptists, listened to his Bishops and 
 the advice of his court and deprived the Donatists of their 
 churches. This so called Christian emperor went so far as 
 to have some of these innocent people put to death, and in 
 the decline of his life, as a good Catholic, he issued his 
 edicts against all who dissented from the Catholic faith. 
 Up to this time the Donatists were almost as numerous as 
 the Catholics. Their influence must have been very con- 
 siderable, since the historian, Mr. Jones, remarks that 
 
172 
 
 "there was scarcely a city or town in Africa in which there 
 was not a Donatist Church/' 
 
 The difficulty of establishing infant baptism, caused 
 Augustine to call a council at Mela, in the year 415, and 
 issue the following manifesto to the dissenters : "That it is 
 our will that all that affirm that young children receive 
 everlasting life, albeit they be not by the sacrament of 
 grace or baptism renewed, and that will not that young 
 children, which are newly brum from their mother's womb, 
 shall be baptized to the taking away of original sin, that 
 they be anathematized . ■ ' At this council there were ninety- 
 two ministers presided over by Augustine. 
 
 Another council of divines was convened the same year 
 at Carthage and passed this decree: "We will that whoever 
 denies that little children by baptism are freed from perdi- 
 tion and eternally saved, that they be accursed.''' So we 
 see that while the sword and infant baptism have ever been- 
 companions, that it took fire, sword and the dungeon to 
 enforce its bloody edicts. Believers' baptism has never- 
 borrowed a foreign aid for its support ; it originated from 
 heaven ( John 1-32 ) and has been maintained to this day 
 among the followers of the Lamb by the same divine teach- 
 ing and sustaining power. 
 
 But to return from this digression. We come next to 
 the sixth century. Pope Gregory is now on his throne. 
 Every means was now used to blot out the Donatists, who 
 still held on to their religion, " of whom the world was not 
 worthy. ' ' Marked out for vengeance, and realizing no hope 
 of safety, they disappeared. Many of them emigrated to 
 Spain and Italy and hid among the mountains. From 
 their conduct in assembling in caves and dens of moun- 
 tains to worship, they obtained the name of "Montenses,'' 
 or Mountaineers. In the seventh century the Donatists 
 dwindled away into obscurity. 
 
 To contemplate the history of these people, so correct 
 in morals, simple in worship, faithful to their Master in all 
 
173 
 
 His commands, and for four hundred years ''kept the faith 
 once delivered to the saints," excites our admiration and 
 love. Their professions and views were so allied to our owi 1 , 
 creates a feeling of pleasure as we remember that we are 
 their legitimate but unworthy successors. 
 
 The Ci Paulicians were a sect which began its wonderful . 
 career in the year A. D. 653. Its origin is thus given by 
 the historians. In a town in Armedia there resided an ob- 
 scure person by the name of Constantine, who afterwards 
 gave himself the Scriptural name of Sylvanus. He enter- 
 tained for some days, at his house, a prisoner who had 
 been released and was returning home and stopped with 
 him. To requite the hospitality of his host, he gave Con- 
 stantine two manuscripts which he had brought out of 
 Syria, and these proved to be the four gospels and the 
 Epistles of the Apostle Paul . These manuscripts were highly 
 •prized by Constantine and were the means of his conver- 
 sion. He at once became a teacher of the doctrines of 
 Christ , and drew around him many who from his great zeal 
 in strictly teaching and practicing the doctrines of St . Paul 
 obtained the name of Paulicians. They formed a creed 
 similar to the Donatists and Novatians who had just dis- 
 appeared. They held, in their Churches, the sacraments of 
 P>aptis-mand the Lord's Supper toberestrictrdto believers. 
 
 They baptized and re-baptized adults by immersion. 
 
 "It is evident," says Mosheim, "that they rejected the 
 baptism of infants." 
 
 "They were Ana-Baptists, or rejecters of infant bap- 
 tism," says Dr. Alix. 
 
 "They were orthodox in the doctrine of the Trinity/* 
 says Milner. 
 
 Constantine became a preacher of great power and suc- 
 cess in Pontns and Cappadocia. Great numbers of disci- 
 ples were gathered in by him. The body of Christians in 
 Armenia, came over to the Paulicians, and embraced their 
 views. Churches were organized in Asia Minor and in the 
 
174 
 9 m 
 
 regions beyond the Alps. Six of their principal churches 
 took the names of those Paul addressed his epistles to : 
 Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and Thessaloni- 
 ea; while the names of Sylvanus' travelling companions 
 and fellow-laborers were called Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, 
 and so on, and were distinguished by their Scriptural 
 names. 
 
 In this great work of preaching and evangelizing pro- 
 vinces, Sylvanus spent twenty-seven years of his life and 
 "multitudes were happily converted to God.'' 
 
 But their success drew upon them the most bitter per- 
 secutions by those who held different views. The political 
 authorities were appealed to, and the Paulicians were 
 capitally punished, and their books, wherever found, com- 
 mitted to the flames. Sylvanus was himself stoned to 
 death, and many of his followers were massed together in 
 an immense pile, and, by order of the emperor, burnt to- 
 ashes. Simeon, the executioner, afterwards became a con- 
 vert from reading their books, and became the successor of 
 Sylvanus, as a preacher, and at last sealed his testimony 
 with his blood. A great number of them were transported 
 into Thrace during this century. From Thrace they passed 
 into Bulgaria and Sclavonia. They multiplied in great 
 numbers, using the New Testament as their only .rule of 
 faith and practice. A Paulician woman recommended one 
 Sergius to read Paul's writings, which he did, and embracing 
 their views, for thirty-four years he devoted himself to the 
 ministry. He preached with such fervor and eloquence, as 
 to cause the clergy of the Catholics to declare him to be the 
 forerunner of Anti-Christ . The more they were persecuted , 
 the wider they spread and multiplied. 
 
 The severest persecution they suffered was encouraged 
 by the Empress Theodora, in the year 845. After confis- 
 cating the property of one hundrad thousand of these peo- 
 ple, as many were put to death by the most cruel torture. 
 But it was impossible to exterminate this " cloud of wit- 
 
175 
 
 nesses for Jesus." "From Italy," says Mosheim, "the 
 Paulicians sent colonies into almost all the provinces of 
 Europe." 
 
 About the middle of the eleventh century they were 
 found throughout France, Germany and other countries, 
 called by different names. In Italy they were called Pate- 
 rini, in France Bulgarians, but chiefly by the name of Al- 
 bigenses, from the town of Alby, in which many of them 
 lived. We are now recording events in what is called the 
 Dark Age of the world. A Catholic writer calls it the iron, 
 leaden, and obscure age. He says, "Christ was then, as it 
 appears, in a very deep sleep. The Disciples were them- 
 selves fast asleep." 
 
 It may be true of the Catholics; but while this long 
 night of silence and deep sleep, with awful darkness, brood- 
 ed over every branch of that establishment, the Baptists 
 were not asleep. It was in the tenth century that the Paul- 
 icians emigrated from Bulgaria and spread themselv r es in 
 every province in Europe. Holding up the lamp in this 
 Dark Age for others' guidance, proved to the nations sit- 
 ting in darkness and death, that the "gates of hell could 
 not prevail against the church of Christ." The same prin- 
 ciples advocated by these very ancient Christians were the 
 same maintained and practiced alone by the Baptists of the 
 present day. 
 
 •"They had no bishops," says the historian, Moshiem 7 
 ••the candidates were prepared for baptism by instruction. 
 They viewed baptism as having no virtue to save, and af- 
 fording no benefit to children. They were agreed in regard- 
 ing the Church of Rome as an apostate Church." 
 
 We have now imperfectly and briefly detailed to the end 
 of the tenth century, an account of the only religious body 
 of people, whom no power on earth could subvert to yield 
 to the corruptions of the times that tried men's souls. 
 What emotions of joy and sorrow are called forth in the 
 study of these Christian heroes! Joy, because we have a 
 
176 
 
 succession of godly men ; sorrow, because their labor of 
 love cost them such immense suffering ! 
 
 In 1040 the Paterines .had become very numerous and 
 Milan was their chief headquarters. 
 
 Here they flourished at least two hundred years. They 
 are described as being " decent in their deportment, modest 
 in their dress and discourse, and their morals irreproacha- 
 ble." Their churches were divided into sixteen districts 
 such as the Baptists call associations. The Milan associa- 
 tion numbered 1500 members. But 'persecutions drove 
 them from their churches and homes about the middle of 
 the eleventh century and scattered them in almost all the 
 provinces of Europe. 
 
 " These dissenting Baptists," says Mosheim, "spread 
 like an inundation from Italy into other countries, and sent 
 forth moral streams to prevent the world from becoming 
 stagnant with the pollutions of the Romish Church." It 
 was about this time, in the year 1137, that a great Reformer 
 arose In Italy, a most powerful opponent to the Catholic 
 church, who in fortitude and zeal was equal to Martin Lu- 
 ther, who succeeded him several hundred years later on, 
 and his superior in learning and talents. This was Arnold 
 of Brescia. By his eloquence and boldness he alarmed the 
 Catholic officials, while he exposed their corruptions, and 
 became the champion of religious liberty. The people flock- 
 ed to hear him, and followed him as a new light in g^eat 
 darkness. But he was condemned to perpetual silence by 
 the Papal authorities, and he fled from Italy into Switzer- 
 land and planted the standard of Reformation among 
 those brave mountaineers. He soon conceived and hazard- 
 ed the bold design of visiting Rome and fixing the standard 
 of rebellion in the very heart of the capital. His populari- 
 ty became so great t hat it caused the Pope ( EugeniusIII ) 
 to leave the capital. The vices of the clergy he exposed, 
 and declared that the bishops and the Pope himself must 
 renounce their temporal power or their salvation, quoting. 
 
177 
 
 says Gibbon, the declaration of Christ, "that his kingdom 
 was not of this world." For ten years his eloquence thun- 
 dered over the Seven Hills, while two Popes, either trem- 
 bled in the Vatican, or wandered as exiles in tlio adjacent 
 cities. 
 
 While Arnold's friends Avere numerous, and his influence 
 over the populace was powerful, the sword was no weapon 
 in his articles of faith . The Pope placed himself at the head 
 of his troops and at length restored his official dignity on 
 the throne. In the t year 1155 this noble man was seized, 
 crucified and burned to death ; his ashes were thrown into 
 the river that no relic of his body might be left to his fol- 
 lowers. Still the efforts of Arnold, in behalf of civil and re- 
 ligious liberty, "were cherished in the breasts of future re- 
 forming spirits, and inspired those mighty attempts in 
 Wickliffe, Huss, Luther and others. His memory was long 
 and fondly cherished by his countrymen and his tragical 
 end occasioned never ceasing hostility to Catholic au- 
 thority. 
 
 Xow it is a well established fact in history that Arnold 
 and his followers denied that baptism should be adminis- 
 tered to infants, and this was one of the charges held against 
 them . They also maintained the supremacy of the church- 
 es and of their being independent separate organizations 
 and in all respects taught and practiced the same princi- 
 ples that Baptists do now. 
 
 The thirteenth century was characterized by the Cath- 
 olic's hatred to these reformers, the Arnoldists and Pa- 
 terines, who had increased in great numbers. A most 
 cruel decree in the reign of Frederick was issued against 
 them in these terms : " We will not suffer these wretches to 
 live." " Some were to have their tongues pulled out, while 
 others were to be committed to the flames." 
 
 Dr. Wall says of them : " They had increased to a great 
 1 1 ) ultitude. ' ' Their schools and churches were supported by 
 contributions by churches of the same faith in Bohemia 
 
178 
 
 and Poland. They owned the Scriptures as a rule of con- 
 duct and administered the ordinance of Baptism to be- 
 lievers by one immersion. They were always found on the 
 -side of religious liberty. 
 
