“Doubtless this mode of reasoning proves satisfactory to some, but we cannot participate in a faith which rests upon such evidence.”

He simply ignores and sets aside evidence contrary to all rules of honesty and fairness. Lord, help the people to see the truth!

Hibbard goes on to ask:

“Where, then, is the proof that John immersed? We know of none. But observe:

“1. Considering the vast multitudes that followed John, ‘much water’ was requisite for the convenience of baptism in any form. But as this will not obviate the point of difficulty with our opponents, we remark,

“2. That as the history does not inform us whether the ‘much water’ was needed for baptism or for some other purpose, we are left to conjecture the necessity of its demand by the light of circumstances. Now, we know that baptism may be performed in a small body of water. But there were other circumstances, besides, simple baptism, for which John was to make provision. In that country the mercury ranges in winter from forty to fifty degrees, and, in summer from eighty to one hundred, and in the plains at Jordan, where John was baptizing, often much higher. Water, therefore, was in constant demand, not only for baptizing, but more especially for their uses and for their beasts. And the necessity of the people John must see and provide for, whenever he would fix his position for baptizing, unless he would endanger the lives of the people.”

But all of this argument in reference to drinking water for the people and beasts is simply assumed. The “much water” spoken of is mentioned in connection with John's baptizing. The Methodists will produce any kind of an absurd argument. This argument is an insult to the enlightened and progressive spirit of the age. My dear reader, accept the truth; unite with the Church of Jesus Christ. Follow Christ in baptism.

LET US follow and expose Hibbard further in his strained hypothesis. The Methodists ought to plainly see from the groundless arguments of their own learned ministers that their position is false. They admit that “baptize” means immersion, but they say it also means sprinkling and pouring; and they take the position that all the baptisms of the New Testament were performed by sprinkling and pouring. How can we believe they are sincere? They are objects of pity. No amount of reasoning on the mode of John's baptism will cause an unbiased mind to believe that John did not baptize by immersion, If plain Scripture is to be twisted and strained according to Methodist rule on baptism, when we come to the great plan of salvation, in all of its other ramifications, we had just as well abandon the whole thing. We get more satisfaction and truth out of reading Col. Robert Ingersoll's “Mistakes of Moses” than we get out of these theories. But let us follow Hibbard further:

“We shall now inquire more particularly into the facts recorded in connection with John's baptism, with a view to ascertain the practicability of immersion. In doing this our observations will necessarily become more extended. In constructing our argument we shall direct our inquiries to three several particulars: the population of Palestine, what proportion of the entire population John baptized, and what length of time John was employed in his public ministry.

“1. The Population of Palestine.—The reader must not be startled to find a population in Palestine, in the commencement of the Christian era, vastly superior, in proportion to its extent of territory, to that of our own country, or most, if not any of the modern nations. Many circumstances contributed to the formation of a dense mass of inhabitants, among which may be reckoned the universal passion among the Jews for a numerous offspring, their religious predilection for their native soil, and their aversion to the manners and customs of all other nations; besides, their religion and their customs were so highly national, and so peculiarly their own, as to render all intercourse with other nations, either social or commercial, extremely difficult. These powerful causes checked emigration, and penned the Jews within the narrow confines of their own territory.

“It was not until the disastrous consequences of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions had torn them away from the land and the graves of their sires, that they first thought of planting themselves on heathen ground. Afterward, though they emigrated to different parts of the civilized world, still, the universal prejudice of the nation, and particularly of the Aramean party in favour of their own land, was expressed in the current maxim, ‘Israel is Israel only in the Holy Land.’ Hence, we are not surprised to find, in the days of King David, one million three hundred thousand ‘valiant men that drew the sword,’ exclusive of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. And in this census was not reckoned any person from twenty years old and under. Now, if we reckon five persons to every warrior, which, considering otherwise disabled from bearing arms, together with all the female population, it is not an extravagant estimate; and if we reckon the tribes of Levi and Benjamin to number one hundred thousand each, which is not their proportion, we shall make the entire population of Palestine to amount to six millions seven hundred thousand. We might corroborate this statement by references to the population of other ancient countries, but our limits forbid such a digression.

