% ©to |4s anb % (Basi ttSqr. 
 
 SERMON 
 
 PREACHED Oi\* THE OCCASION OP THE DEDICATION 
 
 SHARON BAPTIST MEETING HOUSE, 
 
 WARREN COUNTY, N. C, 
 
 SEPTEMBER 20th, 1857. 
 
 BY ELDER J. B. SOLOMON, 
 
 WARRENTON, N. C. 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OE THE BAPTIST CHURCH, WARRENTON, N. C. 
 
 RICHMOND: 
 
 H. K. ELLYSON, PRINTER, MAIN STREET. 
 
 1857. 
 
: 
 
 ~\ < 
 
 ^ i Ci» (. / 
 
 
Baptist Church Warrenton, K. C, 1 
 October 10th, 1857. J 
 Elder J. B. Solomon, 
 
 Dear Sir — At a regular meeting of this church, a resolution 
 was passed, and we, the undersigned, appointed a committee, to procure of you 
 for publication, a copy of the dedicatory _ sermon delivered at Sharon, on the third 
 Sunday in September, 1857. 
 Hoping it may be convenient for you to furnish it at an early moment, we are 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 JAS. A. EGGERTON, 
 WM. B. WILLIAMS, 
 DAVID PARRISH, 
 E. T. RICE, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Warrenton, N. C, \ 
 Oct. 26th, 1857. J 
 Messrs. Eggerton, Williams and others, 
 
 Committee, 
 
 Dear Brethren — After much hesitation, and some doubts as to its pro- 
 priety, I have consented to grant the request contained in your note of the 10th 
 inst., and herewith forward to you a copy of the sermon. Did I not feel willing 
 to rely on the judgment of the brethren, as to the merits of the sermon in ques- 
 tion, I should unhesitatingly have declined the request. Hoping the doctrines ad- 
 vocated may be made more serviceable to the cause of truth in a published form, I 
 yield the manuscript, with the many imperfections it may contain, to your hands. 
 May it please our heavenly Father to bless this feeble effort to a good end. 
 
 Accept for yourselves, brethren, my acknowledgments for the courteous manner 
 in which you have expressed the wishes of the church. 
 
 With the highest Christian regards, 
 
 I am, your affectionate pastor, 
 
 J. B. SOLOMON. 
 
 1.IRPAPV 
 

 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/oldpathsgoodways1857solo 
 
 ■ 
 
SEEMON 
 
 " Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, 
 and walk therein s and ye shall find rest for your souls." — Jeremiah vi : 16. 
 
 The wisdom of God is shown in the perfection of his plans, 
 both as respects their construction, and also their execution. This 
 is true of all his works, both in nature and grace. Whatever be 
 the end to be attained, the plan by which it is to be done is so 
 constructed as to ensure success. Unlike man, Jehovah is under 
 no neccessity for making experiments. He has not to resort to a 
 variety of expedients, that he may compass the end had in view. 
 The truth of this position is found in the economy of the ma- 
 terial world. Here every part fulfills its Maker's design in its 
 creation, and in carrying forward his grand design in the con- 
 struction of the material fabric. Moreover, while every part con- 
 spires to carry forward the designs of the Maker, these designs 
 are shown to be harmonious. There is not dissimilarity of de- 
 sign, nor do the several parts of this creation tend to the accom- 
 plishment of dissimilar designs. 
 
 As this is acknowledged to be true in respect to the world of 
 matter, as carrying forward the design of its Creator ; so if this 
 design be carried forward, it must be by obedience to the laws of 
 its construction, and not by a change of those laws, otherwise 
 there is error in the construction. But who so bold as to dare 
 improve upon the plan of the structure of the material world ! 
 He who would do so by a neglect of its laws would not only for- 
 feit his claim for sanity of mind, but would dearly pay for his 
 temerity. 
 
 "But if it be shown that there is perfection in the plan of Jeho- 
 vah in his material kingdom, is it unreasonable to look for the 
 same perfection in the kingdom of grace ? Would it not be to 
 charge Jehovah with prizing more highly the material and per- 
 ishable, than the spiritual and immortal ? And does this accord 
 with the character of God ? Does he not ever show more care 
 and interest for the welfare of the spiritual? Surely none will 
 deny it. And is there not perfection in the plan of salvation re- 
 vealed in his word? Do we not see his wisdom shine out in un- 
 clouded splendor in the perfection of that plan? 
 
 Again, if this be true of the general plan of salvation, and his 
 general purposes of grace, is it reasonable to suppose it would be 
 less true in the economy of that last organization which lie will 
 ever give to the world — the church ? Shall there be perfection in 
 all his plans affecting the material world, embracing no less the 
 
6 
 
 dust of tlie balance than the mountain — the grain of .sand than 
 the globe? And shall there be perfection in the world of animal 
 life, from the insect of a day to the arch-angel ? And shall there 
 be perfection in the plan, which was four thousand years in pro- 
 cess of development ? Shall there, I say, be perfection in all 
 these, and yet imperfection be found in the final organization ? 
 "We cannot so think. We regard the church, organized by our 
 Lord, as perfectly adapted to the end for which it was appointed. 
 For confirmation of this position, consider first, The character 
 given it: " Ye (disciples) are the light of the world." Second, 
 The work committed to it: "Preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture. ' ' Third, The ■permanence given it : c c The gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it." The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is 
 to be, for all coming time, the medium through which the grace 
 of God in Christ is to be communicated to a wicked and lost 
 world. Can it be reasonably supposed that he constituted it for 
 this end, and yet that he left it imperfect, and inadequate to its' 
 accomplishment? No, lie stamped it with marks of the same 
 wisdom as found in all other of his plans. But have the pro- 
 fessed followers of Christ been true to the trust committed to 
 them ? Have they been content to do what he has required, 
 without alteration, or amendments ? If so, whence the many 
 claimants to be his church ? and whence the continual clash of 
 arms among his professed friends? Evidently there is error. 
 All these various claimants cannot possibly be right. 
 
 One says, " Lo, here is Christ; another, ' f No, Lo, there is 
 Christ." Now, amidst the din and strife, how is the humble en- 
 quirer after truth to decide ? How can he determine who, if any, 
 is right? 'By, obedience to our text, let us turn from the noisy 
 strife, and seek the will of God, as shown us in his holy word. 
 Let us go back to the inspired word for guidance, and devoutly 
 listen to its teachings. Then we shall find " the- old paths — the 
 good way." 
 
 The object of the remarks I have to make, will be to show 
 what was " the good way," in which the apostle acted in refer- 
 ence to the organization called church. We, Baptists, my 
 friends, are strangers to you. We come amongst you as a people, 
 differing from our brethren of other denominations. You have a 
 right to ask us who we are, and what do we teach. This you 
 have a right to ask, and it becomes our duty to give you a candid 
 and plain answer. If our sentiments and motives be honest, we 
 need not fear to declare them ; and if dishonest, the sooner you 
 are apprised of the fact the better. 
 
 It is no new question, my friends, u where is the church of 
 Jesus Christ?" As stated above, there are many claimants, and 
 we among the rest. , We shall not turn aside to discuss the 
 merits of the respective claimants, but shall content ourselves by 
 an enquiry into the doctrine and policy of the apostolic churches, 
 and shall test our claim to the honor of being the churches of 
 
 - ' 
 
Jesus Christ, by a comparison of the two — ours with the apostolic 
 churches. 
 