 There were also reformers in France, at the same time, 
 and even earlier than those above described. Bruno and 
 Berenger, were most prominent leaders. It is said that 
 Berenger, by his discourses charmed the people and vast 
 numbers followed him . His doctrines and teachings spread 
 through Frajrce, Italy, Germany and other kingdoms. The 
 Catholic's were alarmed at their success. 
 
 The Bishop of Leige, said in his charge against them 
 that "they maintained the host is not the Lord's body, 
 and as far as in them lies, overthrow the baptism of in- 
 fants:' 
 
 Their followers were so numerous, that old historians 
 relate that France, Italy, Germany, England and other 
 countries were infected with their principles. The Beren- 
 garians were of the same stamp with the Paterines and 
 Albigenses, as well as the Waldenses. 
 
 The historian Morrell declares that u at onetime, above 
 eight hundred thousand persons professed the Berengarian 
 faith." 
 
 The name of another great reformer in France, was 
 Peter de Bruys, who lived at the same age with Arnold, of 
 Italy, holding similar religious sentiments. Their prin- 
 ciples handed down to us by historians are these : "The or- 
 dinance of baptism must be administered only to adults ; 
 that in the Lord's Supper, the real body and blood of 
 Christ were not partaken by the communicants, but only 
 represented in the way of symbol or figure ; that baptism 
 was useless to children who wanted the exercise of reason.'' 
 Peter de Bruys, preached for twenty years these glorious 
 doctrines, when the Catholics through fear of this intrepid 
 Reformer, committed his body to the flames at St. Giles, a 
 city of France. 
 
179 
 
 Five years after the martyrdom of Peter cle Bruys, 
 Henry of Toulouse, one of his disciples, carried on the refor- 
 mation with wonderful success. He travelled through 
 many provinces, preaching the pure word of God Wi th great 
 zeal and eloquence. Dr. Wall, the Pedo-Baptist historian, 
 calls Henry and Peter " two Anti-Predo-Baptist ministers. " 
 " The followers of Henry were called Henricians, and the 
 Albigenses were their successors in faith and doctrine,'" 
 says Bernard. In the face of all the opposing powers, like 
 the Paulicians, they went forth in this dark period of the 
 world, armed with the precepts and promises of the New 
 Testament, with a simple and humble reliance on the Spirit 
 of Truth for guidance and support . The censures of men, 
 the bulls of Popes, and the decrees and anathemas of coun- 
 cils could not force them to yield the laws of Christ to the 
 1 ' commandments of men /' 
 
 About this time another witness for truth appeared 
 upon the stage in the person of one Peter Waldo, a rich 
 merchant of Lyons. He was engaged in translating the 
 four gospels into French from Latin.' He found that the 
 religion and practice of the Roman church were so different 
 from the doctrines and practices of Christ and His Apostles, 
 he at once abandoned his vocation as merchant, divided his 
 goods among the poor, and joined these pious saints in the 
 simple and true worship of God. He maintained at his 
 own expense several persons, whom he employed to ex- 
 pound the translations of the Scriptures which he had made 
 to the people. His followers, like himself, renounced all 
 worldly property, and the poor and rich had all things in 
 common. From this circumstance, their enemies called 
 them "the poor of Lyons," and from the city in which 
 Waldo began his labors, they were termed "Lionists;" 
 but from the similarity of sentiment they were afterwards 
 called Waldenses. The Albigenses whose religious views 
 had been a considerable time established gave their entire 
 support to Waldo as soon as he appeared in public. 
 
180 
 
 Dissenters were called by various names, as Donatists, 
 Paulicians, Arnoldists, the poor of Lyons, or Lionists, Pa- 
 terines, Albigenses, Waldenses, &c, &c. expressive of one 
 and the same class of Christians. 
 
 In the year A. I)., 1177, Waldo was forced to leave 
 France and fled into Germany with a multitude of his fol- 
 lowers, carrying the glad tidings of salvation. Lucius 
 III issued his decree against them, saying: "We declare 
 these sects to lie under a perpetual curse for teaching Bap- 
 tism and the Lord's Supper otherwise than the Church of 
 Rome." 
 
 Their houses were destroyed and they sought shelter in 
 the valleys of the Piedmont taking with them the new r 
 translation of the Bible. " Their doctrines were dissemi- 
 nated into Flanders, Poland, Spain, Calabria, and even in- 
 to the dominions of the Grand Sultan." Consequently 
 Waldo and his followers, had in a few years, drawn great 
 numbers from the corrupt Church, and their doctrines 
 "made a great noise in the world." The Pope sent his 
 Cardinal and Bishops among them and required them to 
 subscribe to his articles, one of which reads thus : "We be- 
 lieve that none are saved except they are baptized , and that 
 children are saved by baptism," &c. 
 
 Refusing to accept these terms, many were burnt and 
 others banished. 
 
 "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that 
 keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."— 
 Rev. 14-12. 
 
 The appalling scenes that follow in the next century 
 (the thirteenth) make the pages of history blush to record 
 the acts of men claiming to be Christians. The Pope, In- 
 nocent HI, having failed to put down those heretics, 
 instituted " The Army of the Crusaders." It is said an ar- 
 my of five hundred thousand men was put in motion, des- 
 tined to destroy these innocent Baptists. The cruelties of 
 these crusaders seem to have no parallel in history. In a 
 
181 
 
 tew months two hundred thousand lives were sacrificed up- 
 on the altar of religious freedom. Large cities were reduc- 
 ed to ashes, and thousands driven from their burning 
 homes to wander in the woods and mountains, and perish 
 with hunger. 
 
 Simon de Montford, an Englishman, and Earl of Lei- 
 cester, was their leader in the first crusade. His wife, 
 Alice, raised a second army the next spring, and if possible, 
 became more cruel. Some were hung on gibbets. One 
 hundred of the inhabitants of the city Brom, had their 
 noses cut off and their eyes plucked out, and were then sent, 
 under the guidance of a man with one eye spared, to inform 
 the citizents of other towns what fate awaited them. 
 
 On the 22nd of July, A. D. 1210, the crusaders took, 
 possession of the town of Minerva. The Albigensian Chris- 
 tians were then assembled, the men in one house and the 
 women in another, and there on their knees awaited their 
 fate. A Catholic priest preached to them to repent. But 
 they with one voice cried : "We have renounced the Church 
 of Rome ; we will have none of your faith ; your labor is in 
 vain, for neither death nor life will make us renounce the 
 opinions that we have embraced." An enormous pile of 
 dry wood was prepared, and the Abbot thus addressed 
 these humble followers of Christ : ' 'Be converted to the Cath- 
 olic faith, or ascend this pile ; " but none of them were sha- 
 ken. The wood was set on fire, and over 150 innocent 
 victims perished in the flames, commending their souls to 
 God. The sacrifice of human life during this crusade can- 
 not be computed. These armies of the crusaders continued 
 for eight successive years, and the Albigensian Church was 
 drowned in blood. No calculations can ascertain the 
 amount of wealth dissipated or the destruction of human 
 life which resulted from these crusades. The Albigensian 
 Church was now drowned in blood. 
 
 "The slaughter," says Mr. Jones, "had been so prodi- 
 gious, the massacres so universal, the terror so profound 
 
182 
 
 and of so long duration that the Church of Home appeared 
 completely to have attained their object." Says Gibbon: 
 "The visible assemblies of the Paulicians or Albigenses 
 were extirpated by fire and sword ; and the bleeding rem- 
 nant escaped by flight, but the invincible spirit which they 
 had kindled still lived and breathed in the Western world." 
 
 In the year 1373 that celebrated Keformer, JohnHuss, 
 was born. He was educated in the University of Prague. 
 In 1404 he embraced the sentiments of the Waldenses and 
 became their leader. He was a man of great eloquence and 
 power. He joined issue with the Pope and for a time led his 
 followers to success in reform. But being sHamefully be- 
 trayed he Avas tried for heresy, convicted and burnt. He 
 sustained his sentence with the most heroic fortitude and. 
 died praying for his enemies. 
 
 Jerome, .of Prague, of whom so much has been written,' 
 was Huss' most intimate companion. He was a man of 
 great learning and traveled throughout Europe, where" he 
 was greatly admired for his graceful eloquence, and preached 
 with grea/b effect against the abominations of the times, 
 which caused him to be arrested and brought before Con- 
 stance on the 17th of April, 1415, and sentenced to death. 
 He expired in the flames singing, '"Sane animam in fiam- 
 mi-es, offero, Christ e, tibi, "— " This soul of mine, in flames of 
 fire, 0, Christ, I offer Thee." His defence before the Pope 
 is described by the Pope's secretary in a letter to a friend, 
 " as noble in bearing and with great eloquence of language 
 which excited the admiration of his enemies." He first be- 
 gan with prayer to God, whose assistance he pathetically 
 implored. He then referred to profane history and to un- 
 just sentences given against Socrates, Plato, Anaxagoras, 
 and others. He referred to examples in the Scriptures and 
 such was the force of his appeal that his headers were great- 
 *ly affected, and shook the credit of the witnesses. " Itwas," 
 .says the secretary, "impossible to hear this pathetic speak- 
 er without emotion. In his defence his voice was sweet, dis- 
 
188 
 
 tinct and full; his action every way the most proper, either 
 to express indignation or to raise pity, though he made no 
 affected application to the passions of his audience. Firm 
 and intrepid he stood before the council, collected in him- 
 self, and not only contemning, but seeming even desirous 
 of death." 
 
 Thus on the 20th day of May, A. D. 1416, another 
 martyr as a witness for Jesus, and defender of the faith 
 cheerfully met his fate in a most horrible form, and that, 
 too, at the hands of those claiming to be Christians, and 
 because he taught and practiced the doctrines of the Ana- 
 Baptists, and principally for denying infant baptism. The 
 Baptists from the time of their early settlement lived about 
 the forests and mines of Germany, and accessions were mul- 
 tiplied from other kingdoms and by those converted under 
 Huss and Jerome. The proceedings of the Council of Con- 
 stance and the news of the fate of these great men flew like 
 lightning all over the kingdom and Bohemia was all in an 
 uproar. A conflict now commenced between the Hussites 
 and Catholics and a state of civil discord lasted twelve 
 years, during which time thousands of inn ocent people lost 
 their lives. The history of the struggles for religious liber- 
 ty continued by our ancestors against the Catholics with 
 varied success and suffering on up to the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, but we have not time here to detail to the reader the 
 wonderful energy and pluck manifested by them "to keep 
 the ordinances once delivered to the saints.'' 
 
 Robinson, in his Church History, asserts that " Greece 
 was the parent of the Yaudois, while Piedmont was the jail- 
 er." While other kingdoms and provinces barbarously 
 used all dissenters, the valleys of Piedmont for ages afford- 
 ed them an asylum, such as "kept the word of my patience/' 
 — Rev. 8-10- Blessed here with security and liberty and 
 tree from the impurities of the harlot, their minds with no 
 human forms, their knees bowed to no delegated authori- 
 ty, their devotion was guided by no adjusted Pules; their 
 
184 
 
 lips made no professions but such as were stimulated by 
 choice, and that choice was the response of divine benevo- 
 lence, aided by a glowing gratitude to the Lamb. Such 
 were Novatian and Novatus, with Constantine, Sylvan us 
 and Surgius of the preceeding centuries, with their great 
 and distinguished brethren, Arnold, Waldo, Berengarius, 
 Henry and Peter de Bruys, alluded to in these pages here- 
 tofore. " They had the Old an$ New Testament,'- sa^ T s an 
 inquisitor, ''in the vulgar tongue; and they teach and 
 learn so well, that he had seen and heard a poor country- 
 man repea t all the book of Job, word for word, by heart." 
 He says, "There was scarcely a man or woman among 
 them, who was not far better read in the Bible than the 
 doctors of the Church.'' A distinguished writer of the 
 fifteenth century affirms that this description of the Wal- 
 denses was a true picture of the heretics of his age, particu- 
 larly of the Ana-Baptists. 
 
