"R> 14/ holton

Mwv25 i as srL

CENTENNIAL SERMON.

PLEA

OF THE

CHURCH OF GOD
BY
R. H.BOLTON, V. D. M.,
OF
FINDLAY, HAHCOCK COUNTY. OHIO.

FOURTH REVISED EDITION.

' The House of God, "which is the Church of the Living God.'
I Tim. iii: 15.

HARRISBURG..PA.;
BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE GENERAL ELDERSHIP OF THE CHURCH
OF GOD.

CENTENNIAL SERMON.

PLEA

OF THE

CHURCH OF GOD

BY

R. H. BOLTON, V. D. M.,

if OF

FINDLAY, HANCOCK COUNTY, OHIO.

FOURTH REVISED EDITION.

The House of God, which is the Church of the Living God."
I Tim. iii: 15.

HARRISBURG, PA.;
BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE GENERAL ELDERSHIP OF THE CHURCH
OF GOD.

PREFACE.

This work contains, in substance at least, the sermon de
livered by the writer in the bethel of the Church of God
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Lord's day morning,
July 2, 1876, at the " Centennial Meetings" of the Church
of God held by order of the General Eldership of the
Church of God in the United States, and which sermon
the Board of Incorporation of the General Eldership, in
session at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 3, 1876, au
thorized to be published.
After three editions of our unpretending little volume
or pamphlet had been published, the General Eldership
convened at Wooster, Ohio, in May, 1884, passed the fol
lowing :
"Whereas, The work published by Elder R. H. Bolton,
on 'The Plea of the Church of God,' is exhausted, after
having three editions published ;
" And whereas, The book is in demand, and we believe
its mission to be a useful one ; therefore,
' ' Resolved, That we request the Board of Publication to
publish another edition of the work."
This action of the General Eldership constitutes our
apology for offering the fourth edition of this humble
treatise to the brotherhood of the Church and the general
public. Grateful for the past recognition it has received, and the
good which we trust it has accomplished, with a few cor
rections of mistakes in orthography and phraseology, pre
viously overlooked, we again send it forth with the prayer
that it may be helpful in the dissemination of Bible truth,
in the extension of the borders of our beloved Zion, and
in every way productive of great good.
THE AUTHOR.
Findlay, Ohio, July 23, 1885.

SERMON.

Theme : Plea of the Church of God and Conditions
of Success.
Text: — "And now, I say unto you, refrain from these
men, and let them alone, for if this counsel, or -this work,
be of men, it will come to naught; but if it be of God, ye
cannot overthrow it ; lest haply ye be found even to fight
against God." — Acts v: 38, 39.
Having been solicited by the Committee appointed by
the General Eldership at its last sessions on ' ' Centennial
Convocation" to preach on this occasion, I enter upon
the duty with a degree of reluctance, yet with cheerfulness.
I feel humbly diffident when I consider that more aged and
wiser heads are present, who, I think, should have per
formed this duty; but cheerfully I enter upon the task, as
it affords us another gracious opportunity of portraying
gospel truth, truth pertaining to the Church of God and
her glorious principles.
The theme announced by the "Centennial Committee"
for the occasion is the "Distinctive Doctrines of the Church
of God."
Hence, I propose to call special attention to the follow
ing: " Our plea and work as a Church and conditions of
success," which, in our discussion, will embody the leading
doctrine of the Church of God.
The text of Scripture read as a basis of remarks was
uttered during the early establishment of the Church in the
land of Judea, in the Apostolic age.
Before we proceed further we will define the word
church.
The English word church is derived from the Greek
kuriakon, belonging to the Lord. The Greek word ekkle-
sia, commonly translated church in King James' version
of the New Testament, comes from ek, out of, and kaleo,
I call; therefore, implies the called out. Hence, its first
and primary meaning is :

I. A congregation or assembly of persons, whether
good or bad, called out and separated from the rest of the
community for some special purpose — Joel ii: 15, and Acts
xix: 32, 39 and 41. As such it is applied in the Scriptures
to a congregation of Jews, Heathens, or Christians.
II. In its New Testament sense it is used to signify :
1. The Lord's out-called of any locality, or, in other
words, an assembly of saints ot any community united to
gether for the worship of God according to the Scriptures.
(See Rom. xvi: 1 ; 1 Cor. i : 1 ; 1 Thess. ii : 14, etc.)
2. The whole multitude or collective body of Chris
tians in the world. (See Eph. v: 25-27; 1:22; iii: 21;
Col. i: 18; etc.)
The church, as such, in both her elementary and organic
forms established by the Lord from heaven, through the
personal ministry of Christ, the labors of the Apostles and
early Christians, gloriously and triumphantly prospered
and grew in Jerusalem, in the land of Judea, in Samaria
and in the uttermost parts of the earth.
During the Apostolic age the disciples earnestly con
tended for the faith delivered them by the Lord, and to a
great degree, unity and great prosperity attended the
churches of God ; but as the age of the Apostles receded
into the past, there was a gradual departure from the gospel
faith. Therefore, amid the corruptions of the dark ages,
items of this system of faith " once delivered to the saints,"
and elements of the church have either been corrupted,
changed, or wholly left out of the systems of religion of
the present age. Those changed and left out we propose
to supply.
Accordingly, I come to notice :
I. The Plea or Work of the Church of God.
II. The Conditions of Success.
Resuming this proposed order, I will contemplate :
I. The Plea or Work of the Church of God.
Providence has committed to us as a people, distin
guished from other Protestant people, a special, precious
and glorious plea. It is the restoration of primitive
Christianity, in letter and spirit, in faith and practice.
It is clearly evident, from the history of the church
since the Apostolic age that many changes in church forma
tion and theology have taken place. It will not be our

province to-day to point out by whom, when, where and
why those changes have been made, but refer to the more
prominent items thus changed and left out which we as a
Church propose to restore.
The leading items referred to are as follows :
I. That the Church of the Scriptures originated with,
was founded and is owned by, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I. As to her origin. I observed that she originated
with the Lord Jesus Christ. This is implied in the fact
that: i. ChrisUpurchased her with his own blood. "Feed
the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own
blood." — Acts xx : 28. Again, "Christ loved the Church
and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water, by the word, that he might
present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and
without any blemish. " — Eph. v : 25-27.
2. He founded her upon the rock. " Upon this rock
I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." — Matt, xvi: 18.
3. He commenced her up-building. He gathered ma
terial. See His labors and success as recorded in the New
Testament. 4. He selected help as builders — selected the twelve
Apostles; also seventy disciples. And since then, in
answer to prayer, supplied His Church with a living
ministry. (See Matt, x: 1-4; ix: 37, -38; Luke x: 1, 2.)
5. He sent the promised Comforter, or endued the
builders with power from on high. — John xvi: 5-7; also,
Luke xxiv: 49. This prepared them for their great work.
6. He prospered efforts in her up-building. This was
done amid the most violent opposition. But the Lord was
with the builders. It was His Church and House ; hence,
He aided them in the laudable work of erecting her walls.
II. As to her ownership. I observe that she is the
Lord's. " He calls her "My Church. ' ' She is the Lord's.
1. By sovereign choice. " Chosen in Him before the
foundation of the world." — Eph. i: 4.
2. By covenant agreement ; given to the Lord by the
Father.