 In this investigation we cannot, of course, enter minutely into 
 the details of either ; but shall only present for discussion, the 
 principal points wherein we differ from our brethren of other per- 
 suasions. As stated above, we shall present two general points 
 for discussion. 
 
 I. What was the polity of the apostolic churches ? 
 . II. What were the doctrines of these churches ? 
 
 We propose to present the views we hold peculiarly on these 
 subjects, and give you our reasons for these views as we proceed. 
 And permit us to say that we do not differ from our brethren of 
 other persuasions materially, as to what we understand of the 
 meaning of the term " church." " It is a congregation of faith- 
 ful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the 
 sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in 
 all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." — 
 (Book of Common Prayer, art. rel. art. xix.) We understand 
 by the term church t in the sense in which we shall use it on the 
 present occasion, a local organization for the proper worship of 
 God, and administration of his ordinances according to his word. 
 And— 
 
 I. We hold that every separate or individual organization is 
 independent of all similar organizations. Each such church is 
 equal to any other, and independent of all others. We argue 
 this, 
 
 1. From the fact that they are thus represented in the word of 
 God. We read of the church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, 
 the church at Eome, &c, &c. The churches of Asia are thus 
 addressed. We hear nothing of the Asiatic church, but churches. 
 "To the seven churches in Asia." "To the seven churches 
 which are in Asia." We read nothing of the European church, 
 or the African church. The New Testament nowhere speaks of a 
 national church, nor does it recognize any national organization 
 as the church of Jesus Christ. The several local organizations 
 are recognized as so many separately existing organizations, 
 which could not have been the case, if there was dependence of 
 one upon the other, for in that case neither of these organizations 
 would have been complete, and to address them as such would 
 have been inappropriate. 
 
 2. Had one of these local organizations been dependent upon 
 any other, of whatever character or name, it would have been 
 amenable to it, and we cannot believe that such would have been 
 the case without some intimation of the fact from Christ, or some 
 of the apostles. But that such was not the case, we shall show 
 anon. No church in the apostolic day felt its dependence upon 
 any other church for its existence, or any part of it. In this, it 
 is hardly worth my while to say we differ from perhaps all other 
 denominations of any note. Here is the Presbyterian church, the 
 
8 
 
 Protestant Episcopal church, the Roman Catholic churchy the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal church, &c.j &c, uniting the several separate 
 organizations into one great establishment, thus making them 
 mutually dependent on each other, and all more or less depen- 
 dent upon some central power. - In all this we conceive they 
 have departed from the " old paths " — the apostolic plan, from 
 the fact that they have destroyed the independence of the local 
 organizations. 
 
 Let it not he said that this is a small matter. We regard no- 
 thing as small which Christ has appointed ; and if he has left for 
 our guidance a model perfected, we dare not depart from it. We 
 do not advert to the facts involved in these statements with an 
 invidious design, but to bring out our meaning in reference to 
 the independence of the several churches. It was a departure 
 from this simple plan in this particular that gave to Rome its 
 despotic power for twelve centuries, and thus deluged the world 
 in blood and error. We should learn wisdom from the past, and 
 although the danger may not now be so imminent, yet we would 
 do well to take warning and follow tjie teachings of Christ. 
 
 II. From these suggestions you would expect that ive hold that 
 the members of these separate organizations, in their church capa- 
 city, constitute the highest ecclesiastical courts for the trial of offences 
 and the transaction of business ; and so we do. We recognize no 
 higher court of appeal, but regard the church as holding plenary 
 power, from Christ, to manage all its own affairs. This, we 
 think, is plain, from the action of the disciples, as recorded in the 
 first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Judas Iscariot had 
 fallen from his apostleship by transgression, and a successor was 
 appointed by the suffrages of the whole body of disciples then as- 
 sembled, including the ivomen. — Acts i : 14, compared with i : 
 24-26. Here we have an illustration of the " old path and good 
 way," as practiced by the apostles, in the appointment of an 
 apostle. We argue, that if the whole body has a voice in the 
 appointment of a minister, it is fair to presume the entire busi- 
 ness of the church was transacted by the church itself. But we 
 have proof still further. In the fifteenth chapter of Acts, we 
 have these facts : " Then pleased it the apostles, and elders, and 
 brethren, with the ichole church, to send chosen men of their own 
 company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas. And they wrote 
 by them in this manner : The apostles, and elders, and brethren, 
 send greeting unto the brethren which are of the v Gentiles in An- 
 tioch, and Syria, and Uilicia." — Y. 22, 23. 
 
 We further learn that this epistle was delivered, not to a few 
 men of authority in the church, but to the whole body of the 
 church. Bead 30th verse. "So when they were dismissed they 
 came to Antioch ; and when they had gathered the multitude to- 
 gether, they delivered the epistle." In this transaction the fol- 
 lowing facts are worthy of notice : 1. The difficulty in the church 
 at Antioch was among the "brethren" (members) of the church. 
 
2. The church determined to investigate the points in dispute. 
 
 3. Feeling the need of counsel, they, of their oivn accord, seek 
 advice of the church at Jerusalem. 4. This advice is given by 
 consent of the whole church. 5. The epistle sent by them (the 
 church at Jerusalem) is only advisory, and contains nothing of a 
 mandatory character. There is no assumption of a right to con- 
 trol or govern the church at Antioch. These facts, it seems to 
 us, have a very important bearing in determining the question of 
 the rights and authority of the apostolic churches. Whatever is 
 done in the matter is done with the consent and participation of 
 the whole church. 
 
 But we have not yet done. Paul in his first epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, fifth chapter, has occasion to give his opinion in a case of 
 disorder that was in the church. But he simply gives his opinion 
 and advice to the church, that they (the church) should exclude 
 this incestuous man from their fellowship. He recognizes the 
 principle for which we contend, that whatever was done must be 
 done by the whole church. They possessed power to exclude from 
 their fellowship, and they only. There was no appeal to a higher 
 tribunal. The action of the church to which this disorderly man 
 belonged was final. Of this it seems to us there can be no doubt. 
 Farther, this action corresponds precisely with the direction of 
 Christ, with respect to the man who would not be reconciled to 
 his brother, as recorded in the eighteenth chapter of the gospel 
 by Matthew. If after private remonstrance and effort, the of- 
 fender still remained obstinate, he was to be taken be/ore the 
 church ; and if he refused to be admonished by them, he was to 
 be excluded, and excluded by the action of the church. There was 
 no appeal allowed to synods, or conferences, or conventions. The 
 action of the church was the final action. Hence we regard the 
 individual church as the highest ecclesiastical court. This is the 
 " old path — the good way." It is the way in which. the apostles 
 acted : let us " walk therein." 
 
 To this view agrees also the united testimony of history. The 
 churches, as constituted by Christ and his apostles, were commu- 
 nities. All were permitted to participate in the transaction of 
 the business of the churches ; the women only being forbidden to 
 speak in the public assembly : and from the record of Acts first, 
 we doubt whether this prohibition extended any farther than to 
 a participation in discussions which might arise in the churches.* 
 It seems at least clear that even the female part of the churches 
 had a voice in the appointment of the minister. This we hold ; 
 
 * 1 beg leave to quote one or two extracts referred to above : — " The essence of the 
 Christian community rested on this: That no one individual should be the chosen, pre- 
 eminent organ of the Holy Spirit for the guidance of the whole ; but all xcere to co-operate, 
 each at his particular position, and with the gifts bestowed on him, one supplying what 
 might be wanted by another — for the advancement of the Christian life and of the common 
 end. The Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xiv : 34,) interdicts the female part of the church alone 
 Irom public speaking in the assemblies; which makes it evident again, that no other excep- 
 tion existed to the universality of this right] among Christians." The italics are my own. 
 Nean. Hist. Chrisc. Kel. and Ch. vol. 1, pp. 181-'i. 
 