“We make these statements merely to show the probable correctness of the following account given by Josephus of the population of Palestine, A. D. 66. That author says:

‘While Cestius Gallus was president of the province of Syria, nobody durst so much as send an embassage to him against Florus; but when he was come to Jerusalem, upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread, the people came about him not fewer than three millions; these besought him to commiserate the calamities of their nation, and cried out upon Florus as the bane of their nation,’ etc.

“Now this Florus was Governor of Judea; and when the Jews said he was the ‘bane of the nation,’ they intended that part of the nation over which he ruled, viz.: Judea; and hence it is probable that these three million Jews who complained to Cestius about their Governor, were mostly citizens of the single province of Judea.”

He finally concludes, after giving a great deal of matter that we shall omit, the entire population of Palestine at the time John preached in the wilderness, and baptized in Jordan, was six millions. All of this argument has been produced to show that John did not baptize by immersion.

Every particle of this population argument is based upon strained and extreme hypothesis. Since he has shown this great population, and since John baptized nearly all of them, he could not have baptized them in the length of time he had to baptize in. John did what no other preacher ever did—he was the greatest of all preachers when the Methodists find it convenient to make him great. According to their theory, he baptized nearly all the people he preached to, and yet Christ found the large majority of the Jews to be cruel sinners. The Methodists will make the Bible mean literally what it says, when it seems to support their false doctrine, and when the literal meaning of the Bible is against them they will explain it away.

Now see how Hibbard explains away even the possibility of John baptizing by immersion. He proceeds thus:—

“2. We next inquire what proportion of the population of Palestine attended John's ministry and were baptized of him.—The reader will not look for great arithmetical exactions in our calculations when he considers that a few general facts constitute our only data; nor will he on the other hand, regard our conclusions as ‘air built and baseless,’ when he reflects that those general facts are the express declarations of Scripture. Previously to all direct investigation of the subject, it is important that we have enlightened views of the object of John's mission. John was sent to ‘prepare the way of the Lord.’ He was sent to no private sect or party, but to the Jewish nation—to the great Jewish family resident in Palestine. He was received by ‘the Jews as a nation. There was no such division of public sentiment in regard to John as prevailed in reference to Jesus Christ. The Pharisees and Sadducees in general submitted to his baptism, ambitious of the distinction thus conferred, and all parties coalesced in the popular sentiment that John was a divine prophet. Indeed, nothing short of this general reception would have fully answered the intent of John's mission. ‘He was a burning and shining light, and the Jews were willing, for a season, to rejoice in his light.’ These considerations furnish a strong presumption that the major part of the people were baptized of John.”

All of his argument is presumption. If it is proper to apply the Methodists' rule of presuming on the subject of baptism, on all the other subjects of the Bible, we will presume away heaven, earth and hell—mortality and immortality.

Hibbard continues with his presumptions:

“In exact accordance with this presumption are the express declarations of Scripture. Matthew says, chapter 3:5, 6: ‘Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.’ Mark informs us, 1:5, ‘that there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him.’ Luke says, 3:21: ‘And when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus himself, being baptized,’ etc.

“The province of Judea comprehended nearly one-half of the entire territory of Palestine west of the Jordan. The ‘region round about Jordan’ by ‘which we are to understand the great valley of the Jordan, lies between the mountains of Israel on the west and those of Hermon, Gilead, and Abarim on the east, reckoning from the northern extremity of the sea of Tiberias, according to Burkhardt to the embouchure of the Jordan. This ‘region’ embraces most of the territories of Samaria and Perea, besides a large portion of Galilee. The description of Matthew, therefore, is found to embrace the heart of the Jewish population.”

After showing what the other New Testament writers say about all Palestine, Hibbard proceeds to presume. Read his next presumption: “How many others from abroad received his baptism, history does not inform us, but the number was, probably, not inconsiderable. The only difficulty that can arise in fixing the sense of the evangelists lies in the use and limitation of the general terms employed. The word ‘all’ in the several connections cited, must necessarily mean something. It cannot be argued, with good reason, that it here amounts to a mere Hebraism for a great multitude. There exists no reason why the word in the above connections should be understood in proverbial and not in a narrative sense. No impossibility or absurdity is necessarily involved in taking the word literally, or to signify a great majority which is a very common acceptation. Or if any absurdity be involved in such an acceptation, it can be so only on the principles of our opponents, and must therefore lie against their theory, which supposes that John immersed his disciples one by one.”