8
3. By right of establishment. " Upon this rock I will
build my Church. — Matt, xvi : 18.
4. By actual purchase. — Acts xx: 28; Eph. v: 25-27.
5. By selecting builders for His building, and prosper
ing and approving of their labors.
III. As to her foundation : I remark that it is Christ.
He is her founder. This is clearly evident.
1. Isaiah, the prophet, says :" Behold, I lay in Zion
for & foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner
stone, a sure foundation." — Isa. xxviii: 16. "That rock
(or stone) was Christ." — Paul to the Corinthians, first
letter, chap, x : 4.
2. The Apostle Peter says : "This is the stone which
was set at naught of you builders, which is become the
head of the corner." — Acts iv:n. (See also 1 Peter
11:5, 6.)
3. The Apostle Paul says: " Other foundation can no
man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now,
iffany man build upon this foundation gold, silver, pre
cious stones, wood, hay, stubble," etc. — 1 Cor. iii: n, 12;
also, "Are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,
in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth
into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are builded
together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. ' ' — Eph.
ii : 20-22. The incontestable fact of Christ's being the
origin, owner and founder of the Church is shown in the
foregoing Scriptures, and facts. Hence, frail man cannot
be her founder, as many suppose. Such a supposition is
unwarranted by the teachings of the sacred oracles, and
the course of conduct of many in attempting to found
churches is only attended with church-schism and human
legislation, both of which are implicitly and explicitly for
bidden in the word of God.
Hence, our work as a Church is to restore the God-
given thought, that the Lord is the glorious and illustrious
founder of the Church of the New Testament Scriptures.
The right of establishing other kinds of churches we deny.
We claim that Jesus our Lord established His Church, and
that we should build up the same according to the pattern
given.

9 »
Another item we find in the teachings of Christ and
His Apostles, but lost sight of in the systems of theology
of modern days is :
II. The God-given Church name —
"the church of god."
Our position plainly stated is as follows : Adopt scriptural
words and phrases, as far as given in the word, in the
declaration of scriptural ideas. That is, "Bible things
should be called by Bible names."
The Bible record speaks of "The counsel of God,"
' ' The doctrine of Christ, " " The faith, " " The faith of the
gospel," "The faith which was once delivered to the
saints," etc. ; but in contradistinction thereto, we can
read in the various Church standards as follows: "Augs
burg Confession of Faith," " Heidleberg Catechism,"
"Westminster Catechism," " Constitution of the Presbyte
rian Church," "Discipline of the M. E. Church," etc.
These various modern-day systems of faith and duty, of
course, must have appropriate names to distinguish them,
and especially apart from the "faith of the gospel," as
taught in the Bible. By reference to the Bible we can
find no traces of those systems just cited ; hence, they came
into existence since the days of the Apostles, and of
sequence are human in their origin. History points out
the date of their first introduction.
In the Bible we, too, can read of "saints," "Chris
tians," "Disciples," "Friends," "Brethern," "Right
eous," etc.; but in modern theology we can read of
"Lutherans," "Presbyterians," "Episcopalians," "Con
gregationalists," "Methodists," and hosts of other names
of like character. Now, who has a right to change these
names ? By what authority do men call the people of God
by such unwarranted nicknames?
In the ' theology of modern days we read of church-
cognomens as follows: "Episcopalian Church," "Pres
byterian Church," "Methodist Church," "Unitarian
Church," "Lutheran Church," " Universalist Church,"
etc. These different names, distinguishing various Pro
testant denominations, are sectional and fragmentary in
their significations. Each is expressive of some one or
more doctrinal sentiment ; hence, it is purely sectional.

i. The leading idea expressed by the names "Episco
palian Church" and " Congregational Church," is their
peculiar .form of ecclesiastical government ; and so with
the name "Presbyterian Church."
2. The name "Methodist Episcopal Church" relates
mainly to its form of government, and the circumstances
of its first organization. Methodist is a name which came
from a very rigid or methodical class of physicians, who,
from their strict method of living, were styled Methodists.
This name was applied out of derision first, and I cannot
but look upon it as a very inappropriate church title.
3. "Unitarian Church " is expressive of a belief in the
unity of God in contradistinction to the Trinity; or a
belief of unity in unity, instead of Trinity in unity.
4. The leading idea expressed by the name ' ' Lutheran
Church ' ' is, that its members receive the fundamental
sentiments advocated by Martin Luther, the great and
successful Reformer.
5. " Universalist Church" signifies faith in the final
holiness and happiness of all God's intelligent creatures.
Others have framed church titles from Bible names,
which are equally unscriptural and inappropriate. There
are numerous names used as such. For instance :
1. " Brethern." Out of this name we find in Christ
endom at least four denominational names composed there
from, viz. .: " The Moravians," or, more properly, " Unitas
Fratrum or United Brethren's Church," the " River Breth
ren's," the "Brethren in Christ Church," or " Shoemaker-
ites," and the "United Brethern in Christ." The inappro-
jpriateness of these titles is seen when we consider that the
word brethren merely indicates the relation each member
of the same house sustains tp the other ; and as the disci
ples formed but one family, they were called brethren.
2. "Disciples." This term, in its simple meaning,
signifies learner. Of course, it would be improper to say,
Disciples' or Learners' Church, Or Disciples of Christ
Church. This needs no further explanation.
3. " Christian "—which signifies anointed one, or one
like Christ. This word is thus properly used, but not for
a church appellation. It is not a proper noun or a patrony
mic, and, therefore, is not used in the Scriptures as an
appellation for the Church.

4. "Saint" — means sanctified, holy, pure ; hence, was
applied to the devout of the Old Testament.
5. "Baptist" — signifies the administrator of baptism
— baptizer — and there surely is no propriety in calling all,
men and women, baptizers. Besides, the word baptist
means dipper or immerser; and who cannot see the im
propriety of naming the Church a dipper or immerser
church ?
Similar remarks are true concerning the entire category
of denominational appellations, whether framed of Bible
or human terms, excepting the names " Church of God,"
or "Church of Christ."
These various systems of modern origin, of course,
must have appropriate names to distinguish them. By
reference to the Bible no traces of their existence can
be found; hence, they must be of human origin. History
points out the date of their introduction. But we inquire,
who has a right to change these precious names of the
Holy Scriptures? These denominational names are sec
tional and fragmentary in their signification. Each is ex
pressive of some one or more doctrinal sentiment ; hence,
is purely sectional.
To restore the "Old Land-marks" — to speak accord
ing to the gospel, is the province of the Church of God.
We now come to the Bible and inquire, if the Lord origi
nated, founded and owns a Church, what is the name by
which the Church is recognized in the biblical record —
the word of God? I answer: "The Church of God,"
"The Churches of God," "The Churches of Christ," etc.
In .confirmation of this position I offer the following
proof :
1. It is a reasonable appellation. In the Bible the
Church is, by metaphor, compared to a natural family;
and inasmuch as earthly parents have an undoubted right
to name their own children, then God also has an undis
puted right to name His Church, which is made up of His
children; and having named her "The Church of God,"
we, the children or sons of God, should beware of nick
naming her, as some do.
2. It is an expressive title. The Greek word ekklesia,
from which we have congregation, assembly and church
in the Bible, may mean assembly without designating the