10 
 
 and it is not uncommon for the sisters to have a voice in the se- 
 lection of their pastors. Hence, 
 
 III. We hold that the members of these separate organizations 
 constitute a community, each one being entitled to the rights of a 
 citizen. There are no exclusive privileges. One cannot be allowed 
 privileges not enjoyed by all the rest. One has no power or in- 
 fluence which is not equally enjoyed by all, except such as arise 
 from natural advantages. The religion of Christ does not pro- 
 pose to interfere with the natural relations and duties of men, 
 further than to ennoble and direct them. The members of the 
 churches, therefore, had equal rights and privileges. Hence, 
 s;iys the apostle : " Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and 
 foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
 God." Eph. ii : 19. As citizens, they are entitled to the privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizenship. Each one being only a citi- 
 zen, their rights and privileges mud be equal. The jurisdiction of 
 the affairs of the church does not therefore belong to a session or 
 vestry, or " the preacher in charge," or to the conference, either 
 "quarterly," " annual," or "general." It belongs entirely to 
 the church, as a body or a comuyinity, and none have a divine 
 right to remove it therefrom. This is "the old path — the good 
 way," as shown from the Scriptures themselves. Let us "walk 
 therein." 
 
 IV. We hold that no man or set of men has right to make 
 laws to bind the consciences of the members of the churches. 
 The churches of Christ constitute his visible kingdom on earth, 
 and the members of these churches are his visible subjects. We 
 pretend not to say that all who are members of his churches are 
 the real subjects of Christ's kingdom, but all are his 'professed 
 subjects, and our position is that no man, or assembly of men, 
 has right to legislate for the government of these subjects, as such. 
 This we argue, 
 
 1. From the fact that it is absurd to say that Christ established 
 a kingdom on earth without appointing laws for its government. 
 What kind of a kingdom is that destitute of law? Well, if 
 Christ has appointed the laws of his own kingdom, he has not 
 left it to men to do it. He has left no representative as legislator. 
 Again : If he has appointed the laws for the government of his 
 own kingdom — his churches — it is that these laics may be exe- 
 cuted with certainty. Now, how could this be, ii" there was ano- 
 ther law-making power? How could we be assured that the 
 laws of Christ would not be set aside by the enactment of this 
 other law-making power ? How, again, could there be conformity 
 in the laws of the kingdom, when there is more than one law- 
 maker? We hold that Christ has established his kingdom on 
 earth, and that he has done so by appointing laws for the gov- 
 ernment of his subjects: and if he has appointed these laws, it is 
 absurd to say that he has left another to do it for him. 
 
 2. Christ is said to be the "Head of the church," in the sense 
 
11 
 
 of Chief or Governor. He is not said to be one of the heads, but 
 the Head. Some claim the bishop for head ; the Scriptures 
 represent Christ as Head ; and any body with more than one 
 head is a monster. No well organized body has more than one 
 head, in any sense ; and as the head gives direction to the entire 
 body, so does Christ to his church, which is called his body. 
 Christ sustains a similar relation to the church, which the head 
 of the man sustains to his body. As such, he must control the body ; 
 he must direct it ; he must provide for it. It is impossible for us 
 to have a full sense of this relation which he sustains to the body — 
 the church — and tolerate the idea of any other Lawgiver than 
 Christ, He, and he only, has the right to make laws for his kingdom. 
 
 3. Otherwise it is not his kingdom at all. How can that be 
 his kingdom, over which he exercises no authority? And how 
 can he exercise authority, without law? How, then, can the 
 church be called his kingdom, unless it be governed entirely and 
 exclusively by his law? As well may we say that this republic 
 is a part and parcel of the British dominions. We r^finot, 0t 
 though it be called the United States of America ; the name will 
 make no difference, if the thing be so. And what if we should 
 declare ourselves the subjects of the British crown, while we con- 
 tinue to claim the right to execute our own laws? Would not 
 that be as consistent, and more pardonable, than for us to profess 
 to be the subjects of Christ's kingdom, and still claim the right 
 of making the laws for our own government? Christ is the King 
 eternal over his church, and any claim that has the least ten- 
 dency to weaken the right which is vested in him, is to that ex- 
 tent a denial of his royal prerogative. He reserves to himself this 
 right, and we dare not refuse to grant it. 
 
 Let it not be said that the decrees of councils, conventions, 
 synods and conferences, are only expressions of opinion, and are 
 not intended as laws for the government of the churches. The 
 history of the past will refute such a plea. If they serve no such 
 purpose, what is the use of their publication in the form in which 
 they are published. It is but fair to say, that they can serve but 
 a poor purpose unless they are regarded in the light of authori- 
 tative documents, saying what shall be believed, and what prac- 
 tised. Christ is the only Lawgiver to his people. This is " the 
 old path — the good way." 
 
 V. We hold that the churches are the executives of the laws of 
 Christ, the King, and are bound to execute them. We do not 
 deny that the churches have authority, nay, much authority. 
 But it is not legislative authority. All the power they possess is 
 executive. There is the difference here, that exists between our 
 legislatures and our courts. It is the duty of the legislature 
 to make laws, but it is the business of the courts to execute these 
 laws. As it is not the right of the court to alter or amend, but 
 to execute the laws of the State, so it is not the duty of the church 
 to alter, amend, or in any wise to interfere with the laws of 
 Christ, but simply to enforce, or execute the laws which Christ 
 
12 
 
 has appointed. And here permit me to remark, that we are not 
 at libeity to pass upon the propriety or impropriety of any of the 
 laws. Do we think some of them have the appearance of harsh- 
 ness? It is not for ns to decide that point. We have nothing to 
 do with that. All about which we need concern ourselves is — 
 first, to know what the law is ; and second, to execute its com- 
 mands. Doing this, we have discharged our duty, and are not 
 responsible for the consequences. But let us not be hasty to con- 
 clude that the laws of our King are severe. No : he is benignity 
 itself. All the duties he enjoins — all the prohibitions he has 
 enacted — all the regulations he has made — are wise and benefi- 
 cent, and we shall find it so, if we will obey. He has commanded 
 us to " teach to observe all things whatsoever, which he has com- 
 manded us." We dare not teach or do that which another has 
 commanded in the name of Christ. We dare not refuse to do all 
 that he has commanded. It is his to command ; it is ours to 
 obey. This is our duty, and if we discharge it, happy are we. 
 Our blessed Redeemer has made us, the church, the executors of 
 his own laws. Shall we be faithful to the trust committed to 
 our care? or shall w T e virtually complain of his ways, by neglect- 
 ing what he has enjoined, and making the plea of a charitable 
 disposition? Remember, my friends, Christ will say, e( to obey 
 is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 
 
 Nor can we shield ourselves from censure by pleading that pru- 
 dential considerations may justify us in failing to execute with 
 vigor the laws of the kingdom to which we belong. There is no 
 prudence equal to that of obeying the voice of the Lord. And in 
 all such cases we claim to be more prudent than our Lord, and 
 propose to amend the plan which he has devised ; and thereby 
 charge him with devising a plan which we can amend 1 What 
 daring, what horrid presumption do we exhibit, when we refuse 
 to execute the laws of Christ ! If his churches do not execute 
 his laws on earth,- then who shall? Nay, friends, a strict con- 
 formity to the laws of Christ, in all their requirements and pro- 
 hibitions — in all he commands and forbids — will please him, and 
 this alone. This is the "old path and good way ;" let us u walk 
 therein." 
 