 The centuriators of Magdeburg, under the twelfth cen- 
 tury, recite from an old manuscript the outlines of the 
 Waldensian creed, viz : "In articles of faith, the authority 
 of the Hol.y Scriptures is the highest authority, and 
 tor that reason it is the standard of judging, so that 
 whatever doth not agree with the word of God is to be re- 
 jected. The sacraments of the Church of Christ are two, 
 baptism and the Lord's Supper." " Their numbers," says 
 Mosheim, "became so formidable as to menace the Papal 
 jurisdiction with a fatal overthrow, and were only checked 
 bv the crusading armies." Thev numbered about this 
 time eight hundred thousand persons. For one hundred 
 and thirty years after the destruction of their churches in 
 France, the Waldenses in these valleys had respite from 
 the severity of a general persecution, all of which time they 
 multiplied greatly; "they took deep root, they filled the 
 land, they covered the hills Avith their shadows, and sent 
 out their boughs unto the sea, and their branches unto the 
 river." But still they occasionally suffered great outrages 
 by Catholic hatred. 
 
185 
 
 It is related that in one of these valleys in the month 
 of December, 1400, when the mountains were covered with 
 snow, the Catholics attacked these peaceable inhabitants 
 without warning and caused them to flee to one of the 
 highest mountains of the Alps with their wives and chil- 
 dren; the unhappy mothers carrying the cradle in one 
 hand, and with the other leading such of the offspring as were 
 able t o walk . Their inhum an invaders pursued them in their 
 flight until darkness obscured the objects of their fury. 
 Many were slain before they reached the mountains. Ov- 
 ertaken by the darkness of the night, these poor and per- 
 secuted people wandered up and down the mountains cov- 
 ered with snow, destitute of shelter, benumbed with cold ; 
 some fell asleep and became an easy prey to the severity of 
 the climate, and when night liad passed away there Avere 
 found in their cradles, or lying upon the snow hundreds 
 of their infants deprived of life ; many of their mothers 
 were dead by their side and others on the point of expiring. 
 80 revolting and inhuman a scene was the subject of reci- 
 tal for a century afterwards by the descendants of these 
 true Christian people. 
 
 In the beginning of the sixteenth century, things were 
 more quiet. A monk was deputed to hold a conference with 
 the Waldenses, to convince them of their errors, but the 
 monk returned in confusion, saying that in his whole life he 
 had never known so much of the Scriptures as he had 
 learned while conversing with the heretics. Others visited 
 them and returned with similar convictions. 
 
 Louis XII, king of France, deputed two of his noble- 
 men, in the year 1498, to investigate and report on accu- 
 sations brought against these people. On their return to 
 court, they said, '' Their places of worship were free from 
 those ornaments found in Catholic churches. We discover- 
 ed no crimes, they keep the Sabbath day, observe the ordi- 
 nance of baptism according to the primitive Church, ( not 
 as the Catholic Church,) instruct their children in the ar- 
 
18G 
 
 tides of Christian faith and the commandments of God.'* 
 "So effectual was their mode of instruction that many of 
 them could retain in their memories most of the New Tes- 
 tament." 
 
 What a lesson is here taught us of the ninteenth cen- 
 tury, and it makes us blush for shame when we see how we 
 fall below the zeal and piety of these Christians of four 
 hundred years ago ! 
 
 But we have now arrived, in these brief and desultory 
 sketches, at that period when the great Keformer Martin 
 Luther, appears on the scene of action. He comes art an 
 age when the whole religious world is more quiet. The 
 Pope is on his throne and wields the power over Church 
 and State. The heretics, our Waldensian brethren, and 
 Ana-Baptists have been put to flight and are nbw found 
 scattered over Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland and in 
 fact nearly all Europe, but through fear of persecution, 
 concealed their faith as best they could. It was a source 
 of infinite satisfaction to them when they learned that Lu- 
 ther and his adherents, by /their boldness and daring, had 
 set the Catholic Church at defiance ; and in the year 152G 
 they deputed some of their brethren to visit and inquire in- 
 to the truth. "It was found," says Mezeray, "that the 
 Waldenses in their conferences with Luther, were not in 
 unison with him on the ordinances, but sufficient in faith 
 to unite with him in opposition to their old enemy." Cal- 
 vin, who began in 1534 to preach the reforming doctrines, 
 was found in his views more in accordance with the senti- 
 ments of the Ana-Baptists than Luther, consequently they 
 were more disposed to encourage Calvin. 
 
 Notwithstanding the consternation thrown into the ranks 
 of the Pope by Luther, aided by Calvin, these long perse- 
 cuted people still to a great extent maintained their ancient 
 faith, and finally drew upon them the wrath of these two 
 great religious reformers. In order to illustrate how well 
 these people instructed their children in the Scriptures, the 
 
187 
 
 historian McBie, tells us that "a monk, preaching one day 
 in the town of Imola, told the people that it behooved 
 them to purchase heaven by the merit of their good works. 
 A boy who was present, exclaimed, 'That's blasphemy, for 
 the Bible tells us that Christ purchased heaven by his suf- 
 ferings and death, 'and bestows it on us freely by his mer- 
 cy.' A dispute now arose between the preacher and the 
 boy. Provoked at the pertinent replies of his juvenile op- 
 ponent and at the favorable reception which the audience 
 gave him, ' Get you gone, you young rascal,' exclaimed the 
 monk; 'you are just come from the cradle and will you 
 take it upon you to judge of sacred things which the most 
 learned cannot explain?' 'Did you never read these 
 words,' 'out of [the mouths of babes and sucklings God 
 perfects praise? 5 rejoined the youth, upon which the 
 preacher left the pulpit in wrathful confusion, breathing- 
 out threatenings against the poor boy, and had him thrown 
 into prison." 
 
 Bishop Bossuet, says: "You call Claude of Turin one 
 of your apostolical Church; you adopt Henry and Peter 
 de Bruys, yet these, every one knows, were Ana-Baptists/*" 
 They Avere called by various names in different ages, but all 
 agreed jji oue article of discipline— they re-baptized all such 
 as came into their communion from the Catholic Church,, 
 hence were called Ana-Baptists." 
 
 In 1665 the Waldenses were called to endure sufferings 
 of the most serious character, which awakened all the Prot- 
 estant princes of Europe ; and Oliver Cromwell, on hear- 
 ing of their persecution, rose like a lion from his lair, and 
 deputed Sir Samuel Moreland to intercede with their op- 
 pressors and relieve their distresses. 
 
 In 1685, October 8th, the edict of Nantz was repealed^ 
 by which act no toleration could be allowed to dissenters 
 from Catholic faith. Fifteen days were allowed them to 
 leave the kingdom ; two millions of persons were condemn- 
 ed by this instrument and banished from their native soil, 
 
188 
 
 These were the glorious days of Baptists in France ; 
 these were her proudest triumphs ; she could then boast of 
 valor of which the world was not worthy; her martyrs 
 then bore testimony t o their faith at the fatal tree, or were 
 chained to the oar of the galleys for life; .and women shrank 
 not from perpetual prison in the gloomy tower that over- 
 hung the Mediterranean. 
 
 Jacob Merning, in his history of these times, states that 
 he had in his possession, "a confession of faith of the Bap- 
 tists, called Waldenses, written in the German tongue; 
 which declared the absence of infant baptism, and that their 
 forefathers practiced no such thing, and they were spread 
 through Poland , Lombardy , Germany and Holland . Amid 
 all the sectaries of religion and teachers of the gospel in 
 Germany at this time the Baptists best understood the 
 doctrine of religious liberty, and under whatever govern- 
 ment they w r ere always found on the side of liberty." 
 
 From these and following historical facts it will be seen 
 "'that the Baptists has been the only community of Chris- 
 tians which has stood since the Apostles, and which has 
 preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages . 7 ' 
 The threatening aspect of affairs in Germany suggested the 
 necessity of emigrating, and Mosheim asserts "that the 
 German Baptists passed in shoals into Holland and the 
 Netherlands, and in the course of time amalgamated with 
 the Dutch Baptists." 
 
 Says the same writer: "The drooping spirits of this 
 people, Avho had been dispersed through many countries 
 and persecuted every where with the greatest severity, were 
 revived w T hen they heard that Luther had attempted the 
 Beformation." Seeing the attempts of Luther they hoped 
 the happy period was arrived in Avhich the restoration of 
 Borne to purity was to be accomplished, under the divine 
 protection, by the labors and counsels of pious and emi- 
 nent men. Luther had boldly stepped forward and set tyr- 
 anny at defiance. To further the great work, he publish- 
 
189 
 
 ed the New Testatment in German, wrote letters to the 
 sovereigns of Europe, broke with the Pope, and pushed 
 forward the work of the Reformation. The Pope denounc- 
 ed Luther, and he nobly, on December 10th, 1520, had a 
 pile of wood erected without the walls of Wittenburgh, and 
 there in the presence of a large multitude of people of all 
 ranks, committed to the names, both the bull that had 
 been published against him, and the canons relating to the 
 Pope's jurisdiction. The boldness of this and other acts 
 caused Luther to be called to Worms, by Charles Y, 
 • where he nobly and boldly pleaded his cause. While shut 
 up in the castle at Wurtenberg he translated the whole 
 < )f the New Testament, using this language in Matthew 
 the 3rd chapter and 1st verse : " In those da}'s came John 
 the dipper" So that Luther is charged by the Catholics 
 with being the author of the German dippers. At this 
 period the reformers t ook the Scriptures as their only guide 
 in faith and practice. Luther declares that "it could not 
 be proved by the Scriptures that infant baptism was insti- 
 tuted by Christ, or began by the first Christians after the 
 Apostles.*' What a, pity he did not adhere to these truths ! 
 For, as we will see, he afterwards abandoned his true and 
 noble standpoint, and became a cruel persecutor of his 
 Baptist supporters. He was such an admirer of Muncer, 
 That learned and pious Baptist minister, as to call him 
 his Absalom. But he could not bear the idea of others 
 leading in the Reformation. When he heard of the popu- 
 larity of his old friends, Carolstadt, and Muncer, of their 
 winning the hearts of the j)eople, and re-baptizing many 
 who came over to them, he, in March 1522, broke his con- 
 finement at the hazard of his life, and flew back to Witten- 
 berg, when he disowned them as fellow-laborers, and 
 would only receive Melancthon. "The success of the Bap- 
 tists now exasperated him to the last degree; and he be- 
 came their enemy, notwithstanding all he had said in 
 favor of dipping, and persecuted them under the name of 
 
190 
 
 re-dippers, re-baptizers, or Aim-Baptists. He fell out with 
 Carolstadt, he disliked Calvin and found fault with Zwin- 
 g'lius. He was angry beyond meaure with Muncer and the 
 Baptists. The violence of Luther sunk his cause into that 
 of party. He would not have a competitor. Of all the 
 teachers of religion in Germany at this time, the Baptists 
 best understood the doctrine of civil and religious liberty: 
 to them, therefore, the oppressed looked for counsel. The 
 tyranny of the Catholics and Lutherans excited them with 
 great fear. * 
 
 Thomas Muncer had been a Roman priest, but became 
 a disciple of Luther and a favorite with the people. He 
 was so much loved by Luther as to call him his Absalom, 
 as before stated, and the people called him Luther's curate. 
 When he saw with astonishment and pain the tyranny of 
 his leader he remonstrated with him, and caused Luther 
 to banish him, He now travelled into various parts, 
 preaching soul liberty to the people. He exposed the er- 
 rors of Catholicism, opposed the extreme measures of Lu- 
 ther, and declared that a Christian church ought to consist 
 of pious individuals, who professed faith in Christ and not 
 as Luther taught, "to include whole parishes.'' Upon 
 these principles he formed a church at the town of Mul- 
 hausen, where multitudes came to be instructed and com- 
 forted by him about the year 1523. 
 