Hibbard continues until finally he decides to put the number that John baptized at three millions. He says:

THE GREEK CHURCH holds that Christ was baptized on the Epiphany, which is the sixth of January, New Style. But the difference of a few days, either way, cannot materially affect the weight of our argument. How long John continued baptizing subsequently to this period we are not definitely informed. But, from a careful collation of facts, we can safely limit the period of his after labors to four months. The last account we have of John, previously to his imprisonment, states that he was baptizing at Ænon near to Salim. (John 3:23.) This was immediately after our Lord had attended his first passover, which was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, which, as the Jews reckoned their years by lunar months, answers to the moon of our March.”

Hibbard here gives us a long argument to show that the entire public ministry of John lasted only ten months. Let that be as it may. Let us examine some more of his presumptions:

“But here are several facts to be considered.

“1. John could not have commenced baptizing immediately upon the opening of his mission, and the people be induced to receive his baptism. We will suppose, then, that he preached two weeks before he began to baptize.

“2. John's term of public labour included one wintry season, wherein, though the climate in that country is much milder than in our own, still there would be an unavoidable loss of time, occasioned by foul weather. This, with those who are acquainted with the calendar of Palestine, will not be deemed an insignificant item. During the winter the inhabitants of Palestine often experience storms, especially during the rainy seasons, at which time there is little traveling abroad. This, together with the time occupied in moving from place to place, would require another reduction from John's time for baptizing, of not less than twenty days.

“3. Forty-three Sabbaths are to be deducted, wherein, according to the Jewish observance of those days, it was unlawful for John to baptize. Thus we have left, in all, two hundred and twenty-seven days, in which we may suppose John exercised the function of his ministry. We next inquire, How many hours per day John was employed in the very act of baptizing. If he immersed his disciples, according to the modern mode, he could not have thus laboured more than six hours per day, pursuing his labours in the same ratio for two hundred and twenty-seven days. John was unsustained by any miracle, and must calculate his labours as we would those of any other man, according to a medium ratio of physical strength. And no man could rationally suppose John to have stood in three feet depth of water more than six hours in a day, and for the above-mentioned time, labouring at the top of his strength, without an iron-bound constitution or a miracle of aid. But according to this estimate, the whole number of hours in which John was employed in the very act of baptizing amounted to one thousand three hundred and sixty-two.

“We are now ready for the argument.

“1. John baptized in all, three million persons.

“2. The whole time in which John may be supposed to have been engaged in the very act of baptizing did not exceed one thousand three hundred and sixty-two hours. Therefore John must have baptized in one hour, two thousand two hundred and two; in one minute, thirty-six, or a little over one in every two seconds.”

The argument presented here by Hibbard against immersion and in favor of sprinkling is not worthy of the notice of respectable thinkers. How does he manage to find out the exact number of months that John preached? The Bible does not give them. How does he know it was about two weeks after John began to preach before he began to baptize? The disciples on the day of Pentecost, preached and baptized the same day.

When the time comes to baptize the season gets rainy and stormy, so much so, that there is little traveling abroad. But when he explains the word “all,” out of which he gets his three millions for baptism, there is nothing said about this foul weather. How does he know it took twenty days for John to move from place to place? The Bible is silent on this point. How does he know that John's baptism was not accompanied by a miracle? The Bible does not tell him it was not.

Plainly pedobaptists are without a foundation. Lord, help them to open their eyes. The Baptists have in our favor John baptizing in Jordan, and in Ænon, near Salim, where there was much water. Christ baptized of John in Jordan. And when he “was baptized, went up straightway from the water.” And the primary and original meaning of the word “baptize,” means immersion and immersion only.

LET US see what Dr. E. Y. Mullins, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says concerning “Immersion:” “For one man to shout, ‘It is!’ and another to shout back, ‘It is not!’—a reiterated affirmation on the one hand and a reiterated denial on the other —is a see-saw of contradictions, rather than a logical process. It must be confessed that the long-drawn baptismal controversy sometimes seems to degenerate into such a contradiction, issuing in little progress towards unanimity, or other fruits of the Spirit. The careful observer, however, will find evidences of an awakening conscience in many quarters on this subject, and it cannot be in vain for Baptists in all charity to continue to affirm their strong conviction on a matter which so large a portion of the Christian world seems determined to ignore.