character of the same. Hence, it becomes necessary to
add some qualifying term. God's Church, or Church of
God is descriptive. It is God's Assembly ; or, an Assem
bly of God's Children. Any other name does not express
that necessarily. Hence, all those churches who have
adopted sectarian names find themselves compelled to drop
their names, at times, in conversation, writing and preach
ing, and say "Church of God," even when speaking of
their own organization. This is often done, and for the
plain reason that "Methodist Church," "Presbyterian
Church," "Lutheran Church," "Baptist Church," etc.,
are not found in the Bible, nor yet expressive of the sub
ject of which they are speaking.
3. The names which may be properly applied— prefixed
or annexed — to the metaphors to which the Church is likened,
clearly prove it.
The Church is delightfully denominated by many figures
and metaphors, to all of which it will do, and make good
sense and remain in keeping with Bible teaching, to prefix
or annex the name of God, or Christ; and it will destroy
its intended meaning to prefix or annex any other words
not of like import. Hence, the Church is compared to a
kingdom; i. e., God's Kingdom, or Kingdom of God.
To a family; i.e., God's House, or House of God. The
same may be said with propriety concerning the following
metaphorical expressions, viz.: "Mountain," "hill,"
"field," "vineyard," "vine," "husbandry," "tree,"
"flock," "fold," "body," "heritage," "dove," "city,"
"Jerusalem," "Israel," "Jacob," "habitation," "tem
ple," "building," "bride," "tabernacle," "sanctuary,"
and many other like metaphors used in the Bible.
4. It appropriately designates such society called out
from the world.
When ekklesia is applied to the people of God it means
the out- called. Such were those disciples whom "Christ
made and baptized." They constituted His bride, His
household, His family, or His Church. Surely, it was
very appropriate to call those communities of God's
people, whom Christ has called and converted, and who
are associated for His worship, " Churches of God. ' ' Such
they are not only by creation and general redemption, but
regeneration and adoption.

r3
5 . The image of the Holy Oracles.
i. God, verily, has the best right to name His Church.
This right he has exercised, and called her the "Church
of God." The fact, prerogative and certainty of naming
the Church, are predicted by the evangelical prophet Isaiah,
when he said, "Thou shalt be called by a new name,
which the mouth of the Lord shall name." — Isa. lxii: 2.
The Church was to receive a name — a new name — which
the mouth of the Lord should name.
The above prophetic declaration received its fulfillment
by the action of the Lord Jesus Christ, the illustrious
Founder of the Church, at the time He founded her upon
the rock. See Matthew's record: " Upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." — xvi: 18. At this time and place the Lord,
the Founder of the Church, named the Church — named
her after His own name — "My Church" — thus He as
sumed her ownership. Herein "the mouth of the Lord"
gave the church "a new name," as the prophet had pre
dicted. 2. In Luke's history of Apostolic labors he records,
" Feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased
with His own blood." — Acts xx: 28. This language is em
bodied in the able, appropriate, soul-stirring and sym
pathetic farewell address of the Apostle Paul to the Over
seers of the Church in Ephesus, in Asia Minor.
From the above quotations the following is fairly de-
ducible :
1. That the community of Christians, gathered through
Paul's instrumentality at Ephesus, constituted, as Paul
says, " The Church of God " in said city.
2. And that the "Overseers," whom Paul then ad
dressed had the spiritual oversight of said "Church of
God," for he says, "Feed the Church of God."
3. Paul declares the Lord purchased the Church. If
the Lord contracted for her, and paid for her with His
own blood, then the Church is His — the Lord's Church.
Then, by actual purchase, she belongs to the Lord — to no
one else. To claim her for another is an attempt at steal
ing what belongs to the Lord,
4. Paul, writing to the Church at Corinth, the capital
city of Achaia, which he himself had established, calls the

14
same by the proper name, which is in unison with what he
said at Ephesus, to which I have just referred.
In the introduction of each one of his two epistles to
this Church, he writes : " Unto the Church of God which
is at Corinth."— i Cor. i : 2, and 2 Cor. i: 1. In these
epistles he says: "Give none offence ***** to the
Church of God."— 1 Cor. x: 32. "We have no such
custom, neither the Churches of God" — x: 16. "Des
pise ye the Church of God"— verse 22. And again, Paul
says, "I am the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to
be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of
God" — xv : 9. These passages very clearly show that,
when Paul spoke or wrote concerning or to a religious
community, he called it by the cognomen the Lord had
given, viz. : "The Church of God."
5. At Thessalonica, capital of Macedonia, a congrega
tion of Christians was gathered by Paul, to which he after
wards wrote two epistles. In the first epistle (ii. 14) he
states "Ye, brethren, became followers of the Churches of
God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus. ' ' The follow
ing facts are deducible from this passage :
1. That the Churches of God in the land of Judea were
model Churches.
2. That the brethren at Thessalonica, constituting said
Church, were imitators of these model Churches.
3. As these model Churches in the land of Judea were
" Churches of God," hence, of necessity, the Church of
Thessalonica was also a " Church of God." In his second
epistle Paul writes, "We ourselves glory in you in the
" Churches of God.' "—i : 4.
5. To the Galatian brethren Paul says, "Beyond meas
ure I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it ' ' — i : 13.
What church? Answer: "The Church of God." Where?
Answer: At Jerusalem. — Acts viii: 1-3; ix: 1, 2. Hence,
the church at Jerusalem was a " Church of God."
6. Timothy was a native of Lystra, a city of Lycaonia
in Asia Minor, whom Paul calls his "own son in the faith,"
from which expression it is inferred that he was converted
under Paul's ministry. Timothy, after laboring some time
with Paul, became pastor over the Church at Ephesus.
Paul sent him two epistles, giving him sundry directions
in his pastoral duties; and among the rest he presents the