 Voltaire, that great infidel and learned man of France, 
 said of Luther and Muncer: "Luther had been successful 
 in stirring up the princes, nobles and magistrates of Ger- 
 many against the Popje and Bishops ; Muncer stirred up 
 the peasants against them.'' He said that " Muncer laid 
 open that dangerous truth, which is implanted in every 
 breast, that all men are born equal," saying, "that if the 
 Popes had not treated the princes like their subjects, the 
 princes had not treated the common people like beasts.'' 
 What Luther had censured about the Pope's usurpation, 
 he now practiced himself towards these good men. 
 
191 
 
 He wrote to the magistrates of Mulhausen, on hearing 
 of Muncer's success, and advised them to require of him to 
 give an account of his call to the ministry, and if he could 
 not prove that he acted under human authority, then to 
 insist on his proving his call from God by working a mir- 
 acle ! 
 
 The people resented this insult by expelling from the 
 city Luther's monkish allies, and elected Muncer as one of 
 their Senators. 
 
 Luther and his colleagues had now to dispute t^eir way 
 with hosts of Baptists all over Germany, Saxony, Switzer- 
 land and other countries for several years. At Zurich the 
 Senate warned the people to desist from re-baptizing, but 
 all their warnings were in vain. Recourse to the sword was 
 resorted to to check the increase of the Baptists. An edict 
 against Ana-baptism was published in 1522, in which there 
 was a penalty of a silver mark set upon all such as should 
 suffer themselves re-baptized, or should withhold baptism 
 from their children. Not succeeding iii this, severer meas- 
 ures were decreed against them, and many Baptists were 
 drowned and burnt. Such were some of the acts of this 
 grea-t Reformer. 
 
 The Emperor, Frederic, the friend of Luther, was ap- 
 pealed to to put down these heretics, so alarming had they 
 become in number, which caused them to assemble in dif- 
 ferent provinces to the number of three hundred thousand 
 men, to provide means of redress. The doctrine of liberty 
 so strongly advocated by the Baptists naturally attracted 
 their minds towards Muncer, their leader, who drew up a 
 memorial expressive of their grievances, and which was 
 presented to their Lords, and dispersed all over Germany. 
 It consists of twelve articles, on civil and religious liberty. 
 It is said to be a master production of the kind, and Vol- 
 taire says : " A Lycurgus would have signed it." A similar 
 spirit prevailed among the Baptists of Virginia and the 
 other colonies, prior to the Revolution, and their principles 
 
192 
 
 suggested to Thomas Jefferson the basis of our national 
 Constitution . 
 
 But to continue. These oppressed men were conse- 
 quently met by their lords with a sword, instead of redress. 
 Thousands were slaughtered and the great and goodMnn- 
 cer was put to death. Had Muncer been successful in pro- 
 curing liberty for the German peasants, ten thousand 
 tongues would have celebrated his praise in different ages, 
 'the very historians who censure him would have vied to 
 crown his memory with unfading hon ors. All this occurred 
 ten years before the miserable affair of Minister, of which 
 the x\na-Baptists have been so much accused in history. 
 
 We trust we have not wearied the reader with these sad 
 details of truthful history, and to go a little further ; it is 
 just to state here how the Minister affair was brought 
 about, in defence of the Ana-Baptists who have had the 
 blame to bear. 
 
 The city of Minister is in Westphalia, where the tumult 
 aiuj disorder occurred in 1532. A Peclo-Baptist minister 
 of the Lutheran persuasion, by the name of Batman, as- 
 sisted by other ministers of the Reformation, began the 
 disturbance in opposing the Papists. It was about the 
 Protestant religion, and the fight had begun before any 
 Ana-Baptist came. The fanatics held the city and kept it 
 in a most disorderly manner, until in 1535, the Bishop of 
 Minister, assisted by the princes, besieged the city and the 
 fanatics were taken and put to death in the most terrible 
 and ignominious manner. This disorderly and outrageous 
 conduct of a handful of Ana-Baptists, with others, drew 
 upon their whole body a stigma and reproach of which, as 
 a body, they are innocent. We mention this by way of 
 defence of the underserved calumny brought against these 
 long persecuted people, who were not at all the authors or 
 instigators of the Minister rebellion. 
 
 Because Ana-Baptists were involved with the fanatics 
 at Minister, in their zeal for liberty, Pedo-Baptists dwell on 
 
193 
 
 the plenitude of the sin, to divert the mind from the ori- 
 ginators of the affray, and by blackening* the Baptists, 
 they leave a happy comparison for the excesses of their fa- 
 vorites. Had no Baptists been mixed up in this affair, no 
 such people would have been allowed to exist at the time ; 
 for it is claimed even now by some of their writers that the 
 Baptists began with Roger Williams, who was not born 
 till ages afterwards. 
 
 Now Cardinal Hossins, who was chairman attheCouif- 
 cil of Trent and whose acquaintance with ancient history 
 is undisputable, says of these people: "If the truth of re- 
 ligion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerful- 
 ness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the 
 opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer 
 than those of the Ana-Baptists, since there have been none 
 for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more 
 grievously punished." ( This one sentence carries us back 
 as a denomination to the year 340, and admitted by this 
 learned and honest historian.) 
 
 We cannot close this brief sketch of the rise and prog- 
 ress of the Baptists, without alluding to one more of our 
 ancient brethren so distinguished in the Church history. 
 The beloved and eloquent Menno Simon was born in the 
 year 1496, at Witmarsum, in Friesland. He was a Roman 
 priest, but had little knowledge of the Bible. For a time, 
 he disdained to examine the Testament, but becoming to 
 some extent alarmed about his situation, he was induced 
 to read the Scriptures, and while reading, he was also at- 
 tracted to the writings of Luther, and became convinced of 
 the errors of Popery. Among the thousands that suffered 
 death for Ana-Baptism, was one Snyden, who was behead- 
 ed. The constancy of this man to his views of a. believer's 
 baptism, preferring death to renouncing his sentiments, 
 .led Menno to inquire into the subject of baptism. As he 
 could not find infant baptism in the Bible, he consulted a 
 minister of that persuasion, and was told that it had no 
 
194 
 
 foundation in the Bible. He continued his researches till 
 he became confirmed that the Baptists were right. In 
 studying the word of God, he was deeply convicted of sin 
 and converted to the truth. He was baptized by immer- 
 sion, declaring that "he could not find any other baptism 
 than dipping in water, which was acceptable to God." He 
 devoted himself with great zeal and power in preaching 
 and writing, gathering and baptizing great numbers. 
 
 Menno's success as a preacher excited the envy and dis- 
 pleasure of the State parties, and in 1543 the Emperor of- 
 fered a reward for his arrest. But an interposing Provi- 
 dence opened a way for his escape. He fled into distant 
 provinces, founded churches, supplied them with pastors, 
 and established a printing press to defend the denomina- 
 tion against the reproaches of its enemies. His followers 
 were called Mennonites, and multiplied greatly. He con- 
 tinued his labors with wonderful success for twenty-five 
 years, preaching in England, and in other portions of Eu- 
 rope, to thousands u who received him gladly." He was 
 said to be a man of persuasive eloquence and captivated 
 his hearers everywhere he went . He was a shining mark of 
 his day, and though the arrows of death were aimed at his 
 noble breast, he evaded them all and died the Christian's 
 peaceful death and in the triumphs of faith, Jan. 15, 1561. 
 In him the Baptists had a leader worthy of their cause, 
 while his deeds of love remain embalmed in their memories 
 to this day. 
 
 Taking a retrospective view in concluding these sketch- 
 es, enough has been shown, that from the time of Pope 
 Slyvester, (during 7 the reign of Constantine, when tie united 
 the spiritual with the temporal power,) to prove the exist- 
 ence of a body of religious men, who ever opposed such a 
 union, and vigorously maintained freedom of conscience 
 and the entire separation of Church and State. 
 
 Nea nder, the great Church historian, considers this the 
 true historical origin of the sect of the Waldenses and Don- 
 
atists, who from this time, A. I). 830, with their successors, 
 ever opposed the union and held that "Christ in dying for 
 men, has given Christians the example to die, but not to 
 kill-" 
 
 Even since the Reformation, there is not a confession 
 of faith by any of the reformers which does not give to the 
 magistrate a coercive power in religion. Luther, as to the 
 Jews, 1 ' thought their Synagogues should be leveled with the 
 ground, their houses burnt, and their books taken from 
 them." Many of the Ana-Baptists were also put to death 
 by the Lutherans. Nor can Calvin be acquitted of the 
 death* of Servetus. Melancthon, Bucer, and many other of 
 the reformers favored his execution. In England the same 
 spirit prevailed . Henry VIII, burned Papists and Baptists 
 at the same stake, and Cranmers hands were stained with 
 the blood of pious women, while Queen Elizabeth, re-light- 
 ed the fires of Smithfield, like her father, to burn the Ana- 
 Baptists and Catholics. King James, resolved to break 
 the spirit of the Non-Conformists, if it would not bow. 
 
 Nor did the Presbyterians, when they obtained the 
 power, neglect using the authority of the State to prose- 
 cute. In Scotland, they forbade " all printers in the king- 
 dom from printing any confession of faith without warrant 
 signed by the clerk of the assembly/ ' In 1642, they or- 
 dered Koman Catholics to renounce their obstinacy, un- 
 der penalty of punishment and imprisonment. Down to 
 the period of the Revolution all the colonies, except Rhode 
 Island and Pennsylvania, had more or less an established 
 Church, and therefore religious persecution. 
 
 In New England the Congregationalists opposed liber- 
 ty of conscience and bitterly persecuted the Quakers a nd 
 Baptists. 
 
 The Episcopalians collected their tithes by law in Eng- 
 land, and their tobacco tax in America and conferred no 
 offices of State but upon their own members. As late as 
 
196 
 
 1768 and 1770 the land of the Baptists in Massachusetts 
 was sold to support the Episcopal clergy. 
 
 The Methodists, too, at one time, joined with the Epis- 
 copalians in favor of the support of religion by the State. 
 
 Of the millions of all denominations in this country, 
 who now enjoy the inestimable blessing of religious liberty 
 and of all those in Europe and the world, who are now ad- 
 vocating it in various degrees, few are aware how much 
 they are indebted for these enjoyments to the Baptists. 
 "The voice of public opinion is now heard and feared on 
 these subjects by all the spiritual tyrants of Europe. 
 
 Spain and Italy, the home of the Pope, have been com- 
 pelled to abandon the horrors of the inquisition. 
 
 The King of Prussia has set his seal against intoler- 
 ance and any established Church." 
 
 France affords religious protection to all. 
 
 The Mohammedan empire has sheathed her bloody 
 sword. In Burmah, where Judson, thirty or forty years 
 ago, was persecuted, the Baptists preach unmolested. 
 