“‘The case for immersion at present,’ is the theme assigned to me. An adequate statement of the case will require some space, and some patience on the part of the reader. The meaning of word, ‘immersion,’ as based upon the meaning of the Greek word translated ‘baptize’ in our English Bible is as convincing as it is possible for evidence to make it. The purposes of this article require a brief presentation of this evidence.

“Lyddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon is a universally accepted standard among scholars. It gives immersion, and immersion only, as the meaning of the Greek word ‘baptizo.’ This applies to classic as well as New Testament Greek.

“Grimm's Wilke's Lexicon of New Testament Greek, says the word means ‘to submerge, to wash by submerging.’ In the New Testament the word means ‘an immersion in water, intended as a sign of sins washed away, etc.’ This lexicon gives no other meaning of the word.

“Cremer's Lexicon says the word means ‘submerged,’ and in the New Testament, ‘submersion for a religious purpose.’

“Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, which is a translation revision, and an enlargement of Grimm's Wilke's Lexicon, gives an extended definition of baptizo in its various New Testament connections, and it is uniformly the same as in the lexicons named above—‘to submerge,’ ‘to dip,’ ‘to plunge.’

“The figurative uses of the word are all based upon the same meaning. Testimony from other lexicons might be given. I will only add that of Professor Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine period, from B. C. 140 to A. A 1100. He gives the meaning which is found in all the standard lexicons—‘dip,.’ ‘plunge,’ ‘submerge.’ In addition he cites Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Gregory, Epiphanius, Origen, Cyril and others of the early fathers in proof of this meaning.

“The testimony of the fathers is well-nigh universal in favor of immersion for over 400 years. Modern Greeks regard the translation of the word baptizo, ’to sprinkle,’ as absurd.

“Dr. Broadus quotes a modern Greek scholar as saying: ‘The church of the West commits an abuse of words and of ideas in practising baptism by aspersion, the mere statement of which is itself a ridiculous contradiction.’

“The above position is abundantly sustained on the authority of the reformers of the sixteenth century, as well as by evidence from great numbers of modern scholars.

“Martin Luther advocated a return to immersion as the New Testament form of baptism.

“John Calvin admitted that immersion only was the original mode, but that the form was a matter of indifference.

“Dr. Doellinger, a Roman Catholic scholar of very high standing, has said that, as to the mode of baptism, ‘the Baptists are from the Protestant standpoint, unassailable, since for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text.’

“Innumerable modern scholars of all denominations maintain the position that immersion only was the New Testament form of baptism. In Germany two names of interest are Meyer, the great commentator, and Harnack, the great historian. The latter wrote some years ago, to Dr. C. E. W. Dobbs, in reply to questions about the meaning of the Greek word, especially as to whether a ‘sacred sense’ of the word baptizein is ever to be understood, allowing sprinkling instead of immersion.

“Dr. Harnack wrote, in part, as follows: ‘Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion. No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament, and in the most ancient Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a sacred sense is out of the question. There is no passage in the New Testament which suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word any other sense than to immerse.’

“Dr. Harnack wrote the above as a statement ‘on the present state of opinion among German scholars.’ Besides the above, practically all the great names of scholars of the Church of England, who have expressed themselves on the point might be quoted in support of the view that immersion, and immersion only, was the form of baptism taught by the New Testament. In view of the above array of evidence, it would seem that the ‘case of immersion at present’ is closed, if we confine our view to the meaning of the Greek word of which it is the translation.

VARIOUS arguments and objections have been urged against the Baptist position. The old claim that the scarcity of water in Jerusalem must have prevented the immersion there of three thousand converted in one day by twelve men is met by the well-known fact that Jerusalem was amply provided with large pools and a water supply which sustained it through numerous sieges of several months' duration, and when the supply was exhausted on the outside it was abundant inside the city; and by the further demonstration, in the immersion of our Telugu converts, of the ability of twelve men to perform the above task. The claim is for a ‘sacred sense’ of the word baptizo in the Scriptures has never been made out and is distinctly negatived by the consensus of German scholarship, as represented by Professor Harnack, as well as the great mass of scholars of all Christian nations.