needful qualifications for a Church Overseer. One of the
qualifications is, ' ' One that ruleth well his own house,
having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if
a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
take care of the Church of God " — i Tim. iii : 45. From
this we learn :
1. That a man incapable of regulating well his own
family is not capable and ought by no means to be trusted
with the management of church affairs.
2. And, also, that those churches over which Overseers
are to be appointed, in all times, are Churches of God.
And in the fifteenth verse of the same chapter, Paul
states to Timothy the object of his writing, thus : " These
things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly ;
but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought-
est to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the
Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."
It is very clear that in this passage :
1 . Paul gave these directions to Timothy, who was then
yet inexperienced in his rule of conduct for the manage
ment of Church affairs at Ephesus.
2. That "the House of God," the foundation of which
was laid by Jesus Christ, He Himself being the " living,"
"chosen," "precious," and "tried corner stone," "a
sure foundation," called by Paul "God's building," is
the Church of the living God.
3. That "the House of God," "the Church of the
living God," embodies " the pillar and. ground oi truth."
Glorious thought ! That a full revelation of God's truth is
in the Church of God. The great doctrine of the Church
is, the truth unmixed with error. Formerly truth was but
partially revealed , much of it being shadowed with types,
ceremonies and comparatively dark prophecies ; but now
all is plain and the full revelation given, and this revela
tion is deposited in the bosom of the Church of the living
God; hence, she, by inspiration, is said to be "the pillar
and ground of truth. ' '
8. Paul, in his letter to the Church at Rome, says:
"The churches of Christ salute you" — xvi: 15. Con
cerning this passage, I remark :
1. That Paul must mean here that all the Churches he
had shortly before visited throughout Greece and Asia had

i6
heard of the faith and obedience of the Christians at Rome ;
and, very probably knowing the Apostle's design of soon
writing to or visiting Rome, they desired to be kindly re
membered to the Church in that city ; or, at least, if they
did not request it, he did send their salutations to Rome.
2. All these Churches in Greece and Asia Paul calls
Churches of Christ. From these and other like passages,
to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible that the names
by which God has called His Church are "Church of God,"
"Church of Christ," and such like Church titles, and it
was so designated by the Apostles.
6. That the title "Church of God" is proper as well
as scriptural is evident from the fact that the Church is the
Bride. She is the Bride, the Lamb's wife ; as such, she should
assume the name of her husband, viz. : The Lamb, Lord,
or God. That is the Lamb's Church, the Lord's Church,
or God's Church. What would we think of the bride who
refused to assume the name of her husband ? Would it not
cause trouble? What, then, does God think of the Bride —
the Church — who refuses to assume His, the husband's,
name. To say the least, is it not treating the Lord with
disrespect ?
But I close this chapter. The arguments advanced are
sufficient to maintain the name Church of God.
From the foregoing the irresistible conclusion is that the
Lord established and named His Church. She was called
the Church of God, and was so recognized by the Apostles
and primitive Christians. And as this name was lost sight
of in the Church up-building since then, our special work
is to restore the God-given name : and we thank God that
we have been successful. Thousands upon thousands are
accepting this God-given policy, and are rallying under the
banner of the Church of the living God.
We claim also to restore the Apostolic platform :
III. The God-given guide; or, book of Discipline,
the word of God.
The Lord having originated His Church, also supplied
her with laws and regulations for her government. The
book containing these is the Holy Bible. It contains the
writings of the Holy Scriptures. In these are found the
laws of Christ. These are sufficient both for the faith and

J7
the practice of the Church of God. This is evident when
we contemplate :
I. The language of the Spirit. It is clear that the Bible
contains a full and complete development of the truths and
facts essential to a sound, religious faith. The very ad
mission that they were given by "inspiration of God," and
that salvation depends upon their being accepted by us, is
sufficient of itself to place the point under argument be
yond the reach of cavil. Therefore, upon the admission
that God has prepared a remedial system for the world's
redemption, the conclusion is irresistible, that in this He has
furnished ample means for the faith of both head and
heart, and needs not the aid of Councils, Synods, Confer
ences, Creeds, or Confessions of Faith to do the work. In
John xx : 30, 31 we find the direct testimony of the Spirit.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John gave a record of Christ's
life, including many of His miracles, which it is evident,
was designed to be a plain source of evidence to produce
and control our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and
World's Redeemer. Indeed this is substantially affirmed
in the Scripture just cited : " But these are written, that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, ' '
that our faith might rest in the word of inspiration, and
not in the wisdom of men. Not only the purpose of these
records is given, namely, that the world might believe in
Christ, but their sufficiency as a rule of faith is affirmed. •
2. That God, by inspiration, has prepared them for
this-very end. — II Tim. iii: 16, 17.
3. That they contain a perfect system of doctrine and
discipline. — II Tim. iii: 16, 17.
4. The precepts enjoining the Scriptures upon us. —
2 Tim. i : 13; Jude 3; 2 Thess. ii : 15 ; Phil, i : 27; Matt.
xvii : 5 ; Acts iii : 22, 23, etc.
These, and such like passages, enjoined upon us in the
living oracles as the documents to be held fast in form,
earnestly contended for and submitted to, most clearly
prove that they were designed, and are all Sufficient, for
the Christian's religious faith.
5 . That they teach us how to fear God and keep His
commandments, which is the whole duty of man — Eccl. xii :
13, and Psalms xix.

i8
6. That those persons who will not hear and obey the
Scriptures are hopeless  Luke xvi : 31.
7. That they are easy of comprehension — are the only
plain rule, and can be understood by children. — 2 Tim.
iii. 15. Papacy rejects this idea. It is nevertheless true,
because their Author is perfectly acquainted with all minds.
Hence, He knows all about their capacities and circum
stances. And His infinite knowledge qualifies Him to
adopt a faith and practice suited to the wants of all. And
as He possesses the disposition to use it for the good of
mankind, He, of sequence, has furnished mankind with a
clear revelation of His will.
8. The Lord commands expressly the study of the Scrip
tures . "Search the Scriptures." — John v : 39.
9. They furnish special direction in all the sundry duties
growing out of various relations. These relations are
widely different. Such as we sustain to :
1. The entire brotherhood of man. — Matt, vii : 12.
2. The social relation. — Lukex: 27.
3. The home circle. — Eph. v : 22-25; yi : I-6, etc.
4. The membership of the church. — Matt, xvii : 15-
17; Gal. vi : 1; James v : 16; 1 Cor. v: 13, etc.
5. Civil government. — Rom. xiii. 1-7; Tit. iii : 1 ; 1
Pet. ii : 13, 14, etc.
6. All relations in life. Not a single exception to this
rule. 10. They are the only authoritative rule. — Acts iii : 22,23.
n. They are perfect. " The law of the Lord is perfect."
Their Author is perfect, hence they must be ; for it is un
reasonable to suppose that perfection will produce imperfec
tion. This is impossible. Rev. xxii: 18, 19 teaches their
perfection also.
These solemn threatenings referred to are founded alone
upon their perfection, and, therefore, subtractions there
from, and additions thereto, are positively forbidden.
12. That they are unchangeable. This is evident from
the unchangeableness of their Author — Heb. xiii : 8 ; from
their truthfulness, from their necessity, and from their un
compromising nature.
13. That they are infallible— submitted by an infallible
Author. They always secure the ends they contemplate.
There is no exception to this rule. This being obvious,