 VI. We hold that, while the ministers of the gospel should be 
 " esteemed very highly for their works' sake," yet they have no 
 right to " lord it over God's heritage," whether it be done under 
 the title of pope or bishop, elder, deacon or pastor ; and whether 
 this be done in general councils, synods, conventions or confer- 
 ences. 
 
 A faithful minister of the gospel of the Son of God is worthy 
 of all honor, as an ambassador for Christ. His office is such as 
 no other man holds. The honor conferred by national courts 
 upon their ambassadors is paltry, compared to that conferred by 
 the King in Zion upon those whom he appoints as his ambassa- 
 dors to a guilty world. 
 
13 
 
 " There stands the messenger of truth; there stands 
 The legate of the skies! His theme divine, 
 His office sacred, his credentials clear." 
 
 The Scrintures everywhere represent the ministerial office and 
 character as of the highest dignity and importance. The minis- 
 ter, in a very important sense, "negotiates between God andnian." 
 And his character and general deportment are expected and re- 
 quired by the Scriptures, to manifest a high degree of self-denial. 
 All this we grant. We would not, in the least degree, refuse 
 the ministers of Jesus Christ the rights and dignities secured to 
 them by himself. Nay, he has wisely adjusted the matter, and 
 we would not interfere with it. 
 
 All this we hold. But we hold also that the minister, as his 
 designation clearly proves, must consent to be the servant, in a 
 certain sense, and not the master of the churches. This we 
 hold— 
 
 1 . From the fact that the apostles themselves did not assume 
 the right to govern the churches which they had planted. No- 
 where in the New Testament do we find any claim of this char- 
 acter. In the case referred to above, (see 1 Cor. v: 4-5,) Paul 
 assumes no authority in the premises, but only expresses his 
 judgment, and advises the church as to what they should do. 
 This, we remark, is a very different course to that of one who 
 feels his superior right and power by virtue of his office. In the 
 latter case there would be something of a mandatory character. 
 But it is not so here. 
 
 But perhaps a more forcible proof and illustration of our posi- 
 tion is found in the conduct of the apostles in the case of the 
 church at Antioch seeking advice of the church at Jerusalem. 
 Here, as we have already shown, there was no claim to superior 
 power and authority offered by the apostles or elders. They par- 
 ticipated in the action had, with the whole church, and there is 
 not the slightest intimation that any superiority of authority was 
 allowed or claimed by any one — not even by the apostles them- 
 selves. 
 
 This cose seems to us to have a very important bearing on the 
 question of the authority of ministers. Here was a fair op- 
 portunity afforded these apostles to exercise their authority in 
 the matter by issuing a decree that the Christians at Antioch 
 should believe this or that, or do this or the other. Had this 
 been the case, we cannot doubt that the advocates of clerical 
 authority would long since have produced it as proof of the divine 
 right to such authority. Why, then, may we not regard it as 
 settling the question in favor of our view? We conceive it legit- 
 imate to do so. 
 
 This view is further sustained by the language of Paul to the 
 Corinthians: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of 
 Christ." Paul would put to shame the pretensions of those who 
 profess to be his successors in office 5 and yet claim that others 
 
14 
 
 should submit to them, in matters of faitli and duty. He claimed 
 no such right, but directed the church to follow him only as he 
 followed Christ. The idea of superiority is inconsistent with 
 that of brotherhood. The very terra brother requires that there 
 be equality of right, and hence, as applied to the members of the 
 Christian churches, is inconsistent with that system which se- 
 cures to the minister authority superior to that possessed by the 
 laity. 
 
 The assumption of authority by the clergy was the work of a 
 post-apostolic age. By degrees this was done, till Anti-Christ 
 was fully developed in the Bishop of Kome. It was this assump- 
 tion of superior rights, on the part of the clergy, that cul- 
 minated in the frightful powers of this bishop. For as the min- 
 istry was superior to the laity, so was one minister superior to 
 others, and thus was the gradation consummated. Thus, too, 
 was the simple plan established by our Lord and his apostles sub- 
 verted, and a system of priest-craft established. The most au- 
 thentic historians of these latter times sustain the views here pre- 
 sented. Imperceptibly was the power of the clergy increased, 
 and as a consequence, the rights and independence of the laity 
 diminished, until the clergy had become omnipotent, and the 
 laity had become the mere tools and vassals of this unwarranted 
 power. The results of this departure from the apostolic model ; 
 the sad spectacle that is presented to the mind of the student of 
 ecclesiastical history, for twelve or thirteen centuries, next suc- 
 ceeding the triumph of this effort on the part of the professed 
 ambassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus, afford a fearful com- 
 mentary on the departure of his friends from the plan of his own 
 appointment. Had the clergy adhered to the original constitu- 
 tion, and contented themselves with their legitimate powers in 
 guiding the churches into a vigorous execution of the laws of the 
 king, the world would have been spared much of the blood that 
 stains the pages of its annals, and Christianity would have been 
 held forth to the world as the palladium of her rights and the 
 ensign of peace.* 
 
 * In pronf of the position here defended, permit me to make the following extracts fron? 
 Xeandcr's History of the Christian Religion and Church. Speaking of the church of the 
 apostolic times, he says : "This was a whole, composed of equal members, all the mem- 
 bers being but organs of the community, as this was the body quickened by the Spirit of 
 Christ. It could hardly work itself out in a natural way from the essence of the Christian 
 life and of Christian fellowship, that this guidance should l>e placed in the hands of only one 
 individual. The monarrhial form of government van not united to the Christian community 
 of spirits. The preponderance of one individual at the head of the whole, might too easily 
 Operate as a check on the free development of the life of the church, and the free co- 
 operation of the different organs, in whom the consciousness of mutual independence must 
 ever be kept alive. Monarchy in spiritual things due? not harmonise with the spirit of Chris- 
 tianity ; lor this points everywhere to the feeling of a mutual need of help; to the ne- 
 cessity, and to the great advantage, as well of common counsel, as of common piayer. 
 Again : as regards the relation iu which these presbyters (elders) 3tood to the communi- 
 ties ; they were not designed to exercise absolute authority, bat to act as presiding officers 
 and guides of an ecclesiastical republic ; to conduct all things with the co-operation of the 
 communities as their ministers, and not their masters." Speaking of the " changes in the 
 constitution of the Christian church after the age of the apostles, he says: " They related 
 especially to the three following particulars : 1. The distinction of bishops from presby- 
 
15 
 
 The practice of the .apostles should be our guide, for although 
 the divergence may at first seem trifling, yet its results may be 
 of the most fearful character, as seen from the facts of authentic 
 history. But whatever may be the results, we should follow 
 apostolic teachings and practice, because this is the " the old 
 path — the good way," and a departure therefrom opens the 
 flood-gates of corruption. 
 
 These are our views of church government, and we conceive 
 that they are sanctioned by the Word of God. We cannot enter 
 into a full investigation of all the scriptures pertaining to this 
 matter in one discourse, but content ourselves with presenting 
 the general outlines of our polity, as contrasted and compared 
 with the divine Word. From this imperfect sketch, we are en- 
 abled to discover the "old path." Let us "walk therein, and 
 we shall find rest to onr souls." 
 