“The plea for sprinkling on the ground that immersion is not always ‘practicable’ is met by the explanation that what is ‘impracticable’ is what cannot be done, and that what cannot be done is never commanded. The force of the argument based on the rigors of the colder climate is neutralized by the fact that in cold England immersion continued much longer than in Spain and some of the warmer climates of the South. The fact that many learned and good men have believed in sprinkling, which is a solace to some, should not stand a moment as an excuse for personal investigation on the part of all, and personal obedience to the commands of Christ.

“Few of the errors of Christian history in doctrine and life are without learned and good men as their advocates. It was often thus that they originated. Over against this fact is another far more significant, viz.: That there is an increasing demand for immersion on the part of the common people, with their English Bibles in their hands. This demand is witnessed to a greater or less extent in every Protestant community. It has reached such proportions in the Church of England that more than one hundred baptisteries, according to ‘The Freeman,’ have been erected in recent years for the baptism of adults, and others are in process of construction.

“The truth is that, although the word ‘baptize’ is not a translation, but a transference of the Greek original, thus obscuring its meaning— nevertheless, the act of baptism as described in the English Bible, and as expounded especially in the epistles, is convincing in itself as to mode. The passages describing the baptism of Jesus in Jordan, and the baptism of the Ethiopian, as well as other Scriptures, leave no escape for the plain reader from the conclusion that immersion is the baptism commanded in the New Testament.

“There are two really important arguments against our position—important not in themselves, but in their prevalence and power over men. The first is that the church has the power to alter the form of baptism. This is the view of the Roman Catholics. I need not delay to reply to it in detail. It raises the larger question as to the authority of the church. Baptists cannot admit that any church is co-ordinate in authority with Christ himself. The Protestant world is guilty of a gross inconsistency whenever it admits the principle for a moment. The Bible, and the Bible only, as Christ's revealed will is authority for Protestants in matters of religion. Hence the clear-cut deliverance of Dr. Doellinger, as given earlier in this article. Roman Catholics grasp this vital distinction better than some who claim to oppose them.

“The second of these important arguments is that based on Christian liberty. Among the scholars and the well-informed laity of to-day in all denominations which do not practise immersion, this is the final and sufficient ground consciously or unconsciously held for adherence to another mode. The case for immersion as the original New Testament teaching and practice has been so completely made out that another position has become necessary. ‘If you retain the essence,’ they say, ‘you are not obliged to do more in matters of form. Christian liberty relieves you from slavish obedience in externals.’

“The sufficient Baptist reply is not far to seek. In the first place, Christian liberty never admits of departure from positive commands which are of permanent obligation. In the application of general principles to specific cases which may arise, it is true that Christian liberty sometimes allows room for variation in conduct, but in definite, positive commands. Now, those who practice sprinkling maintain that baptism is an ordinance of permanent obligation, and binding, because commanded by Christ. As a symbol it sets forth certain doctrines. To retain the ‘essence’ of the symbol, we must retain its form, as has already been shown. To alter the form so as to deprive it of power to symbolize death, burial and resurrection, is to rob it of a part of its ‘essence’ as a symbol.

“If Christian liberty is to be pleaded in the case, the Quakers alone represent the consistent position; for liberty to alter a form implies liberty to reject it entirely. Indeed, in this case, to alter is to reject in part, because to alter the form is in part to destroy the meaning. To reject in part involves liberty to reject altogether. The Quakers do this. If to the Quaker it should seem allowable in the name of liberty to reject baptism as a symbol of purification, burial and resurrection, why should it seem allowable for a Methodist, in the name of liberty, to retain it as a symbol of purification and reject it as a symbol of burial and resurrection? Why split the ordinance into parts, and deal with one part on the principle of obedience, and with the other on the principle of liberty? There is no middle-ground between Baptists and Romanists on the issue as to the relative authority of the Scriptures and the church, and there is no middle-ground between Baptists and Quakers on the issue as to the principle of Christian liberty in the matter of baptism.

“Our survey of ‘the case for immersion at present,’ brings us to the following conclusion: That, in view of the classical and New Testament meaning of the Greek word for baptize as learned from standard lexicons; in view of the testimony of the Christian fathers of the early centuries; in view of the ‘teaching of the Twelve Apostles;’ in view of the symbolic significance of baptism and the relation of its form to truth, to the Lord's Supper, to the will of Christ; and in view of authoritativeness of the Bible, and of any proper interpretation of Christian liberty, the case for immersion seems abundantly proved.”