19
they will ever succeed in everything they propose, whether
it be in doctrine, experience or practice.
1 4. That they are perpetual. This is obvious from the
perpetuity of their Author ; the immutability and eternity
of truth communicated, and the perpetuity of the object
they contemplate — the religious education and well-being
of the race.
15. They are called God's will to man — Matt. xii. 21 ;
1 John ii. 17, etc.
16. That to the Scriptures all final appeals ate made in
ail matters of Christian faith and practice among Protestants.
17. That they are declared to be an all-sufficient church
guide in matters of faith and practice :
1. In all creeds and confessions of faith in the Protest
ant world. An investigation of them will develop this fact.
2. By the wisest and best men in the world. This is
manifest in their teachings and writings.
r8. That they contain enough, and not too much, for faith
and practice.
19. That obedience to the Scriptures secures great bless
ings in life, peace and resignation in death, and a glorious
future is in promise.
20. By the word of God all must finally be judged.
Hence, it should be our rule of conduct in life.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the Lord being the
"One Law-giver," furnished His Church with regulations
and observances ; these meet every emergency as contem
plated. They are called "The Counsel of God," "The
Faith of the Gospel," "The Doctrine of Christ," "The
Faith Once Delivered to the Saints," etc.
I might proceed with arguments, but the foregoing show
conclusively that the laws of Christ, as embodied in His
word, are all sufficient both for the faith and practice of
the Church of God.
However, the friends of human creeds, disciplines, con
fessions of faith, etc., claim that the Bible alone is not
sufficient for a church guide in matters of faith and prac
tice ; hence, they make additional ones. These, I claim,
are unsafe and objectionable. They are a departure from
the Gospel pattern, and are instruments dividing the peo
ple of God, and keeping them divided. These creeds are
opposed to each other in doctrine and practice, each

having its earnest votaries ; hence, divisions follow as a
deplorable consequence.
They are not to be the guide of Christians, as God hath
given a better and perfect law in His word. This proposi
tion can be made clear when we demonstrate the following
facts, which, however, for want of space, we simply state :
i. If human creeds contain less than the Bible on the
subject of religion, then they are incomplete.
2. If they contain more than the Bible, they are not
worthy of credit — are superfluous.
3. If they contain the same as the Bible, then they are
not creeds but the Bible itself.
4. Their preparation and use would presuppose that
God did not, or was unwilling to, give man a sufficient
revelation. 5. Or that fallible and finite men could express the
truths revealed, in better words, and in expressions less
liable to misconstruction, than those selected by the Holy
Spirit. This would be casting a reflection upon the
wisdom and goodness of God.
6. They are wanting in divine authority. God never
authorized their making ; hence, they are but of human
origin. 7. They are fallible. Their authors are fallible, and
fallibility never produces infallibility.
8. They are changeable. They are constantly liable
to changes, amendments and modifications. The history
of creeds confirms this statement.
9. They are not reliable. They contain doctrines an
tagonistic to one another ; hence, are at perpetual war with
one another. This bewilders the student after truth.
10. Their tendency is injurious. It is to divide God's
children and foster the divisions made.
1 1 . They are partial and denominational in their char
acter. Every party claims the right to have its own in
contradistinction to other parties.
12. They are dividing. Not of one rule of faith and
practice, but of many.
13. They are not adapted to save any. They never
convert or sanctify any persons. Want of adaptation to
the wants of mankind is the cause thereof.

14- They require their votaries to believe without
evidence. 15. They circumscribe their adherents in the pursuit
of knowledge.
16. They generate and foster religious prejudice and
hatred instead of love, even among those who where friends
ere they professed Christianity.
17. They practically abrogate the authority of the
Scriptures in many things.
18. They have originated religious proscription. The
history of persecutions will confirm this fact.
19. They have imposed upon their friends numerous
requirements. This fact is appalling.
20. They have mingled with the truth of God many
religious corruptions. Church history clearly proves
this fact.
21. Past experience has proved that they rend the
Church of God, enslave God's free-born children, and
are great obstacles in the way of uniting Christians.
22, When the Apostles and primitive Christians were
governed by the one divine will they were a unit ; since
creeds were introduced there is a great schism in the body
of Christ.
If the above be all true, which, I think, can be clearly
demonstrated, need we marvel at the deplorable schisms
in the Christian fraternity throughout the land? As long
as these numerous and antagonistic creeds exist, and have
their rigid adherents, we cannot expect anything but con
fusion and prejudice among professing Christians. These
are their legitimate fruits.
Opposition to human creeds and to all human legisla
tions1; restoration to the church, of the God-given
law and doctrine, as contained in the book of God, are
part of the mission of the Church of God.
Another item lost to the church, in various churches
found in the land, which we propose to replace, is:
IV. The Scriptural officers of the church.
In these modern days, among churches, we read of class-
leaders, stewards, etc., as the chief officers of the church;
but we claim that the Scriptures teach otherwise. We
claim that a church should be governed by its own officers,
chosen by a majority of its membership. That officers

were actually appointed in the Church of God in primitive
days is incontestably true, as can be seen by reference to
the Bible record of the church. Two kinds of permanent
church officers were established by divine authority.
These distinct orders of officers are usually and appro
priately called elders and deacons.
i. Elders. The word elder literally signifies a senior,
or one most advanced in age, wisdom and experience.
But in the customary language of the Jews, the word elder
denotes a ruler and counsellor. Hence, it is indifferently
applied by them both to civil and ecclesiastical officers, or
to officers both in church and State. This word was trans
ferred by the Apostles to those officers who held the first
rank or place in the Church of God ; and, accordingly,
the word elder is generally used by the New Testament
writers to denote a person whose office is to teach, over
see and rule the flock, or Church of God. This class of
officers is recognized in the Scriptures under various names.
The inquiry may arise, why are there so many different
titles to designate this one office? The response is, the
various duties and offices assigned them. Those titles are
simply descriptive of their different employments. One
duty and office of the elder is to take care of and feed the
flock, or Church of God ; hence, he is styled a pastor or
shepherd. Another duty of the elder is to take the over
sight of the church; hence, he is an overseer. Bishop
denotes an overseer; hence, an elder is called a bishop
or overseer.
There are some, however, who claim that a bishop of the
church is not the same with elder, but constitutes a dis
tinct and superior order of standing officers. But this
opinion, in my judgment, is not authorized by the ward of
God. That bishop is the same person with elder in the
Church of God is seen when we consider :
i . That the Scriptures use the terms bishops and elders
synonymously "From Miletus he (Paul) sent to Ephesus,
and called the elders of the church." — Acts xx. 17. The
persons called elders in verse 17 are called overseers in
verse 28. " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and'to
all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath pur
chased with his own blood." These two passages show