 II. This brings us to our second general enquiry : Where is 
 the u old path and the good way," in respect to the doctrines of 
 the apostolic churches ? What were the doctrines of the olden 
 time — the apostolic times ? As in respect to the other, so also in 
 respect to this point, we must be permitted to confine ourselves 
 to the more prominent points of difference between ourselves and 
 others. And, 
 
 I. In what respects do we differ from others in those doc- 
 trines generally termed "the doctrines of grace." Permit us 
 here to remark, that we do not find such a vast difference be- 
 tween ourselves and the published doctrines and standards of 
 others — the diversity not being greater, perhaps, than is found to 
 exist among our brethren of other persuasions. We are happy 
 to be able to make this statement. While our brethren of other 
 denominations still hold and inculcate, as the leading article of 
 faith, repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 as the condition of justification before God, we hail them as 
 children beloved, though disobedient in some very important 
 points, and can unite with them in the promotion and inculca- 
 tion of these two great doctrines. 
 
 We have said that we do not differ widely from their published 
 standards and creeds, yet it is true that we do differ from most 
 of them in some of their articles of faith on these doctrines. On 
 this point, however, we do not feel called upon on the present oc- 
 casion to enter into extended remarks. We will call your atten- 
 tion to one point. 
 
 1. While we regard the sovcrcigntij of God as the only true 
 idea — the scripture doctrine, applicable to every case of repent- 
 
 ters. and the gradual development of the monarchico-episcopal church government. 
 2. The distinction of the clergy from the laity, and the formation of a sacerdotal caste, as 
 opposed to the evangelical idea of the priesthood. 3. The multiplication of church offi- 
 cers." In referring to the authority assumed by the clergy in the age after the apostles, 
 he says : " Such an assumption was shown by the Roman bishop, Victor, when about the 
 year 190 he excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor, on account of some trilling dis- 
 pute relating to i^ere externals." Vol. I, pp. 1S3, 181, 18'J, 190, 2U. Trausla,tcd by 
 Prof. Tonev. 
 
16 
 
 ance and regeneration to God, yet we cannot fully endorse the 
 sentiments of the celebrated John Calvin, in his work called his 
 "Institutes." We conceive that the doctrine is, in this work, 
 pushed to an extreme, and hence conclusions deduced which are 
 unwarranted by the word of God. 
 
 2. While we hold the doctrine of the voluntary, free, uncon- 
 strained action of man, we cannot fully endorse the sentiments of 
 Arminius, or his followers and admirers. We conceive the true 
 " path," the " good way," to lie in the " golden medium." On 
 these points, however, we must be permitted to remark that the 
 " Arminianism" of the present day is a very different thing 
 from the doctrines of James Arminius, the reputed founder of 
 the Arminian system.* 
 
 II. But in what do we differ from our brethren of other de- 
 nominations in respect to the doctrines of the ordinances? In 
 these we differ very materially from all other denominations 
 known among us. We are, in respect to the ordinances of our 
 churches, a " peculiar people." Let us see if we are in the 
 tc old paths" in these matters. By the Scriptures we propose to 
 be tried, and abide their decision. For we acknowledge nothing 
 else as authoritative in Christian duty, no less than in Christian 
 doctrine. This is our book of prayer, discipline, and confession 
 of faith. To this we appeal, and with it stand or by it fall. We 
 acknowledge no human authority in matters of duty to God. 
 We cannot submit to be governed by human creeds, or the un- 
 certain and often contradictory teachings of tradition. We re- 
 quire a divine .warrant for our practice, and nothing less will 
 satisfy us. While, therefore, others may content themselves to 
 follow the ambiguities of traditionary lore, or make concessions 
 to the decrees of synods, conventions or conferences, let us " stand 
 in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good 
 way, and walk therein." Rest assured if God has given laws to 
 his churches, he will not hold him guiltless who forsakes his 
 laws, and follows human authority instead of his laws? Are the 
 laws of Christ authoritative? Then away with all human creeds. 
 Give us the Word. Wo are not willing it shall be supplanted, 
 or its authority weakened by its union with the systems of man. 
 Taking the Bible, then, as "our only rule of faith and practice," 
 we discard all other authority as law, and appeal to it as our 
 guide. And, 
 
 1. We hold that none but those who make a credible profes- 
 sion of faith in Christ are proper subjects for the ordinances of 
 his kingdom. Whoever would participate in the ordinances com- 
 monly called sacraments, must make a credible profession of faith 
 in Christ. We argue this, 
 
 * It would be a matter of no little surprise to one, whose rnind has never been directed 
 to this point, to see how different from tha doctrines of this great and good man, is that 
 system to which his name is now attaehed. It is an injury of the gravest character done 
 Lis name, and its perpetrators should bo rebuked. 
 
17 
 
 (1.) From the fact that all who were "baptized hy the apostles, 
 so far as the record dearly shows, wade a profession of faith in 
 Jesus, as the Christ. There is not a case recorded of any others 
 receiving baptism at the hands of the apostles. Soon after the 
 resurrection of Christ, according to promise previously made, 
 the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost. Many 
 were convicted of sin, and cried, " what shall we do?" They 
 were told what to do ; they complied, and were baptized ; and 
 the same day three thousand were added to the believers. No 
 one claims that any were baptized who did not make a profession 
 of faith in Christ. This is the first case of baptism by the apos- 
 tles after the resurrection of the adorable Redeemer, and believers 
 only were baptized. 
 
 Of course it cannot be expected that we should examine all the 
 cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament. We will, how- 
 ever, direct your attention to those cases about which difficulties 
 in our way are supposed to exist. The first is the case of Lydia, 
 recorded in Acts xvi : 14, 15: Lydia believed;" and it is said 
 her "household" were baptized with her. If her household 
 were not believers, they were either adult or infant unbelievers. 
 I suppose no one would claim that they were adult unbelievers. 
 Then they must have been infant unbelievers. This is the claim 
 of those who rest their claim on this passage. But the utter 
 insufficiency of this plea will readily appear, when we consider 
 that there is not a word in the record about Lydia's husband, or 
 children. To make this available against us, therefore, we must 
 assume, take for granted, without a particle of proof — I. That 
 Lydia either was then, or had lately been married. There is no proof 
 that she had ever had a husband. 2. We must take for granted, 
 upon the admission that she was or had been married, that she 
 had children. There is not a word said in the record about her 
 children. 3. Upon admission that she had children at all, we 
 must assume that they were infants. 4. We must assume that 
 these infants were with her at Phillippi. She was of another city, 
 several hundred miles distant, and there is no proof that if she 
 had children at all, that they were with her. For she seems to 
 have been a transient merchant, such as we now call pedlar. 
 One thing is certain — whoever might have been the members 
 composing her household, we are not warranted by the language 
 of the record in concluding there were infant children baptized. 
 Much stress has been laid upon the case of the jailer, recorded in 
 the same chapter. But the least care will dispel any doubts as 
 to the character of the subjects of the ordinance in this case. It 
 is declared that the apostles, Paul and Silas, " spake unto him 
 the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Then 
 all were the subjects of instruction by the apostles. Farther, it 
 is said that the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
 house." Here we are informed that all his house were instructed, 
 and that all believed, so that there can be no difficulty in deter- 
 
18 
 
 mining that the record sustains our position fully. The house- 
 hold of Stephauus is sometimes referred to as proof that the 
 apostles baptized infant children upon the faith of their parent or 
 parents. Paul says, (1 Cur. i: 16): "And I baptized also the 
 household of Stephauus." Now, says the advocate of infant bap- 
 tism, here is a case you cannot deny. There is nothing said 
 here of the faith of any ; therefore we must presume there were 
 infants in the household of Stephanus. But if you will turn to 
 the sixteenth chapter of the same epistle, and read the fifteenth 
 verse : "I beseech you, brethreu, (ye know the house of Stepha- 
 nus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have ad- 
 dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.") In this case 
 there is proof to a demonstration, as with the jailer's .family, 
 that there were no infant children baptized in this case by the 
 apostles. 
 