 China, with her four hundred millions, so long shut up 
 in idolatry, no longer opposes the introduction of the true 
 gospel. Who can contemplate this wonderful and blessed 
 change of affairs without the warmest emotions? The 
 Baptists, guided by Him, h who doethall things well," after 
 these long ages of persecution and suffering, rejoice with 
 their brethren of all denominations who have united at last 
 with them in establishing religious and civil liberty through- 
 out all the nations of the earth, and erecting the banner of 
 Testis in evangelizing the world. 
 
 We have thus endeavored, though in a feeble and brief 
 manner, to trace the footsteps of the Baptists from the 
 days of the Apostles down to the seventeeth century. If 
 we have done no more than to excite a desire in the mind 
 of the reader of these pages, to peruse for himself the his- 
 tory of his fathers, to see what a chain of testimony 
 stretches along through centuries past, of their lives, of 
 
197 
 
 their suffering and labors, hand down to us the pure to 
 gospel of Christ, and the " ordinances once delivered to the 
 saints, ' ' we are fully repaid for our work of love. We think 
 we have shown that the great Baptist family now spread 
 over nearly every country of the globe, have never ceased 
 to exist, if not in name, yet in faith and practice, since our 
 Savior proclaimed his great commission to his Disciples. 
 It has afforded us mixed emotions in our researches for 
 truth. The witnesses we have referred to, their spotless 
 lives, their steadfastness to the laws of the Kedeemer, their 
 self-denial, their perseverance through suffering, darkness 
 and death, amid vice, wickedness and persecution, through 
 successive ages, have raised our admiration and gratitude 
 above our griefs, and our mental pleasures. 
 
OUTLINES OF HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Brier Creek Association 
 
 This Association was organized November 23rd, 1822, 
 at Brier Creek Church, in Wilkes county. The following are 
 the names of the delegates who composed the convention, 
 viz : From Brier Creek Church, Thomas Hasten, William 
 Gilliam, William King, John Martin and James Martin; 
 Bethel, William Dodson, Sr., Wm. Dodson, Jr., and George 
 Gilreath; Fishing Creek, Jesse Adams, Joshua Johnston 
 and W. W. Wright; Little River, John Swaim, James Rob- 
 inett and Archibald Brown ; Mitchell's River, Stephen Pot- 
 ter, John Marsh and Gideon Potter; Snow Creek, John 
 I Angel ; Roaring River, Thos. Douglas and Elisha Richard- 
 son; Zion Hill, Wm. Mitchell and Jonathan Woody ; Cool 
 ; Spring, Ambrose Johnson and David Jacks. The above 
 ! named Churches at that time formed a portion of the Yad- 
 ; kin Association. Rev. Thos. Masten was elected modera- 
 tor and Col. James Martin, clerk. The committee on Rules 
 and Decorum, were Thomas Wright, William King and 
 | William Dodson, Sr. The committee's report on Articles 
 of Faith and Rules of Decorum was adopted, the same be- 
 I ing substantially those held by this body at the present 
 time. This committee was composed of able and judicious 
 men. Thomas Wright represented his county (Surry) for 
 
200 
 
 nearly twenty years, and most of the time in the Senate of 
 the Legislature. 
 
 The Brier Creek Association never failed to meet in an- 
 nual session for 66 years, and once in 1834 it met semi- 
 annually, and during this long period it has persistently 
 held and practiced the principles of our fathers of past cen- 
 turies. Although its members were generally uneducated, 
 the records show a remarkable disposition among them to • 
 stick to the old landmarks of our fathers and the doctrines 
 taught by the Apostles. Many of its members wielded a 
 great influence for good in State and Church, and preached 
 the gospel with power- and effect, Thousands were con- 
 verted and added to the churches under their ministry. At ' 
 their annual meetings thousands came from long distances 
 to hear the word, which resulted in the conversion of vast 
 numbers. It appears from reading the old records, that 
 much more interest was manifested in their annual gath- 
 erings in regard to preaching and prayer, than those of 
 more modem times. Most of the time Avas spent in efforts j 
 for the unconverted, and in fact little else was done. A 
 regular correspondence was kept up with sister Associa- 
 tions, and the visits made from one to the other were re- 
 ceived with gladness and much good feeling. From the 
 time the Association was organized in 1822 up to 1838, 
 perfect harmony existed between the different bodies, in 
 faith and doctrine. During this period there seems to be 
 no account of the appointment of committees to report on j 
 benevolent objects, or discussions, on education, Sabbath 
 schools, missions, or temperance, or contributions for any 
 object, except to defray the printing of the minutes, and 
 occasionally small sums given to ministers who came as 
 visitors from a distance. And yet they seemed to have had 
 as much real enjoyment of religion, or more, than people 
 now a days. Such earnest and devoted preachers as Smith 
 Furgeson, Thomas Douglas, John Angel, (who served 
 eight years a soldier in the Revolutionary war) S. D. 
 
201 
 
 Swaim, Jesse 'Adams, Richard Jacks, Win. Goforth, William 
 Richards, Peter Owen, S. P. Smith, Z. B. Adams and his 
 brother, W. F. Adams, Win. Garner, and many others, 
 who spent long and useful lives in the ministry, have passed 
 over the river to receive their reward. 
 
 Along- about the year 1838, the agitation on the sub- 
 ject of home and foreign missions began, at first among 
 some of the Churches, and afterwards was taken up by the 
 Associations. The Mountain, the Three Fork, Lewis Fork 
 and Mayo, so long in harmony with the Brier Creek Asso- 
 ciation became offended with her for advocating the ob- 
 jects of the Baptist State Convention and withdrew their 
 fellowship. The following extract of a letter from the 
 Mountain Association, will serve to illustrate the com- 
 mencement of hostilities against the position taken by the 
 Brier Creek at this date. 
 
 " North Carolina, Ashe County, September 1st, 1838. 
 The Mountain Association to her Sister the Brier Creek : 
 
 Very Dear Brethren :— Feeling desirous to keep up a 
 correspondence with you, we submit to you the conditions 
 that we are willing still to correspond with you. That is, 
 we have dropped a correspondence with all Associations, 
 and agree to revive it on the following terms, viz : To ad- 
 vise the Churches to deal with any member of their body 
 who may join any of the institutions of the day," &c. 
 
 (Signed.) Tobias Long, Moderator. 
 
 Ft. Gentry, Clerk. 
 
 On motion the above proposed correspondence was 
 unanimously rejected y Some of the Churches in the Brier 
 Creek Avere much divided on the subject a nd for a time rent 
 asunder. While steadfastly holding on to the ancient land- 
 marks, and the cardinal principles of the New Testament, 
 not till the year A. D., 1850, 28 years of its existence, did 
 the Association go into active work respecting the object 
 of contention among other Associations and some of her 
 
202 
 
 own members. It was during this year that that noble 
 Christian man, Rev. J. J. James, at that time the editor of 
 the Biblical Recorder, and who is still living, visited the 
 body in the interests of general education and Missions. 
 He was heartily received by the Association and preached 
 with great ability. We find by reference to the minutes of 
 that year, that. Elder S. P. Smith and James Parks were 
 appointed a, committee to write a short report on Home 
 Missions, and elders Z. B. Adams and J. B. Green to Write 
 on Foreign Missions, and Elder W. F. Adams and Brother 
 David Edwards to write a report on the propriety of Sab- 
 bath Schools. Elder James got in a resolution " to estab- 
 lish a Female Academy." Thus the work of education and 
 missions began, and the next year (1851) we find admira- 
 ble resolutions on " Missions and Sabbath Schools." Thus 
 after a period of thirty years from the organization of the 
 Association, the objects of which have called forth so much 
 spirited and useful discussion, appear for the first time on 
 the records. In the year 1831, Dr. Samuel Wait, the found- 
 er and president of Wake Forest College, was traveling 
 through the State in the cause of education and visited the 
 Association, then in session at Bethel church. We have 
 heard him speak of this visit and the difficulties he en- 
 countered on account of his advocating home and foreign 
 missions. The Association at Bethel permitted him to 
 preach on Sunday and just before it adjourned the follow- 
 ing resolution was introduced by the clerk and adopted : 
 " Resolved, that this Association feel friendly disposed to- 
 wards the efforts making by the Baptist State Convention 
 of North Carolina for the more general spread of the gospel 
 and for the improvement of the ministry." Adjourned. 
 
 Thomas Douglas. Moderator. 
 
 James Martin, Clerk. 
 This was in 1831. There seems to be no further action 
 taken on the subject till the year 1850, as we have before 
 stated, a period of nearly 20 years. The denomination 
 
203 
 
 had no religious newspaper in the State, in fact, none of 
 the other denominations had any up to this time. The 
 Baptist State Convention came into existence in 1830, and 
 at once began its great work, to get the churches and As- 
 sociations to unite their efforts for the spread of the Gos- 
 pel, and encourage education. So the Baptists, who have 
 often been stigmatized by our brethren of other denomina - 
 tions as an "ignorant set," were the first in the State to 
 utilize the power of the press; Thomas Meredith having 
 established the Biblical Recorder in 1832, years before any 
 other religious journal was published in the State. So 
 Wake Forest College was the first denominational college 
 in the State, beginning operations in 1833, and is still the 
 leading institution and the best endowed and equipped in 
 the State. The Brier Creek Avas one of the original four- 
 teen Associations to aid in these useful and indispensable 
 enterprises, and among the earliest representatives with 
 her sons in the college. But still, as a general thing, the 
 masses were slow to seize on to anything new, and moved 
 with great caution. Doctor Wait stated to us that he 
 found these Baptists of the mountains immvoable as the 
 rocks in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, although 
 they looked upon him at first with suspicion, and that he 
 had sometimes to spread down his blanket under the trees 
 by the roadside to repose at night, rather than impose him- 
 self upon their hospitality ; and yet when they fully under- 
 stood his mission among them he was always a welcome 
 guest . The strong native talent of the preachers and their 
 zeal, excited his admiration and won his affections, al- 
 though they then differed with him on the subject of mis- 
 sions. 
 
 In the year 1834, the Association was visited by the 
 lamented Rev. N. A. Pnrefoy, as agent of the State con- 
 vention, and after a sermon by him on Sunday , a collection 
 was taken up amounting to $ 16.51, for the objects of the 
 convention, so feeble was the interest felt at this time. 
 
204 
 
 That talented preacher, John Culpepper, was in the As- 
 sociation in 1836, and the eloquent William Hill Jordan, 
 in 1847, and created much enthusiasm by their irresistible 
 power and influence in the cause of religion. In 1851 Rev. 
 S. P. Smith rode as missionary in the bounds of the Asso- 
 ciation and was supported by liberal contributions. In 
 1852, there was much dissension among some of the 
 churches regarding the order of the Sons of Temperance, 
 and many were excluded from the Church for joining that 
 society, the objection being mainly on account of its being 
 a secret society. This agitation was kept up for a time 
 with much bitterness, and gave rise to the Taylorsville As- 
 sociation ( iioav the Brushy Mountain ) which adopted tem- 
 perance as one of its cardinal features. After a few years 
 this contention was reconciled and harmony restored. The 
 opposition to the various benevolent institutions in the 
 Brier Creek, and in most of the others, died away, and from 
 year to year, as these subjects are discussed with increased 
 interest, it seems strange to us of this age that there ever 
 could have been any such feeling of opposition among these 
 noble followers of Christ. 
 
 For many years it was the custom of the Brier Creek 
 Association to appoint some one of its members to write 
 what they called a circular letter every year to be read be- 
 fore the body, on some doctrinal subject, and printed in 
 their minutes. Some of these letters would do credit to our 
 ablest divines and are worthy of a Avider circulation . For 
 instance, the one written by the Rev. S. P. Smith, in 1847, 
 in which the question, "What is« a Church?" is clearly 
 stated and argued in a fair and impartial manner. 
 