23
that elders and bishops, or overseers (both terms from
the Greek Episcopos), mean the same persons.
When Paul writes to Titus, he says he left him in Crete
to ordain elders in every city and then he proceeds to give
the qualifications of an elder under the name of bishop — i. 5,
6. This fact plainly suggests that an elder and a bishop
are the same officer.
Elder is the proper and peculiar title of the officer, and
the word bishop or overseer is merely descriptive of one
of his employments, viz. : Overseeing the affairs of the
church. For similar reasons elders are called by different
names. 2. No more than two orders of church officers are re
ferred to in the Scriptures.
In the church at Jerusalem, which was the model
church, and the only Church of God in the world for
years after the ascension of Jesus Christ, we read of no
bishops, but of eiders and deacons. (See Acts vi and 15.)
When Paul addressed the church at Philippi, in his
letter he introduced himself thus: "Paul and Timothy,
the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ
Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."
— i. 1. In this passage there are but two ecclesiastical offi
cers mentioned ; hence, as elders and bishops are applied
to the same persons, and belong to one order of officers,
there is no mention of elders.
In Timothy, third chapter, the Apostle Paul instructs
Timothy at large in the qualifications of church officers,
and discusses this subject more formally and more extensively
than we find done in any other part of the Scriptures. But
even then we find no other officers mentioned beside
bishop, or overseer, and deacon. The omission of elder
can only be accounted for as before, viz.: Because bishop
and elder are the same person. Thus, I think, it may be
fairly concluded that the Scriptures have established but
two orders or classes of officers in the Church of God, viz.:
elders and deacons.
2. The duty of Eiders. Among their numerous duties
I will notice only a few of the leading ones which they
owe to the church to which they belong, and in which
they are appointed to officiate. It is their duty ;

24
i. To pray for the church committed to their care.
This is clear when we consider the nature and duty of
prayer in general. But such Scriptures as the following
will suffice to set this subject in a clear light : Col. i. 9 ;
iv. 12; 2 Thess. i. n, etc.
2. To give the church a good example.— 1 Pet. v:3;
Phil, iii: 17; 1 Tim. iv:i2; Tit. ii : 7, etc.
3. To rule the church.— 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5 and 17 ; Rom.
xii. 8; Heb. xiii. 7, 17 and 24. From these passages we
learn :
1 . That the right and power of ruling the church are,
by divine appointment, lodged in the hands of the elders
of the church.
2. That church members, are to obey and submit to
their officers.
3. The command to obey, on the one part, implies,
necessarily, a power on the other hand to rule and govern.
In addition to the foregoing, the elders have various
names and titles given them in the Scriptures. They are
called "Leaders," "Ministers," "Presidents," "Rulers,"
"Governors," "Shepherds," "Stewards," "Teachers,"
etc., all of which titles are expressive of power and
authority; and this, doubtless, they must have the right of
exercising, in all its parts, in those churches over which
they are appointed.
It is true, some claim the whole congregation must try
offenders. This, I claim, is unscriptural and anti-scriptural,
and only attended with confusion. Some ot its baneful
fruits are seen thus: That the offender's relatives can sit
upon his case and vote; that his personal enemies, or
those prejudiced against him, can vote; that minors, both
boys and girls, may vote; that persons inexperienced, and
just newly come into the church, mere freshmen in the
school of Christ, may vote; that the captious and eccentric
spirits of the congregation may vote ; and a mere majority
of members may weigh down the true majority of years,
talents, experience, wisdom and justice. The scandal of
such procedure must render forever contemptible the
church that should venture upon it. There is no Scripture
for such a course. The idea is absurb. Besides, in a large
congregation, say of hundreds, trespasses would be so fre
quent that said church would have to be called together

25
very frequently to adjust matters, which would only be
detrimental, if not disastrous, to the interests of said
church. But those difficulties are obviated where the
elders properly, promptly and scripturally perform their
duties. The elders, bishops, or overseers, as we may call
them, are to try and decide all cases, reprove, rebuke,
expel, etc. In cases of expulsion, they announce the facts
in the case, the law violated, if not rectified, and the ex
pulsion, and there it ends. No vote of approval is
called. The laws of God have been enforced. The
judgment is God's. To acquiesce is duty.
3. Deacons. Deacon signifies a servant; as such, he is
to serve ; in German, he is called a Diener, i. e., a servant.
Their qualifications and manner of appointment are set
forth in 1 Tim. iii. 8; Acts vi. 1-6, etc.
The official work and duty incumbent on church deacons
are three-fold :
1. To provide the proper elements for the celebration
of church ordinances; such as Washing the Saints' Feet,
Lord's Supper, etc. This belongs to serving the church.
2. To procure, or to see to making up, a competent
support, for the minister or ministers who devote them
selves to the service of the church.
3. To make or procure provisions for the suffering
members of the church.
Thus, it is seen, they are to receive, lay out and dis
tribute the funds of the church to their proper uses. These
are the purposes for which their office was established.
While, therefore, the elders direct and control the spiritual
concerns of the church, the deacons are to attend to the
temporal affairs of the same.
Thus it is seen that two kinds of permanent church
officers were placed into the Church of God by divine
authority, which we, as a people, wish to restore to the
"old land-marks."
Another item of importance, changed from the original
God-given institution, is:
V. The subjects of baptism.
And who are they? But before I advance to the inves
tigation of this question, I would observe that we must
not overlook the fact that baptism is an institution of the
New Testament dispensation. Therefore, to the New

26
Testament we must go to learn the true subjects of the ordi
nance. An investigation of the New Testament will show
that the scriptural subjects of baptism are :
i. Not the unregenerate. This will appear evident
from the following reasons :
i. Because baptism is "for the remission of sins" —
Acts ii. 38. As baptism is because of the remission of
sins ; or, in other words, a formal declaration of sins re
mitted, none should be baptized until this can be a fact,
or until their sins are remitted.
2. Be'cause they are not in possession of the proper
faith. — Heb. xi. 6.
3. Because they could derive no benefit therefrom.
4. Because the Lord did not command such to be
baptized. He taught believer's baptism.
5. Because the unregenerate were not baptized by
Christ or the Apostles. Their teaching and practice clearly
exemplify this fact. ,
2. Not infants. This is clearly seen from the follow
ing considerations :
1 . Because they do not possess the proper faith for the
ordinance. — Heb. ii. 6; Mark xvi. 16, etc.
2. Because they can derive no benefit from it. Who
can tell what it is?
3. Because the Lord did not command infants to be
baptized. Those commanded to be baptized were those
who were made disciples and were believers. Matt, xxviii.
19, and Mark xvi. 16.
4. Because no infants were baptized by John, or Christ,
or His disciples. See the various administrations of bap
tism by them. They were such as heard the word, repented,
brought forth fruits, meet "for repentance, believed and
were made disciples. It is true, some have thought the
Apostolic conduct in baptizing households proves the
contrary. 1. Cornelius and family. But this cannot be, as the
members of this family "feared God," "gave alms,"
"prayed," "heard the word," "believed," "had their
hearts purified," received "the Holy Ghost," "spoke
with tongues," and "magnified God," previously to their
baptism. (See Acts x. 2, 43-48, and xv. 8, 9). Such
characteristics are not to be found in infants ; hence, they
are not included.