READER, have you obeyed your Lord in his appointed ordinance? Have you the witness of a conscience void of offence in this matter? Do you know the joy of obedience which is vouchsafed to all who take up their cross and follow their Lord into the experience which he knew as he entered the waters of Jordan, saying, “Thus it becometh us, to fulfil all righteousness?” Dr. Mullins' argument on this subject is full, complete and unanswerable. “Wide as the world is thy command,Vast as eternity thy love:Firm as a rock thy truth shall stand,When rolling years shall cease to move.” Read and think! To “obey is better than sacrifice.” If you are a new creature in Christ Jesus, be baptized, and thus put on that externally which symbolizes the new life internally. Be baptized!

Soon after the King of Glory arose from the dead, he gave his disciples the great commission.

“Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the watchers did quake and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” (Matt. 28:1-6.)

“And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt. 28:18-20.) “Afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:14-16.)

The language of the Master in the great commission to disciple and baptize the nations is too positive and emphatic to admit of any doubt. The creature who believes the Gospel must be baptized. It is not simply a privilege, but a most imperative duty after one has believed to be baptized. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” The disciples fully understood the great commission, and went forth preaching and baptizing.

On the Day of Pentecost a great revival broke out in Jerusalem. Peter preached the principal sermon, and three thousand souls believed and were baptized. “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of You in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:36-38.) Here we see that not only is repentance commanded, but baptism is commanded also. “They then that received his word were baptized:, and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41.) Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, and the eunuch believed and was baptized immediately. “But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert. And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship; and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His generation who shall declare? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other? And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized (immersed) him.” (Acts 8:26-38.)

How can pedobaptists be obedient to the command of the Lord and place a light estimate upon baptism? How can any unbiased and common sense mind read that Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and that Philip baptized the eunuch, without concluding that he baptized him by immersion? Dear reader, read and think for yourself. You have left this question to be settled for you, by the so-called wise men of your church too long already. God has given you the ability to think and act for yourself. Why not read the plain word of God and think? Why do Negro Methodists say that there are so many other things of such vital importance to the race that we have not the time to consider this all-important subject? It is simply because they know they are wrong on this great subject. We should be buried with Christ in baptism. Be baptized; immersion only is baptism. Methodists call themselves broad and the Baptists narrow, and yet the Methodists are not broad enough to do what Jesus says. They take away what suits their convenience, and add what they please. The Methodists put great stress on the Philippian jailor's baptism at midnight, etc., and declare the circumstances of the case exclude the idea of his having been baptized by immersion. But let us examine the case:

“But, about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns unto God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison-house were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened; and every one's bands were loosed. And the jailor, being roused out of sleep and seeing the prison doors open, drew his sword, and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. And he called for lights, and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.” (Acts 16:25-36.)

Where in these passages can you find infant baptism? Paul preached to “all” in the house and all were baptized. But did he preach to infants? Certainly not. Did he baptize any infants on this occasion? Certainly not; for he preached to all who were in the jailor's house, and baptized all of his house. The narrative shows clearly that the jailor's family were all capable of hearing preaching, and therefore all capable of believing; for all were baptized. Hence there were no infants in the jailor's family. This passage also tells us that the jailor “took them and washed their stripes.” The washing of their stripes in connection with “took them” is plain. He “took them” to water and “washed their stripes,” and he and his family were baptized.

The Methodists say it is hardly probable that the jailor and his family were baptized by immersion, for they were baptized in the jail at midnight. The narrative does not say they were baptized in the jailor's house, or in jail; but it says, “He took them,” and “washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.” Where did he take them? To water. Doubtless to a pool of clean, clear water. Reader, read and think! Holy Spirit, help pedobaptists to see the light and be baptized!

THE BAPTISM of Paul by Ananias is cited and emphasized by pedobaptists in favor of sprinkling or pouring. They claim that Ananias baptized Paul in the house, and that the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the narrative of Paul's baptism is that he was baptized By sprinkling or pouring. But let us examine this case. Let us put Paul on the stand and receive evidence from him instead of pedobaptists.

“Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you. And when they heard that he spoke unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet: and he saith, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also, I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. And it came to pass, that as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me beheld indeed, the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the ‘hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee, to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:1-16) If Ananias meant to baptize Paul by sprinkling or pouring, why did he say to him not to tarry, but “Arise and be baptized?” The fact is, if Ananias meant to baptize Paul by sprinkling or pouring, for Paul to have been seated or kneeling down would have been the most convenient and natural way for him to have baptized him by sprinkling or pouring. But if he meant to immerse him in water, Paul necessarily had to get up and go to water, and stand on his feet to be immersed. Hence he is commanded not to tarry, but to “Arise and be baptized.” The kind of baptism he was to receive symbolized a washing, for Ananias says, “and wash away thy sins.” Sprinkling or pouring does not symbolize washing; therefore Paul was not baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Immersion in water symbolizes washing; therefore, Paul was baptized by immersion. The Bible does not say he was baptized in the house, but it says he was told not to tarry, but ‘Arise and be baptized.” When he ceased to tarry, and arose, he and Ananias went to water, and he was immersed in water, as a sign of the fact that his sins had been washed away.

The pedobaptists have not only tried to prove that sprinkling and pouring are baptism; but they have endeavored to explain away immersion entirely. Take such passages as these and the pedobaptists in order to escape their irresistible force have endeavored to spiritualize them in such a way and to such an extent as to destroy their literal meaning entirely. Read the passages and examine them for yourself.—

The parties standing before the minister, he shall say:

Divine Revelation has declared marriage to be honorable in all. It is an institution of God, ordained in the time of man's innocency, before he had sinned against his Maker, and been yet banished from Paradise. It was given in wisdom and in kindness, to repress irregular affection, to support social order, and to provide that, through well-ordered families, truth and holiness might be transmitted from one age to another. Earlier, therefore, than all laws of merely human origin, it lies at the basis of all human legislation and civil government, and the peace and wellbeing of the nation and land.

We learn from the history of our Saviour that he honored a marriage festival with his presence, and wrought there the beginning of his miracles. And by his Holy Spirit, speaking through his apostle, he has selected the union thus formed, as an apt emblem of the union, endeared and indissoluble, that binds together himself and his own ransomed Church.

A relation that is thus consecrated should not be formed thoughtlessly and irreverently; but advisedly in the fear of God, and for the purposes for which he, its Divine Author, ordained and blessed matrimony.

And now, as in his sight, and as you will answer in the day when all hearts shall be made manifest, I charge you to declare if there be any cause that should prevent your lawful union.

From your silence I presume there is none. Will the parties now join their right hands?

Then he shall say to the man:

Do you, A. B., take C. D., whom you now hold by the hand as your true and lawful wife; and, God helping you, will you love, cherish, honor, and protect her, cleaving only and ever unto her, until God by death shal separate you?

He shall answer, I do. Then to the woman:

Do you, C. D., take A. B., whom you now hold by the hand, as your true and lawful husband; and, God helping you, will you love, cherish, honor, and obey him, cleaving only and ever unto until God by death shall separate you?

She shall answer, I do.

Where a ring is used the groom is here to place it on the bride's hand; the minister adds these words:

The circle, the emblem of eternity; and gold the type of what is least tarnished and most enduring; it is to show how lasting and imperishable the faith now mutually pledged.

As the union now formed is to be sundered only by death, it becomes you to consider the duties you solemnly assume. If these be remembered and faithfully discharged, they will add to the happiness of this life, lightening by dividing its inevitable sorrows, and heightening by doubling all its blessedness. But if these obligations be neglected and violated, you cannot escape the keenest misery, as, well as the darkest guilt.

It is the duty of the husband to provide for the support of his wife, to shelter her from danger, and to cherish for her a manly and unalterable affection, it being the command of God's word that husbands love their wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave his own life for her.

It is the duty of the wife to reverence and obey her husband, and to put on the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is, in God's sight, an ornament of great price, his word commanding that wives be subject unto their own husbands, even as the Church is subject unto Christ.

It is the duty of both to delight each in the society of the other; to remember that in interest and in reputation as in affection, they are to be henceforth one and undivided; to preserve an inviolable fidelity, and to see to it that what God has joined thus together, man never puts asunder.