 The question propounded is one about which theolo- 
 gians of all denominations generally differ, but it is an- 
 swered in an able and lucid style. The one written by Rev. 
 J. P. Adams in 1858 on " covetousness " ought to be re- 
 published. 
 
 The Duty of Churches to their Pa stors, written in 1 805 
 
205 
 
 by Rev. Y. Jordan, gives us briefly a lesson that should be 
 impressed upon every Church in the Association ; and one 
 of the best essays on that difficult subject, The Doctrine of 
 Election, is handled in a masterly manner by Rev. J. A. 
 Martin, a layman, in the year 1868. 
 
 The custom of writing these circular letters ceased in 
 the year 1869, 18 years ago, the last one having been writ- 
 ten by Franklin Cray, and in their place the time is consum- 
 ed in public discussion of various topics of much interest 
 and on reports of committees which attract large crowds of 
 people eager to hear and learn something of the great work 
 now in progress in the Christian world. The good order 
 and decorum observed at these meetings and the adherence 
 to strict parliamentary usages would surprise the American 
 Senate and put to shame the noisy arid boisterous Houses 
 of the English Parliament. 
 
 The plan of organizing each successive year in the elec- 
 tion of its officers by ballot and the mode of conducting 
 their sessions is different from any other Christian body on 
 the face of the globe. The rights of private members and 
 the liberty reserved by the individual churches are striking 
 characteristics of American freedom, and impress the by- 
 stander with the idea that Christ alone is the Head of the 
 Church. The ministers are but the servants of the church- 
 es and the delegates are simply the annual representatives 
 chosen by the members of each church. 
 
 For 67 years the Brier Creek Association has called to- 
 gether these Baptists of the mountain country to consult 
 together about the great mission of our Savior to the 
 earth, and devise plans to build up and extend his kingdom 
 among men by the conversion of sinners and to aid in the 
 final redemption of the world. 
 
 Ha ving thus briefly outlined the history of this Associ- 
 ation, we proceed now to give some biographical sketches 
 of some of its principle members, some of those who have 
 gone up to the promised land and some who are still lin- 
 gering on the shores of time. 
 
206 
 
 ITS MODERATORS. 
 
 1st. Rev. Thomas Masten was the first elected modera- 
 tor in 1822, when the Association was organized . He ser ved 
 two years. He was a member of Brier Creek church and his 
 remains lie in the church cemetery. He lived a long- and 
 useful life. He Avas pastor of his church a s far back as 1 802 
 and served several years. 
 
 2nd. William Dodson was chosen moderator in 1824. 
 and served two years. He was a man of great force of 
 character, and one of the leading ministers of his day. He 
 was a Virginian by birth, and the uncle of that sainted 
 . missionary of the cross, Rev. Elias Dodson, who died a few 
 years ago in the city of Wilmington, and who was so much 
 loved throughout the entire State. The ashes of Elder 
 Wm. Dodson are in the graveyard of Three Fork's*ehurch. 
 in Alexander county. He lived to a ripe old age. 
 
 3rd. Rev. John Walker succeeded William Dodson, and 
 served three years. His name appears often in the early 
 records, and he must have been a man of extended useful- 
 ness, though the writer has no statistics of his general 
 character. 
 
 4th. Thomas Douglas was the fourth moderator and 
 served four years. He is said to have been an earnest and 
 effective speaker, and was looked upon as one of the best 
 men in his day. He was generally chosen to preach on 
 stated occasions to large congregations. He lived to be 
 quite old and died, I believe, in the county of Ashe where he 
 had always lived. 
 
 5th. Smith Furgeson came in as the fifth moderator 
 and served four years. The writer was well acquainted 
 with this devoted Christian minister. We haA 7 e rarely 
 known a man of greater usefulness. He served his genera- 
 tion as a preacher for over half a century. His sermons 
 were full of the gospel and delivered with so much simplic- 
 ity and zeal a s rarely to fail to excite his audience to tears. 
 
207 
 
 Although like those mentioned before, wfthdiit an educa- 
 tion, he was well versed in the Scriptures, and his spotless 
 character gave him great favor with the people. He lived 
 to be very old, and died in Wilkes county, his native home, 
 leaving a large circle of relatives and friends to follow after. 
 
 6th. Jesse Adams served as moderator thirteen years 
 in succession and up to his death. He was a, model minis- 
 ter, a good executive officer, and universally esteemed. He 
 raised a large family, and three of his sons followed him in the 
 ministry, W. F. and Z. B. and J. P., the latter still living. 
 He died in the year 1849, in Wilkes county. Resolutions 
 in regard to his death are found in the minutes of the next 
 session. Although a man of little education, his pure life 
 and zeal for the cause won the confidence of the world. 
 
 7th. Solomon D. Swaim succeeded Elder J. Adams and 
 served for fifteen years. He was born, lived and died in 
 Yadkin county, Febuary 23rd, 1865, being 57 years of age. 
 He was ordained as a minister at Swaim 's church in 1812 
 and was a successful preacher. He was an active and ag- 
 gressive man and baptized many hundreds of people. He 
 always exhibited the spirit of his Master and was as harm- 
 less as a dove. A large circle of relatives and friends are 
 left, to follow his shining light. We suppose the death of 
 no man in this country was more universally regretted 
 than Bro. Swaim's. He was called away in the very prime 
 of his usefulness. 
 
 8th. J. A. Martin, a layman, now served as moderator 
 for two years and made a good officer. 
 
 0th. Elder Thomas Howell served two 3*ears and was 
 known as a good and zealous man. 
 
 10th. Elder W. F. Adams, one of the sons of the old 
 moderator, (Jesse Adams) was chosen to preside over the 
 body for 6 years, when failing health forced him to decline. 
 He was pastor of old Brier Creek church for a period of 
 thirty years. He was not only an acceptable preacher but 
 a valuable citizen and neighbor. He lies buried at li is own 
 
208 
 
 residence in the Yadkin river valley in Wilkes comity. 
 
 11th. Richard W. Wooten was elected in 1875, and serv- 
 ed three years. Bro. Wooten gained the confidence of his 
 brethren and is still a useful minister of the gospel and al- 
 ways present at the Associations, giving aid and counsel to 
 his brethren. 
 
 12th. L. P. Gwaltney was chosen in 1878 and served 
 for six years and declined to be re-elected, preferring a seat 
 on the floor. He has since organized an Association com- 
 posed of the churches of Alexander county in which he re- 
 sides. This popular and much beloved minister of the gos- 
 pel received but a partial education at W T ake Forest Col- 
 lege, and yet few ministers in the State surpass him in the 
 use of the English language, or pulpit eloquence. Although 
 comparatively a young man, he has gained an enviable 
 reputation among his ministering brethren. 
 
 13th. Elder William M e yres succeeded Elder Gwaltney 
 in 1884 and still presides over the body. Brother My res, 
 though deprived of an education, by his indomitable ener- 
 gy and zeal for his Master, has large influence over the 
 churches, and has succeeded in erecting new and comfortable 
 church edifices wherever he is called as pastor. He is an 
 active co-operator in every good work. 
 
 There were other ministers in this Association, besides 
 the moderators, who deserve even more than a passing- 
 notice. 
 
 Rev. Win. Pool, of Little River church, in Alexander 
 county, was a member of this bod}'. He died as he had al- 
 ways lived, with his armor bright. Four of his sons are 
 ministers, James B., W. A., C. C. and Daniel W T ., all active, 
 intelligent and prominent gospel workers and popular pas- 
 tors, preaching the word with success. 
 
 Rev. S. P. Smith was for a. long time a leading light in 
 this body. His preaching was attended with power and 
 hundreds were converted under his ministry. He left the 
 Association during the excitement upon the mission and 
 
209 
 
 temperance question and formed the Taylorsville Associa- 
 tion and became its moderator. The Taylorsville at a la- 
 ter period became the Brushy Mountain, and Bro. Smith's 
 church was attached to the Elkin. He was the first mis- 
 sionary officially appointed to ride and preach in the Brier 
 Creek Association, aided by the Baptist Sta/te convention, 
 and Avas the agent for several years of the Western conven- 
 tion, and was the first Baptist minister to preach in the 
 old town of Morgan ton-. He was a zealous advocate of 
 education, missions and temperance, and when opposed, 
 his convictions of right rendered him more bold and fear- 
 less. Like some of our other ministers he was at a later 
 period of his life drawn into politics. In 1861, he was 
 elected, with Dr. James Calloway, a member of the State 
 convention in opposition to secession. In 1863 his friends 
 run his name for Congress, but he would not enter the cam- 
 paign. At the close of the war in 1865, he was chosen a 
 member of the State convention to restore the State to the 
 Union. He was elected to the Senate in 1868, and served 
 with many other ministers who took part in that body. 
 This closed his political aspirations. He had many ups 
 and downs both in religious and political life, but remained 
 firm and immovable in his convictions, and in the evening 
 of his career his star set in calmness and repose. We have 
 heard this man preach some of the most soul-stirring ser- 
 mons to which we have ever listened. Though of limited 
 education, his bearing and manner in the pulpit were 
 attractive and commanding. He w r as annually elected 
 pastor of the old Fishing Creek church for 48 years and 
 served till his death. 
 
 Rev. William Garner, an uneducated man, preached for 
 many years in the bounds of this Association and delighted 
 more in baptizing the willing and happy candidate than 
 any man we ever knew. Thousands were converted under 
 his simple but earnest style of preaching the gospel. He 
 would often compose his own songs to suit the occasion. 
 
210 
 
 He died in Wilkes county and his aged companion still 
 survives him. 
 
 Rev. W. G. Brown, known as ".The Sweet Singer in Is- 
 rael," has been a constant attendant on these meetings for 
 a long number of years. He is an able expounder of the 
 Scriptures and a popular pastor, for many years the mod- 
 erator of the old Yadkin Association. Having no educa- 
 tion he supplied himself with a selected library after he was 
 called to the ministry, and by close application speaks the 
 English language to perfection, and has really an elegant 
 and beautiful style. To listen to his discourses one would 
 take him to be a highly educated preacher. He has raised 
 up three sons to be ministers. One, Judson, died in the 
 State of Missouri where he was a, leading spirit. Another, 
 Sandford, a young man, has risen rapidly to the top of his 
 profession and is now the secretary of the Missouri Baptist 
 State Convention. Another, Solomon, is preaching in this 
 his native State, well versed in doctrine. 
 
 We might continue these biographical sketches to 
 great length, but we fear to encumber the pages of this lit- 
 tle volume. This mountain country seems to have been 
 peculiarly productive of Baptist preachers. By reference 
 to one of the late minutes of this body, we see no less than 
 thirty ordained ministers enrolled on its register. Educa- 
 tion is encouraged, Sabbath schools are established, mis- 
 sions liberally sustained, and the cause of Christ built up 
 in our waste places. Fountains of Scriptural and literary 
 knowledged are opened up by these zealous Baptists of the 
 old Brier Creek, " which shall make glad the city of our 
 God" 
 
 Other Associations have been formed out of its bor- 
 ders, new churches springing up each year, and a millen- 
 nium dawn is visible in the horizon for these co-laborers of 
 Christ. If this Association has done so much in the past, 
 much more is expected to be done in the future. "With her 
 host of leaders and her army in the ranks, victory shall be 
 
211 
 
 inscribe on her banners, and her captives numbered by the 
 thousand ! 1 So mote it be. 
 
 THE CLERKS. 
 