27
2. Lydia and household. It cannot be proven that
Lydia was married, much less that she had infants. But
when her household is referred to, they are called "Breth
ren," and were "comforted" — Acts xvi. 14, 15 and 40.
If so, they were not infants; and, therefore, infants were
not baptized in this case.
3. Jailer and family. There were no infants baptized
in this case, as it is said the jailer "believed in God with
all his house." If they believed in God, then they were
believers, and not infants. — Acts xvi. 32-34.
4. "Household of Stephanus" — 1 Cor. i. 16, and xvi.
1 5 . Paul says of this family, " It is the first fruits of Achaia,
and they have addicted themselves to the ministry of
the saints." If they were the "first fruits," (first converts)
they were susceptible of being converted; and if so were
not infants. Besides, as they ministered to the s?ints, they
were capable of ministration ; hence, not infants.
5. Because baptism is "for the remission of sins." Has
an infant sins to be remitted? Were their sins remitted,
so that baptism became a formal declaration of the same ?
If so, by what process were their sins remitted ?
6. Because a limited commission implies a prohibition
of such things as are not contained in it; and positive
laws imply their negative. Christ, in His commission to
the Apostles, mentions the baptism of disciples and
believers only, and necessarily excludes all others.
To prove this principle good, I quote: "I have ap
pointed the sons of Levi to minister in the service of the
tabernacle," etc. This prohibits the sons of Benjamin,
Judah, etc. When Moses was required to offer a red
heife: in sacrifice, all other colors were prohibited in that
instance. Male children were to be circumcised. This prohibited
female circumcision. So in baptism, disciples and believers
were commanded to be and were baptized. This prohibits
the baptism of any other ; hence, it excludes infants.
7. Because the description given to church members
who were baptized in the New Testament is inapplicable
to infants ; yea, to any except believers. They are said to
be "The body of Christ," "The fold of Christ," "Not of
the world," "have put on Christ," " Sons and daughters
of the Lord Almighty," "Elect of God through belief of

28
the truth," "Faithful in Christ Jesus," "Sons of God,"
"People of God," " Children of God," "Heirs of God,"
"Saints," "Lively stones," "A spiritual house," "An
holy priesthood," "A peculiar people," "A people zealous
of good works, ' ' etc.
8. It supplants believer's baptism, which the Lord
commands. 9. It has a tendency to subvert true conversion, by
bringing persons into the church in infancy, causing per
sons to trust in that for salvation.
10. It deprives one of the pleasure of obedience.
11. It involves uncertainty as to having been baptized.
12. It teaches baptismal regeneration. Indeed, bap
tismal regeneration gave rise to infant baptism.
13. It changes the order of Christ's commission to the
Apostles. 14. To be baptized is an act of obedience; but the
infant cannot obey an authority it knows nothing about.
15. Peter says baptism is the answer of a good con
science; but an infant can have no conscience in the
matter. 16. Baptism is coupled with repentance and faith ; but
infants are incapable of either.
17. Infant baptism is generally employed to bring
infants into the church, a place that they are in no way
qualified to enter.
18. It sets at naught all change of heart, as necessarily
preceding baptism.
19. Because distinguished Psedo-baptist divines ac
knowledge their inability to find any express precept, or
plain example, for the baptism of infants in the Scriptures.
Among these are Dr. Wall, Thomas Boston, Martin Luther,
Mr. Baxter, Bishop Burnet, Fuller, Samuel Palmer, Lim-
brock, Dr. Woods, Prof. Stuart, Neander, etc. Many
others might be quoted. No wonder that these powerful
minds were not able to find infant baptism in the sacred
Scriptures, for the very good reason that it is not taught in
this Sacred Book.
20. Because Pasdo-baptists are not agreed among them
selves upon the authority for infant baptism. No two of
the prevailing Psedo-baptist churches can agree as to the
reason for infant baptism. Various and contradictory are

29
the reasons offered in support of the same. And why all
this? Would it be so if infant baptism were taught in the
Scriptures? 21. Because infant baptism was not practiced for sev
eral centuries after Christ. Consult church historians :
Venerna, Eccl. Hist. t. in., s. 2. § 108-9; Neander,
Church Hist. vol. 1., p. 311; Mosheim, Eccls. Hist. cent.
1., c. 4, § 8. Hundreds of other authors bear testimony
to the same truth. But I cannot forbear making a few
more quotations ere I dismiss this subject. I quote from
Bunsen. He says: " Paedo-baptism, in the more modern
sense, meaning thereby the baptism of new-born infants,
with the vicarious promises of parents or sponsors, was
utterly unknown in the early church; not only down to
the second, but, indeed, to the middle of the third century ;
As in other cases, the origin was innocent ; and I think that
we are at this moment better able than either the defenders
or opponents of infant baptism have hitherto been to explain
how it originated.
"A passage in our Alexandrian Church Book gives the
true explanation of the assertion of Origen, himself an
Alexandrian, that the baptism of children was an Apostolic
tradition ; and it removes the origin of infant baptism from
Tertullian (A. D. 200) and Hippolytus (A. D. 230) to the
end of our present period; Cyprians (A. D. 250) being
the first father who, impelled by a fanatical enthusiasm,
and assisted by a bad interpretation of the Old Testament,
established it as a principle."
Elder H. V. Reed, in his Book on Baptism, quotes from
the Ecclesiastical History of Robinson, as follows: "The
administration of baptism by sprinkling was first invented
in Africa, in the third century, in favor of the Clinics or
bed-ridden people; but African Catholics, the least en
lightened and most depraved of the Catholics, decided it
no baptism." Page 402. Again, page 177, "The baptism
of babes first appeared in the most ignorant and impure
part of the Catholic world-"
These testimonies show that infant sprinkling was in
vented in Africa among the impure and ignprant Catholics !
If, then, neither the unregenerate nor infants are scriptu
ral subjects of baptism, the inquiry arises, who are?
I answer :

3°
III. Believers. This is evident :
i. Because Christ commanded such to be baptized. —
Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16, etc.
2. Because such were baptized by John, and Christ,
and His disciples. The records of baptism clearly prove
this fact.
3. Because such alone could be baptized "for the re
mission of sins. ' ' Their sins being remitted, baptism be
came a formal declaration thereof.
4. Because such alone could realize any benefit there
from. 5. Because such only have the spiritual qualifications
for the ordinance.
6. All persons are agreed that believers are properly
qualified for the ordinance.
7. Believers only receive the blessings promised in the
observance of baptism.
Then it is incontestibly evident that Christ and His
Apostles baptized believers only, and that the baptism of
the unregenerate and infants was introduced into the
church since the Apostolic age ; therefore, we the Church
of God aims to restore to the church the baptism of be
lievers as it was in the churches of God primitively.
Another item in the original system of faith and prac
tice changed, was :
VI. The action of baptism.
And what is it? On this subject there exists a diversity
of opinions. At least three positions are taken by theolo
gians. Some hold to sprinkling, others to pouring, while
others claim that immersion is the scriptural action of bap
tism. I claim the latter ; therefore, disclaim the former
two. I will at once enter upon the investigation of the
subject. The inquiry will be, what is the scriptural action
of baptism ?
My response is, "the immersion of a believer in
water ' in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. ' ' '
In confirmation of this position, I will submit the fol
lowing considerations :
I. Facts in the case.
1. That baptism, as an ordinance, was not introduced
in the Old, but in the New Testament dispensation.