 The only remaining case which I now will refer to, is the case 
 of Cornelius. The supposed difficulties about this case also van- 
 ish at a glance. Cornelius says to Peter, (Acts x: 33,) "Now, 
 therefore, we are all here present before God, to hear all things 
 that are commanded thee of God." The historian, in reporting 
 the case, says, after the preaching of Peter, " The Holy Ghost 
 fell on all them which heard the word." Acts x : 44. And Peter 
 commanded those who had received the Holy Ghost, aud only 
 those, (vs. 47, 48,) to be baptized. 
 
 Now, the cases to which we have referred are the cases of most 
 difficulty to our view, and you see that with a little care, they 
 make no difficulty whatever. We have attempted a candid in- 
 vestigation of these points, and think we have found, that instead 
 of operating against our views, they very materially sustain us. 
 
 (2.) The commission under which the apostles acted made no 
 mention of any as the proper subjects of Christian baptism, but 
 believers. " Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to 
 every creature : he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, 
 and he that believeth not shall be damned." " Go teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them," &c. This is the commission under 
 which the disciples were to act, and this mentions no one as 
 fitted to receive baptism but believers in Christ. Now, then, it 
 must follow that if this be the authority upon which baptism is 
 administered, and it be administered to any but believers, it 
 must be by transcending the commission. It will not do to 
 argue that because Christ is silent, therefore we ought to bap- 
 tize, them, for he meant so. We suppose that Christ said what 
 he meant, and that the Holy Ghost has fairly recorded his lan- 
 guage. Nor is there a single case recorded in which the apostles 
 baptized any but professed believers. This, then, is "the old 
 path — the good way." 
 
 (3.) The Scriptures nowhere speak of any receiving baptism 
 who did not immediately become members of the churches. The 
 Scriptures know nothing of an unbaptized membership, or of a 
 
19 
 
 baptized non-membership. They nowhere speak of any being 
 baptized who were not members of the churches, except such 
 as had been excluded from fellowship, as Simon Magus, the in- 
 cestuous man, &c, &c. Let us then bear this in mind, and 
 enquire — 
 
 (4.) What were the duties required of all the members of the 
 churches? And we will see that the apostles knew nothing of 
 infant baptism, because they knew nothing of infant church mem- 
 bership. Examine into the nature of the duties enjoined upon 
 all the church members, and then ask yourselves what is requi- 
 site to a discharge of these duties. See if these duties can be 
 discharged by any other than a heart renewed by divine grace. 
 I seriously call the attention of all who differ from us to the con- 
 sideration of this point. Did the apostles in their epistles address 
 an unregenerate membership ? And are the duties enumerated to 
 be performed by the unsanctified ? Nay, verily. These are 
 duties enjoined upon all the members of the churches, and re- 
 quire to their discharge, capacity for understanding, and repent- 
 ance and faith on the part of the subjects. From the nature, 
 therefore, of the duties required of all the members of the 
 churches, we conclude that none but regenerate persons can be 
 members of the churches, according to apostolic institution. 
 Those who discharge these duties must be renewed in the spirit of 
 their mind. It is useless to speak of their discharge by any 
 other. How, then, could they be addressed to others? Remem- 
 ber, we are not warranted from the record to believe that any 
 had been baptized who were not considered members of the 
 churches, except such as had been excommunicated. All others 
 baptized are members ; and these duties are enjoined upon them 
 as such. 
 
 (5.) These views are sustained by the most learned and candid 
 ecclesiastical historians. There is a unanimity in this matter 
 that is utterly. inconsistent with the opposite of our opinion. 
 Dr. Wall, the champion of infant baptism, frankly admits all we 
 claim. He says: "Among all the persons that are recorded as 
 baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any in- 
 fant." Hist. In. Bap., Pref. p. 27 Ox. ed. He pleads for the 
 rite on the ground of tradition and Jewish analogy. Our propo- 
 sition is that there is no dear case of infant baptism in the re- 
 cord ; this Dr. W. owns in this passage. The learned Neander 
 says : " Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men 
 were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly con- 
 nected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from 
 apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed 
 somewhat later as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this 
 hypothesis." Neander, vol. I, p. 311. Quotations to an almost 
 indefinite extent might be made to the same effect. But our 
 time will not allow. These, therefore, must suffice. Ji\ there- 
 fore, we listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit, as it speaks in the 
 
20 
 
 word ; if we listen to the voice of history, we hear only of pro- 
 fessed believers being received into the churches during the apos- 
 tolic times, and immediately thereafter. From this testimony 
 we conclude that we are justified in admitting those only to the 
 ordinances of the church who profess faith in the Son of God, 
 This is "the old path — the good way," Let us "walk there- 
 in." 
 
 2. We hold that nothing is valid baptism but the immersion of 
 a professed believer, in water, by a properly authorized administra- 
 tor. Herein we differ from our brethren of other denominations. 
 Pedobaptists regard, not only the infant children of believing 
 parents as fit subjects of baptism, which we have just considered, 
 but they also regard sprinkling or pouring of water, in the name 
 of the Trinity, as the act of baptism, as well as immersion. We 
 take issue on this ground, and claim that sprinkling or pouring 
 is not baptism at all. Let us briefly consider this point ; and, in 
 regard to it, let us " ash for the old, path" — the apostolic way. 
 We argue that immersion only is baptism ; that anything else is 
 clearly no baptism at all. If Christ intended, as no doubt he 
 did, that this ordinance should be observed by alLhis followers, 
 it is not reasonable to suppose that he has used a word, which 
 was, at the time he used it, vague and uncertain as to its mean- 
 ing. It is reasonable to suppose that the term he used in giving 
 his command was one, the meaning of which was well understood 
 by the apostles. 
 
 Again : If Christ commanded sprinkling for baptism, he cer- 
 tainly did not command pouring or immersion. If he commanded 
 immersion, he certainly did not command either of the others, 
 for the actions expressed by these words are materially and neces- 
 sarily different, and we cannot suppose that the blessed Kedeemer 
 did not use a word of specific meaning. If he used one of specific 
 meaning, the enquiry is, what is that meaning? 
 
 Once more : If Christ commanded some specific action, has 
 any man or class of men a right to change the meaning of the 
 term, so as that a different action from the one originally re- 
 quired shall be recognized as obedience to Christ? We answer, 
 emphatically, no. We have already shown that the church has 
 executive power only, not legislative. 
 