 1st. Col. James Martin was elected clerk when the As- 
 sociation was organized on the 23rd day of November, 
 1822, and served continuously for twenty-five years. By 
 careful examination of the minutes we find that he never 
 failed to attend as clerk of the body till the day of his 
 death. He was a man of great influence in Church and 
 county, raised a large and highly respected family, and 
 being a man of ample means he was liberal to the poor and 
 a zealous friend to all benevolent institutions. The doors 
 of his house were always open to the weary traveller, and a 
 home for the preachers. He was one of the first advocates 
 in this country for missions and education and aided in es- 
 tablishing Wake Forest College. He died suddenly in the 
 midst of his usefulness in the 70th year of his age and was 
 buried in Brier Creek churchyard in the valley of the Yad- 
 kin. His ancestors came from Virginia and settled along 
 this valley and took an active part in the Revolution. 
 
 2nd. Rev. S. P. Smith succeeded Col. Martin in 1840 
 and served three years. * We have before alluded to him as 
 a preacher. 
 
 3rd. Elisha Feltz filled the office three years. He wrote 
 a beautiful hand. 
 
 4th. Rev. W. F. Adams filled the office satisfactorily 
 nine years, from 1852 to 1801. 
 
 5th. He was succeeded by J. A. Martin, a prominent 
 and worthy layman. 
 
 0th. Rev. R. W. Wooten, two years afterwards was 
 elected and served three years. 
 
 7th. Rev. I. N. Haynes was elected in 1805. 
 
 8th. Hix Hendren, next came in and served three years. 
 
 9th. In 1870, E. B. Hendren was elected and accept- 
 ably filled the office to 1874. 
 
212 
 
 10th. Rev. E. N. Gwyn, was then chosen and for his pe- 
 culiar clerical talent was called the "model Clerk." He 
 still fills this important office, (1887.) He also rode 
 throughout the bounds of the Association for some years, 
 as agent and missionary for Sabbath schools and the build- 
 ing up of new churches, and his labors have been crowned 
 with success. Whether as clerk, missionary, or pastor, his 
 indefatigable energy never tires. He is an important fac- 
 tor in this large and intelligent body of Christians' Hebe- 
 longs to a highly intelligent Pedo-Baptist family, and was 
 raised up in that faith. By reading and study he was 
 converted to Baptist principles, and boldly, though hum- 
 bly, entered their, ranks and was ordained to the ministry. 
 
 The following is a list or names of ministers belonging 
 to the Brier Creek Association in 1886, viz : 
 
 J. P. Adams, A.N. Barker, J.W. Burchett,C. C.Brown, 
 W. Dowel, A. Gilreath, S. S. Goforth, A. Gooden, L. P. 
 Gwaltney, J. P. Gwaltney, W. P. Gray, E. N. Gwyn, J. S. 
 Forester, I. N. Haynes, I. Hollar, E. Hollar, J. N.Gregory, 
 Y. Jordan, W. A. Myers, B. Mathews, J. H. Martin, T. W. 
 Paris, I). W. Pool, S. F. Simmons, W. C. Segraves, R. W. 
 Wooten, J. G. Weatherman, and Thos. Wright. 
 
 Last year (1887) twenty-six churches, with a member- 
 ship of two thousand five hundred and eighty-five com- 
 municants, composed the body. We may add in conclu- 
 sion, that while the churches, at their own option, unite in 
 forming an Association they delegate to it no pow er over 
 them, still reserving their independency, and acknowledging 
 no supremacy but Christ, their living Head and Governor. 
 
 In taking our leave of collecting these materials for the 
 future historian, we tender our gratitude to Him for his 
 goodness and mercy, and pray for His blessings upon the 
 members of our beloved Association. 
 
THE lOOTH flNNIVEI^SAI^Y OP THB 
 
 Brier (Sreek <f hurch, 
 
 AUGUST 10th, 1883. 
 
 ( ABBREVIATED . ) 
 
 By Prof. J. H. Foote. 
 — o — 
 
 Having been requested a short time ago to deliver the 
 Centennial Address before the Brier Creek Association, 
 which holds its session here at old Brier Creek church to cele- 
 brate its birth of 100 years ago, I enter upon the task as- 
 signed me with little hope of interesting so large and intel- 
 ligent an assembly. The subject I have chosen as appro- 
 priate for the occasion is "The Progress of Baptist Prin- 
 ciples." 
 
 The study of the history and lives of our ancestors is 
 certainly of great advantage. Who among us would not 
 delight to hear of the good deeds and brave acts of our 
 fathers? The child sits and listens with animation as his 
 sire tells of the thrilling adventures and. hair-breadth es- 
 capes of his forefathers, and some times their tragical end. 
 And yet how wonderfully ignorant we are of our origin and 
 whence we came. Many of us scarcely know even the names 
 of our grand-fathers. But if this be true of our own bio- 
 graphies, it is no wonder we know so little of the rise # and 
 progress of our religious ancestors. I propose, briefly, 
 
215 
 
 then, to trace their footsteps during the first centuries of 
 the Christian era, and more especially to speak at length 
 of their progress during the last 100 years. 
 
 Ecclesiastical, or church history, has employed the re- 
 searches of the greatest scholars of the world. Our people 
 read the ancient and modern histories of nations, and gen- 
 erally neglect to inform themselves about the history of the 
 churches which succeeded those planted in the days of the 
 Apostles, and which have existed through centuries of 
 the fiercest persecutions and martyrdoms to the present 
 time. Witnesses for the truth have lived and maintained 
 the doctrine and ordinances of the churches which the in- 
 spired Apostles committed to their keeping through all ages. 
 
 For 1500 years that Man of Sin, Apostate Rome, has 
 employed armies and crusades, inquisitions and tortures, 
 prisons, famine and the stake to break in pieces the king- 
 dom of Christ— the kingdom spoken of in the second chap- 
 ter of Daniel, represented by a stone cut out of the moun- 
 tain without hands, which should break into pieces the 
 kingdoms of earth and eventually fill the world. But who 
 is it that, for sixteen centuries, have alone fought with 
 Antichrist — 14 the scarlet harlot, riding on the beast with 
 ten horns, drunk with the blood of the saints ? " Our breth- 
 ren of other denominations can go back only to the Refor- 
 mation to begin their history, while we, as Baptists, trace 
 the footprints of our brethren as witnesses for Jesus 
 through the dark ages of the past, hid among the Alpine 
 rocks of Europe, or wandering through those mountains 
 and deep forests where the caverns in which they were con- 
 cealed from their enemies were made to echo their songs of 
 praise to Him who "kept them as in the hollow of His 
 hand." From the days of the Apostles down to the 19th 
 century they "have kept the faith once delivered to the 
 saints.'' 
 
 President Edwards says, "God was pleased to main- 
 tain an uninterrupted succession of witnesses throughout 
 the whole Dark Ages, in Britain as well as in France and 
 Germany, who held to the faith and practices of the Apos- 
 tles." Dr. Davis, the Bishop of Monmouth, says: "The 
 ancient Britons kept their Christianity pure, unmixed with 
 human tradition, as they received it from the disciples of 
 Christ, adhering strictly to the Word of (fod as their only 
 rule of faith and practice.'' 
 
216 
 
 By reference to the Historical Chart, published by A. B, 
 Lyman, and who was not a Baptist, but an impartial wri- 
 ter, we form some idea of what it cost our brethren to hand 
 down to us these sacred principles. He says that during 
 the middle ages "Pope Gregory sent Augustine, with 40 
 monks, to the British isles, who wished to impose their 
 creeds upon the saints, and who refusing to give up the 
 right to worship God in their own way, after fasting and 
 prayer tor three whole days, 1200 of them w T ere put to 
 death in the most cruel maimer!" Soon after this, says 
 the same writer, "in the Council of Orleans, three men are 
 burned to death for denying the sacrifice of the Mass;" 
 "and that in the 12th century, during the time of Pope In- 
 nocent III, twelve hundred thousand of these innocent Chris- 
 tians were slain by the Inquisition!" And that for up- 
 wards of 800 years was a, scene of bloody persecution, while 
 one million five hundred thousand more were destroyed by 
 the Papal Church ! ' ' Reineri as, the Inquisitor General, sent 
 against the Waldenses A. D. , 1240, says : "These sectarians 
 are the most dangerous of all heretics. They have existed 
 since the days of Pope Sylvester, A. D. 840, and some say 
 since the days of the Apostles. They declare themselves to 
 be the Apostles' successors, and hold ours to be the 'whore 
 of Babylon . ' " (See Rev. , 17th ch . ) This is what Reinerius 
 said of our brethren . Cardinal Hosius, the learned defender 
 of the Pope, and who presided at the Council of Trent, says, 
 "That the doctrines of Luther and Calvin are nearly the 
 same as the Waldenses held hundreds of years before their 
 day." Tertullian and Origen, the greatest luminaries of 
 the third century, say that "in the year 130 Lucius, the 
 King of AVales, was baptized, and was the first king in the 
 world to embrace Christianity." 
 
 Now r , it is a historical fact these Christians, called by 
 their different names of Waldenses, Albigenses, held 
 and practiced the very same principles and doctrines as the 
 Baptists of the present day. They are our brethren, and 
 firmly held the only true Church of Christ to be "an assem- 
 bly of baptized believers" On this account the Baptists 
 may be considered the only Christian community which has 
 stood since the days of the Apostles and preserved the pure 
 doctrine of the Gospel during all the Dark Ages. We appeal, 
 then, to the pages of history in which the most eminent 
 scholars give the clearest proof, that not in one country 
 
217 
 
 alone, but through the (Various kingdoms of the world, a 
 succession of Baptist communities have come down to us. 
 "all striped and scarred and blood-covered, a line of mar- 
 tyrs, slain by prison, by fire and by sword ! We hail these 
 as the true and faithful witnesses of Jesus during all those 
 fearful ages when the Man of Sin 
 
 "Sat upon the seven hills, 
 And from his tin-one of darkness ruled the world'!" 
 
 During* the first three centuries we see the Baptists 
 formed the only true evangelical society, and that during 
 this time the Xovatian Baptists established separate and 
 independent churches, which have continued to the present 
 time. The Oriental Baptist churches, with their successors, 
 the Paulicians, continued in their purity till the lOtli cen- 
 tury, when they visited France, where they grew and spread 
 till the army of the Crusades scattered them, or as Ave be- 
 fore stated, drowned over one million of these unoffending 
 Christians in blood! But we have not time to more than 
 briefly allude to these truths, astonishing as they may 
 seem. Let us then approach nearer our own time and see 
 how these principles have prevailed. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim, the distinguished German writer, in ids 
 History, volume 3rd, page 79, says: "In almost all the 
 countries of Europe an unspeakable number of Baptists 
 preferred death in its worst forms to a retraction of their 
 sentiments. Neither the view of the flames that were kin- 
 dled to consume them, nor the ignominy of the gibbet, nor 
 the terrors of the sword could shake their invincible con- 
 stancy or make them abandon tenets tha/t appeared dearer 
 to them .than life and all its enjoyments."' It is true, says 
 this eminent and impartial author, "that many Baptists 
 suffered death, not on account of their being rebellious sub- 
 jects, but merely because they were judged to be incurable 
 heretics : for in -this century the error of limiting the ad- 
 ministration of baj)tism to adult persons only, and tlw 
 practice of re-baptizing such as had received that ordi- 
 nance in n state of infancy, were looked upon as most fla- 
 gitious and intolerable heresies. 1 ' 
 
 We look over into Protestant England in the year 1020, 
 203 years ago, and see that faithful Baptist minister, John 
 Bunyan, shut up in Bedford jail for twelve long years for 
 advocating these same principles, preaching from the iron 
 bars of his dark prison to the multitudes gathered around 
 
218 
 
 him. It was here and during his incarceration that he 
 wrote that immortal little book, " The Pilgrim's Progress,' 7 
 which will ever remain a monument to his memory and a 
 rich legacy to millions unborn, while the names of themon- 
 archs who persecuted him will forever perish from the face 
 of the earth. 
 