 But did Christ command some specific action, and was that 
 immersion ? We hold that he did. As proof, 
 
 (1.) We hold that he uses a term to express this action which 
 primarily and ordinarily means to immerse. This no scholar ivill 
 dare deny. The ordinary and general signification of the word 
 is immerse. Now, upon the admission that it may mean some- 
 thing else in extraordinary connections, yet we would claim that 
 baptism is immersion, because this is acknowledged by all to be its 
 general signification. If the term used is admitted to have two 
 significations, one the general and ordinary, and the other the 
 rare and uncommon, would it not be reasonable, nay, certain. 
 
21 
 
 that our Lord used the word in its general and common, and not 
 in'its infrequent and uncommon signification? We hold that he 
 would. Whatever was the sense in which he used it, it is the 
 duty of Christians to comply with that sense of the word. It is 
 not enough, as we conceive, that we find that the word very 
 rarely means something else, and claim that this is what the 
 Saviour required his followers to do. If we have reason to be- 
 lieve that the Saviour used this word in its ordinary and general 
 sense, then it is as much our duty to comply with this sense as 
 though the word had no oilier meaning. 
 
 (2.) But this word not only ordinarily means immerse or dip, 
 but strictly speaking, it is claimed by us, that it means nothing 
 else. We grant that in a free translation it may be rendered 
 "wash," and the general sense may be well enough expressed. 
 But this fact does not alter the signification of the word, or give 
 it an additional one. But that this word, strictly speaking, sig- 
 nifies immerse only, is the opinion of some of the most learned 
 men of modern times. Dr. Wall says: " It is plain that the 
 ordinary and general practice of St. John, the apostles and prim- 
 itive church, was to baptize by putting the person into the water, 
 or causing him to go into the water. Neither do I Jcnoiv of any 
 Protestant who has denied it." (The italics are my own.) See 
 Wall's Defense In. Bap., p. 150-1. Here we have the testimony 
 of this distinguished Paedobaptist that he did not know of a single 
 Protestant, in his day, who denied that immersion was the prac- 
 tice of the apostles and primitive church. But had not the word 
 used by our Saviour justified this opinion, is it not reasonable to 
 suppose that there would have been some who would have called 
 it in question ? 
 
 John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian church, says: 
 " The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse ; and it is 
 certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church." 
 Inst. Book IV, chap. 15, § 19. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers, the greatest of the divines of the Kirk of Scot- 
 land, says: "The original meaniug of the word baptism is im- 
 mersion." Lee. on Rom., lee. 30. 
 
 These witnesses serve as a specimen. Others, of high charac- 
 ter as scholars and Christians, bear similar testimony to the truth 
 of our position. We might detain you till night reading similar 
 extracts, but these must suffice for the present. But however 
 large may be the signification of the word, it cannot possibly mean 
 sprinkle or pour. No lexicographer has given either of these sig- 
 nifications as the classical meaning of this word ; and we hold 
 that the duty of the friends of the Redeemer is to follow the 
 plain direction of Christ. This is " the old path and the good 
 way;" let us walk therein, and we "shall find rest to our 
 souls." 
 
 (3.) As already hinted, the practice of the churches in the ages 
 immediately succeeding the apostles, was immersion. To this no 
 
22 
 
 exception is found, except in cases of sickness. This baptism, 
 " in present danger of death," was administered, because it was 
 believed that one dying unbaptized could not be saved. We can- 
 not now enter into the proof of this last point, but there is an 
 abundance of proof at hand. 
 
 Ixeauder says: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in 
 conformity with the original institution and the original import 
 of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire bap- 
 tism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the 
 same." Vol. I, p. 310. He further says: "It was only with 
 the sick, where the exigency required it, that any exception was 
 made." lb. 
 
 Dr. Wall, in speaking of the ancient practice, says: "Their 
 general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dip- 
 ping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or 
 woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite 
 number of passages, that, as one cannot but pity the weak en- 
 deavors of such psedobaptists as would maintain the negative of 
 it, so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane 
 scoffs which some people give the English anti-psedobaptists 
 merely for their use of dipping." — His. In. Bap,, vol. II, p. 384, 
 ed. Ox. 
 
 We shall satisfy ourself with one more extract, taken from Dr. 
 W 7 hitby's note on Rom. vi : 4. He says : " It being so expressly 
 declared here, and in Col. ii : 12, that we are buried with Christ 
 in baptism by being buried under the water, and the argument 
 to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being 
 taken hence, and this immersion being religiously observed by all 
 Christians fur thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and 
 the change of it unto sprinkling, even without any allowance 
 from the Author of this institution, or any license from any coun- 
 cil of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to 
 justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ', it were to be wished 
 that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion 
 only permitted as of old, in cases of the clinici, or in present dan- 
 ger of death." 
 
 Such is the testimony of history, as related by predobaptists 
 themselves. Surely, no one will accuse us of unreasonableness 
 for adhering to a practice sanctioned by the word of God, and 
 made venerable by the lapse of eighteen centuries. We are 
 taught by these historic documents, that sprinkling and pouring 
 for baptism is an innovation ; and, except in cases of sickness, an 
 innovation of a comparatively recent date. From these facts, 
 ■ too, we find ourselves surrounded by the holy men of past gene- 
 rations. We stand amidst the hosts of God's elect, and looking 
 back, up the stream of time, see the millions of the redeemed and 
 saved for thirteen hundred years, " buried with Christ in bap- 
 tism," and thus declaring their faith in a Saviour once buried, 
 but now arisen to die no more. Thus the voice of the martyred 
 
23 
 
 ones reaches us through their actions, and says : " Follow the 
 •Lamb whithersoever he goeth." With such proofs as these, my 
 friends, we cannot believe that any other action is baptism. We 
 are honest in our sentiments, and if you will consider these facta 
 and arguments, you will find their not unimportant. Nay, to us 
 they are decisive. This is " the old path, the good way." Let 
 us walk therein. Let nothing deter us from following the com- 
 mands of our Lord. " If ye love me, keep my commandments. " 
 
 .3. We hold that none should be admitted to the communion of 
 the Lord's supper who have not thus been baptized. We hold, 
 if not thus baptized, they are not baptized at all, and if not bap- 
 tized at all, they are not entitled to a participation of the supper 
 of the Lord. We argue this, 
 
 (I.) From the example of our Lord in its institution. He ate 
 the supper with his disciples, and not with those who were not 
 his disciples. While, therefore, we are not permitted to see and 
 know the hearts of men, so as to decide who are the true disciples of 
 our Lord, we are to be governed by his laws in reference to his 
 own requirements. The question as to whether the disciples who 
 ate the last supper with the Saviour had been baptized, has been 
 thought to deserve some influence in the settlement of this ques- 
 tion We cannot think, in the first place, that it is a competent 
 enquiry, or that if found that they had not been baptized, that it 
 would determine anything in this matter. But it is to beg the 
 question altogether to assume that they had not been baptized ; 
 and do not think us severe if we claim that it is done to serve a 
 purpose. We conceive that it is the weakness of the cause it 
 would serve that raises a question at this point. But we have 
 said that if this were a fact settled, that these disciples had not 
 been baptized, it would be destitute of force in the present en- 
 quiry — 1. Because our Lord being Sovereign, could invite whom- 
 soever he would on that occasion to partake of the supper. 2nd, 
 and chiefly ; Because when he gave the commission to his disci- 
 ples, he made baptism the first duty of the believer. " Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 
 Mat. xxviii : 19, 20. " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
 gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved." Mark xvi : 15, 16. Acting under this commission, 
 the disciples must have required baptism immediately after the 
 exercise of faith ; so that participation in the Lord's supper could 
 not have preceded baptism. Baptism, in the order of the com- 
 mission, must follow faith, and is recognized in the New Testa- 
 ment as the first act of obedience after faith. How did the disci- 
 ples understand the commission on this point? Evidently as we 
 do. On the day of Pentecost Peter preached, three thousand 
 believed, icere baptised, and afterwards partook of the supper. 
 Acts ii : 42. 
 
24 
 
 From these considerations ^e see that repentance and faith , 
 though requisite, are not the only requisites to communion at the 
 Lord's supper. Christ has placed baptism between faith and 
 communion, and we dare not remove it. We rejoice to believe 
 that our brethren of other denominations are true lovers of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and should it be our happy lot, after the toils 
 and conflicts of life are past, to " enter into the rest that remains 
 to the people of God," we expect to meet thousands of them 
 there. This is the faith and hope we fondly cherish. ,But this 
 cannot determine the question of communion. The law of Christ 
 must control us in this matter, and not our feelings. We regard 
 them as children of God by faith in Christ, but as disobedient 
 children, and disobedient in the very matter that would entitle 
 them to participation in the supper of our Lord. As illustration : 
 A., the head of a family, leaves home, and gives his son B. 
 charge of his matters during his absence, with special direction 
 that he (B.) must see that each member of the family washes his 
 face before he eats breakfast, each day during his absence. He 
 also makes this command known to the family before he leaves. 
 This arrangement is observed by all the family but C, the second 
 son of A. He comes to the table and demands his meat, while 
 he has not washed his face. B. refuses to admit him. Could he 
 do otherwise, if he respected his father's commands? Surely not. 
 Would it avail anything if C. should plead that he was a son of 
 A. ? Would not B. say to him, " I know you are. I know that 
 you are my brother, and if I were to consult my feelings of affec- 
 tion for you, I would gladly admit you ; but you know our father's 
 command, and I dare not disregard it." Would not this be dis- 
 charging his duty? But suppose 0. should say, " Do you not 
 believe my father will give me my share of the estate when I 
 come to my majority ? and how then can you refuse me a seat at 
 table?" B. would reply : " I suppose he will, but that is nothing 
 to the purpose. Father has not given that into my hands. He 
 has only directed me as to what shall be required before you eat, 
 and in obedience to his commands, I cannot admit you." I ask 
 you, my friends, if C. has any right to complain at the conduct 
 of B. ? This is our language to you. That we do not admit you 
 is your own fault, and not ours. We love those who love the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, but we feel bound to obey him in regard to his 
 own ordinances,- We do not feel at liberty to invert the order of 
 these duties. Our Lord has committed his ordinances to the 
 keeping of his church, and although we regard you as children 
 by faith, and heirs of everlasting rest, yet our Lord's commands 
 will not allow us to invite you to his table. That we shall com- 
 mune in heaven is not the question, but whether you have com- 
 plied with a duty that Christ demands before you can come to his 
 table. 
 
 (2.) The supper has been placed within the church, and we 
 dare not take it outside. None are within the church but those 
 
 3l%o* 
 
25 
 
 who have been baptized. None have been baptized but those 
 who have been immersed upon a profession of faith by a properly 
 qualified administrator. Therefore, none but those who have 
 thus been baptized are entitled to a seat at the communion table. 
 
 (3.) We act upon the same principle upon which our brethren 
 of other denominations act in regard to the supper. They hold 
 that baptism is a prerequisite to communion. The only differ- 
 ence is in regard to what constitutes baptism. 
 
 (4.) We hold that there is no saving efficacy in these ordi- 
 nances, but regard them as binding on the authority of Christ. 
 He has positively enjoined them, and we hold that they are bind- 
 ing on that account. We believe also that they are typical of the 
 change wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. Oceans of wa- 
 ter cannot wash away our sin. The heart all polluted can pu 
 cleansed only by the blood of Christ, applied " through faith in 
 his name." " Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the 
 flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." The 
 blood of the Son of God only can remove the guilt of sin, and 
 save us from death. But. in baptism, when administered in ac- 
 cordance with the word of God, we stipulate a good conscience 
 towards God. Well may the follower of the blessed Redeemer 
 have this good conscience when he obeys this command. Here 
 he marks the foot-prints of his Redeemer, as he descended into 
 the Jordan, and was baptized by his servant John. It was then 
 the Holy Spirit visibly descended and rested on the Holy One, 
 and the voice from heaven said: " This is my beloved Son, in 
 whom I am well pleased." 'Tis here he shows his love to his 
 Saviour while he is baptized in the likeness of his burial, and 
 thereby declares his faith in that resurrection of which Christ has 
 become " the first fruits." It is here, too, that he symbolizes the 
 death which he has undergone to sin, through the operation of 
 the Spirit of God, and his newness of life. Well may he here 
 stipulate "a good conscience toward God." This is "the old 
 path and good way." This is the doctrine of the apostles. Let 
 us "walk therein," that we may have " a good conscience to- 
 ward Gol\.'\ 
 
 III. Having "stood in the ways, and seen, and asked for the 
 old paths, where is the good way," and as we conceive, found 
 that way, let us heed the injunction of our text, and "walk 
 therein." This is the command of God. It will be of no ser- 
 vice to have found "'the old path — the good way," if Ave walk 
 not therein. At whatever cost, or whatever sacrifice, we should 
 walk in this "old path." Dues it seem "strait and nar- 
 row?" Never mind that — it is " the good ivay." Does it cost 
 us a sacrifice of our former opinions and dearly prized faith? 
 Better sacrifice these thau walk in any other than the "old 
 paths." 
 
 " And must I part with all I have, 
 My dearest Lord, i'or thee?" 
 
26 
 
 u It is Letter for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather 
 than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting 
 fire." "He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me is 
 not worthy of me." " Walk therein " is the command of God. 
 We are not to scop with having found " the old paths." This is 
 necessary to walking therein, but having found the way, let us 
 make haste to walk in it. " To obey is better than sacrifice, and 
 to hearken than the fat of rams. Kebellion is as the sin of 
 witchcraft/' 
 
 IV. In conclusion, let us note the encouragement, " Ye shall 
 find rest to your souls." To walk in " the old paths — the good 
 way," is the only means of finding rest to our souls. It is. the 
 way that God has appointed. Haste, and delay not to keep the 
 commandments of God. In the discharge of the duties herein 
 enjoined, with those in which we all agree, we shall find "rest 
 to our souls " in this life, and that which is to come. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Thus we have briefly presented our views as tested by the 
 Scriptures. How do they, correspond ? Are our teachings in 
 harmony with them or not? We leave it with you to decide. 
 These are the doctrines we expect to be taught in this house, 
 which we now dedicate to the service of Almighty God. May the 
 presence of the Lord God dwell here ; may he bless those who 
 worship here ; may the truth of the everlasting gospel ever be 
 proclaimed ; and may many happy souls be born to God here, 
 and live with him in the skies, to bless his name that Sharon 
 meeting house, Warren Co., N. C, was ever built and dedi- 
 cated to his service. And you, my brother,* through whose 
 efforts this house has been erected, have great reason to thank 
 God and take courage. May God abundantly bless your efforts 
 to build up his cause here ; and may you live to see many of your 
 friends and relatives born to God within these walls. And may 
 the presence of God be with you, and the blessings of our heavenly 
 Father be with us all. Amen. 
 
 * Rev. L. C. Perkinson. 
 
 3SSU7