 Passing rapidly over the succession of Baptist churches 
 in England and Wales, it is an established fact that a ma- 
 jority of the churches plan ted in America from 1645 to 1730 
 were organized by Welsh Baptists, and constituted on 
 Articles of Faith brought over by them from the mother 
 churches. To Dr. John Clarke belongs the honor of organ- 
 izing the first Baptist church in America, in the year 1 620, 
 and not to Roger Williams as many have asserted. 
 
 But I wish to pause here, to present to this large and 
 very attentive audience another view of this subject, as 
 true as it is astonishing to many who hear me. It is this : 
 That to the Baptists belong the honor of establishing civ* 
 il liberty. Our form of church government planned the 
 basis of American freedom, and has bequeathed both civil 
 and religious liberty to one half the world, and is now rock- 
 ing the other half to its centre, crumbling the thrones of its 
 tyrants and arousing oppressed humanity to rise and as- 
 sert its rights and overthrow its oppressors. 
 
 We appeal to Jefferson, the second President of the 
 United States and the greatest statesman of America, a 
 man of truth and benevolence, and not an infidel as some 
 have slanderously asserted. Some eight years before the 
 Revolution Mr. Jefferson was a regular attendant at the 
 meetings of a small Baptist church in his vicinity, and hav- 
 ing invited Andrew Tribble, its pastor, home to dine with 
 him, Mr. T. asked him what he thought of their form of 
 church government, who replied, " that it had struck him 
 with great force, and had interested him no little; that he 
 had concluded that it would he the best pla'n of government 
 for the American colonies.^ It is plain to be seen that his 
 ideas of a free government which he obtained from attend- 
 ing Mr. Tribble's church flow, throughout that immortal 
 instrument, the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 We appeal to Judge Story, Chief Justice, and the great- 
 est jurist in America, who said : "To Roger Williams belongs 
 the honor of establishing in this country a code of laws in 
 which we read for the first time since Christianity ascended 
 
219 
 
 the throne of the Caesars, the declaration that conscience 
 should be free, mid man allowed to worship his Creator as 
 he believed his duty required him" 
 
 We appeal to Bancroft, the most eminent historian in 
 America. He says that " Roger Williams, when but 30 
 years of age, had matured a doctrine which secures him im- 
 mortality of fame, as its application has given religious 
 peace to the American world." 
 
 We turn to the Old World— to Germany, the land of 
 scholars and historians. Gervinus, the most astute histo- 
 rian of his age, says : " Roger Williams, having fled for his 
 life from Massachusetts in 1636, founded the colony of 
 Rhode Island. Here in his little State the fundamental 
 principles of civil and religious liberty prevailed before they 
 were taught in any of the schools of philosophy in Europe. 
 From this little State they have extended throughout the 
 United States. They have given laws to a continent, and 
 lie at the bottom of all democratic movements which are 
 now shaking the nations of Europe." 
 
 Coming down a little later, Patrick Henry, in Virginia, 
 gave the final blow to the separation of the Church and 
 State. The people were taxed to support the clergy of the 
 Episcopal Church, and the taxes were collected just as they 
 are now in this country. A circumstance occurred which 
 brought to the front the great patriot of Virginia. The 
 taxes were assessed for a certain amount of money per cap- 
 ita, or a certain number of pounds of tobacco, it being op- 
 tional with the people which they would pay. The price of 
 tobacco suddenly advanced; these preachers refused to take 
 the money and demanded the tobacco. The people ap- 
 pealed to the courts. Patrick Henry, who now was scarce- 
 ly known, appeared for the people, and by his thrilling elo- 
 quence drove the clergymen from their seats, and not only 
 defeated their claim to the tobacco, but succeeded in break- 
 ing down that unjust and iniquitous statute, and forever 
 abolished it ; so that these clergymen had to depend upon 
 their own characters for their support. The Baptists were 
 now free. Patrick Henry, though not a Baptist, was their 
 legal defender, and from the very first, as all historians 
 agree, they united with him to a man in espousing the cause 
 of the Revolution. Throughout the whole country, from 
 Georgia to Massachusetts, they were everywhere publicly 
 committed to the cause, beyond any other religious denom- 
 
220 
 
 iiiatioii, and as such their houses of worship were destroy- 
 ed wherever the British forces went. So we see " they prac- 
 ticed what they preached," and were ever ready to defend 
 Avith their lives those principles of liberty bequeathed to 
 them by their ancestors. We rejoice to know that these 
 principles are more rapidly progressing' in the last 100 
 years ; they are silently at work permeating all countries of 
 Europe, Asia and Africa. As they progress, side by side 
 with them, the arts and sciences advance — the one is the 
 promoter of the other. Before these principles were ac- 
 knowledged, there was but little incentive to discovery and 
 invention. Before that, 100 years ago, there was no rail- 
 road in this country, no steamboats, no telegraphs, no tel- 
 ephones, no Sabbath schools, and only now and then a 
 meeting house. Why, when this church was organized 10C) 
 years ago, the " report'' says with only eleven members — 
 it was the only one in all the surrounding counties. What 
 a change! Look at Catholic Spain and infidel France, where 
 a little over 100 years ago our brethren were hunted down 
 for the slaughter, and their Bibles stacked and burnt. Xow 
 our missionaries preach the everlasting gospel among them 
 unmolested. In India where Judson gave up his life, there 
 is now the largest church membership in the world, num- 
 bering some 14,000 communicants. In China , whose ports 
 100 years ago were shut up from the civilized world, our 
 own Yates, the prince of missionaries, is now* preaching an (1 
 sending the Bible to her four hundred millions of benighted 
 heathen. 
 
 In Italy the Pope, who for 1500 years pursued the Bap- 
 tists with fire and sword, is shut up in the Vatican and is 
 afraid '' to show his head.'' Our beloved Taylor is preach- 
 ing the name of Jesus in the Eternal City, where Peter Avas 
 crucified, and Avhere Paul "finished his course." In Lon- 
 don, the metropolis of the world, Charles H. Spurgeon ranks 
 as the highest pulpit orator of the globe. In Russia, in the 
 isles of the sea, -'from Greenland's icy mountain" to the 
 burning sands of Africa, these ever blessed principles are 
 spreading, ameliora ting and Christianizing the unfortun ate 
 millions of our race. Who, then, may not feel proud to be 
 numbered among the successors of "such a cloud of wit- 
 nesses? " Who would feel ashamed to belong to the great 
 Baptist family Avho hold up to the people of the nineteenth 
 century such a glorious record? 
 
221 
 
 In the year 1727, the first Baptist church was organ- 
 ized in North Carolina in Camden county at Shiloh, and 
 remains to this day. In 1729 it numbered 132 members, 
 one to eVery 312 population. "When Brier Creek church 
 was constituted, there were about 80 Baptist churches in 
 the State with about 6,000 members. Ten years ago, ac- 
 cording to the best information, there were 1,000 Baptist 
 churches, and one-eighth of the whole population were Ba p- 
 tists. According to the illustrated Almanac, published this 
 year by the editors of the Raleigh News and ObservernewH- 
 paper, there were 214,082 Baptists in the State, while all 
 the other denominations added together number 182.900. 
 thus giving the Baptists a majority of 31,182 over all 
 But according to the estimate in the Baptist Almanac, we 
 have a majority of 44,375 over all. In the United States 
 there were only about 100,000 Baptists 100 years ago. 
 To-day they number over 4,000,000. 
 
 Let us pause here and take a telescopic view of the next 
 100» years . If the advocates of these principles continue to 
 increase in the same proportion, what a host of witnesses 
 will celebrate the next centennial ! Not one of us will be here 
 of this large congregation to enjoy that magnificent gath- 
 ering, but we may leave for them to behold our footprints 
 by our works for the Master. Those immortalspiritsthat 
 planted- this church gaze down upon us to-day from the 
 skies, while their mortal bodies have mouldered to dust in 
 yonder churchyard, or scattered about in other localities. 
 Let us emulate their deeds of love and cherish their memo- 
 ries. The Clevelands, the Bakers, the Gilliams, the Adams", 
 the Martins, the Aliens, and that devoted old pastor, Thom- 
 as Masten, have all gone to their reward, after long years 
 of labor in their Master's vineyard. 
 
 My task is done. I have thus feebly and briefly traced 
 the line of our ancestors through suffering and persecution, 
 who have left in our hands these principles of sacred liberty 
 to preserve and transmit to the latest generations, when 
 there will be but k 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism." 
 (Ephesifins 4-.").) 
 
 " Better, though difficult, the right way to g'o, 
 Thnn^wjrnjg-, though easy, where the end is woe." 
 
222 
 
 THE BAPTISTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, 
 
 [Wilmington Star— Written by T. B. Kinsbiny, D. D., One of the Editors.] 
 
 The first Baptist church in North Carolina was organ- 
 ized by the Eev. Paul Palmer, in 1727, in Camden county, 
 and is still in existence. The first Baptist Associat ion was 
 that of Sandy Creek, formed in 1758, and composed of 
 churches in the centre of the State. This was the third As- 
 sociation in the United States, the Philadelphia having 
 been formed in 1707, and the Charleston in 1751. 
 
 The Baptist State convention, however, did not come 
 into existence till 1830, at which time there Avere in the 
 State fourteen Associations, two hundred and seventy -two 
 churches and 15,360 members. On the 20th of March of 
 that year, fourteen men, seven ministers and seven laymen, 
 met in the town of Greenville, Pitt county, in the house of 
 Dr. J. C. Gorham, and founded the institution which 'has 
 proved a bond of union and an efficient source of develop- 
 ment to the Baptists of the State. The constitution 
 adopted by the convention, and a wise and masterly ad- 
 dress commending it to the denomination, were written by 
 the Kev. Thomas Meredith, founder of the Biblical Re- 
 corder, the Baptist organ of the State, and grandfather of 
 the Rev. George Meredith Tolson, the present pastor of the 
 Brooklyn Baptist church of this city. 
 
 This convention is not a legislative or a judicial body : 
 it makes no laws, appoints no pastors, tries no cause in- 
 volving doctrine or character; indeed, it exercises no con- 
 trol whatever over the churches and Associations it repre- 
 sents, except the moral right inherent in the objects it com- 
 mends to their favor and support. 
 
 It is a voluntary assembly of the representatives of the 
 churches to consider the general interests of the Kingdom 
 of Christ; more especially home and foreign missions, 
 Christian education and Sunday schools. The polity of 
 the Baptist Church is peculiar. Each church is a sover- 
 eignty—an independent little republic— competent to man- 
 age its own affairs, and yet authorized to make no laws, 
 but simply to administer the laws which Jesus Christ, the 
 head of the Church, has Himself enacted for its government. 
 
223 
 
 This sovereignty, it is claimed, is inherent in each church, 
 and cannot be surrendered or Avaived, and yet for the pro- 
 motion of the cause of religion it has been found wise for 
 these independent churches to associate together and unite 
 their efforts in extending the truth. Hence, contiguous 
 churches form Associations ; the churches of many Associa- 
 tions unite in State conventions, and these State conven- 
 tions become constituent parts of a general convention, 
 comprehending all the Southern States. 
 
 The Baptists were the first denomination to utilize the 
 powers of the press ; Thomas Meredith having established 
 the Biblical Recorder in 1832, years before any other re- 
 ligious journal was published in the State. Wake Forest 
 College Avas the first denominational college in the State, 
 beginning operations in 1833, and the first Church Or- 
 phanage was that of the Baptists at Thomasville. which 
 has now been in existence about a year.