31
2. That in the New Testament dispensation but one
literal water baptism was instituted and recognized.
3. That Christ, our Lord and King, who is our Great
Teacher and Exemplar, in submitting to this ordinance
was baptized once, and in one way only, thus forming a
precedent for his followers.
4. That as such, Christ, in His commission (see Matt.
xxviii. 19, and Mark xvi. 16), commands His Apostles to
teach and baptize, presenting but one action in this insti
tution. 5. That obedient to this commission, the disciples
taught and baptized — observing but one action, which is
further demonstrated by Paul, who refers to the unity of
the Christian system, and says, "There is * * * * one
baptism." Hence, the church was a unit on this subject
in the Apostolic days.
6. There was in the Apostles' days but one baptism,
and the general admission and voice of the Christian public
is that immersion is scriptural baptism ; hence, this must
be the one baptism taught in the Scriptures.
7. The additional fact, that it is in evidence, even by
Psedo-baptist authority, that immersion was uniformly
practiced, save in Clinic cases, for thirteen hundred years
will prove immersion to be the one baptism.
8. And another stern fact, that Psedo-baptists taught
that the church had a right to change the ordinance from
immersion to sprinkling or pouring is conclusive evidence
that immersion is the action taught in the Scriptures.
9. But, again, not only did the Pa?do-baptists teach
that the church had a right to change the ordinance from
immersion to sprinkling and pouring, but it was actually
changed. Its origin, progress, oppositions it met, and
the reasons thereof, are all on record among the writings
of the Psedo-baptist fraternity. This, too, is strong evi
dence that immersion was the original and Apostolic prac
tice. II. The terms employed by our Lord to set forth
the action of this Institution.
1. Was it a word which signifies washing? I answer,
no. The Greek words used for washing are louo, pluno
and nipto. Louo referring generally to the washing of the
body of an individual. Pluno refers to the washing of his

32
clothes. Nipto refers to the washing of his hands, face or
feet. Now, none of these words, or their derivations, are used
by the Lord to set forth this ordinance.
2. Was it a word which signified to sprinkle? I
answer, no.
i . Because the original Greek answering to the English
word sprinkle is rantizo, and its root, raino.
2. Because rantizo occurs about sixty times in the
Scriptures, but is never used for the ordinance under
consideration. 3. Because if sprinkling is the scriptural action of bap
tism why did not the Lord, at its institution, employ
rantizo to' set forth the action ? This would have forever
settled the matter.
4. Because rantizo, nor raino, nor sprinkle, are used in
reference to this ordinance, it follows that sprinkling is
not baptism.
5. Because it is a fact that nowhere in the Bible is the
sprinkling of pure, unmixed water commanded ; con
sequently, it follows that sprinkling for baptism is not
commanded. 3. Was it a term which signifies to pour? I answer in
the negative.
1 . Because the Greek word translated to pour is cheo,
and its compounds, which occurs about one hundred and
fifty times in the Scriptures, but is never used for the ordi
nance of baptism.
2. Because cheo not being used in connection with this
ordinance, baptism, therefore, does not and cannot mean
pouring. 3. If to pour is the scriptural action of baptism, why
did not our Lord employ cheo to express the action? Had
he done so it would forever have settled the matter.
4. Did the Lord use bapto to set forth the action of this
institution? I answer, no. Bapto occurs twenty-four times
in the Bible, but is never used to set forth the ordinance
of baptism. It has nothing to do with the rite at all.
1 . Because it does not stand connected with the insti
tution ; it never sets it forth, nor is it used in reference to it.
2. Because this fact is clearly shown by the ablest
scholars. I will here quote but two authorities, Stuart,

33
a Paedo-baptist, and Carson, a Baptist. Stuart on Bap
tism, p. 51, says: "In the New Testament, however,
there is one other marked distinction between the use
of these verbs. Baptizo and its derivatives are exclusively
employed when the rite of baptism is designated in any
form whatever; and in this case bapto seems to be pur
posely, as well as habitually, excluded."
Carson says, p. 18, "This difference is, bapto is never
used to denote the ordinance of baptism."
It is, however, said, if the original of baptizo is not
strong enough to prove immersion, the derivatives are not.
Hence, I will observe here that bapto, in all its occur
ences in the Bible, is used in the sense of dipping, immers
ing, etc.
In King James' English version of the Scriptures the
word occurs twenty-four times. It is translated dip nine
teen times. ".Dyed attire upon their heads" — Ezek.
xxiii. 15. Here it has its secondary signification. The
effect is put for the cause. Plunge. — Job ix. 31. "Put
into water" — Lev. xi. 31, and "wet," that is, submerged
in dew. — Dan. iv. 33; v. 21. This shows that bapto is
not, in a single case, translated either sprinkle or pour.
Indeed, bapto, to dip, cheo, to pour, and raino, to
sprinkle, are used in contradistinction to one another in
the same verses in the Bible. (See Lev. iv. 7, 17, 18 ; x.
9; xiv. 6, 16, 51, and Num. xix. 18, etc.)
If, then, bapto, the root of baptizo, is used in the sense
of dipping or overwhelming, its derivative, baptizo, means
the same also.
If, then, the Lord, at its institution, did not employ a
word which signifies washing, nor sprinkling, nor pouring,
nor yet bapto, to set forth the action of this institution,
what term did He employ?. My answer is:
5. The Greek word "Baptizo." This word occurs
nearly one hundred times in the Scriptures. It is trans
lated "dip" once, in its first occurrence in the Scriptures
— 2 Kings v: 14; to "wash," the result of dipping, twice;
and it is used metaphorically by Isaiah, and translated
"affright," or, according to Dr. Stuart, to "sink" or
"overwhelm." In all other instances the word is trans
ferred, and not translated, in the common version of the
Scriptures. Then, as the Greek word baptizo is not trans-
3

34
lated into English, but merely adopted, with an English
termination, every caviler is permitted to give it the defini
tion which best suits his inclination, and carry the argu
ment above the reach of the common reader. This word
was not translated because the third of the fourteen rules
submitted to his translators by King James peremptorily
forbade the translation of the Old Ecclesiastical words.
The words baptizo and baptisma were of this class ; hence,
not translated when they stood connected with the ordi
nance. The inquiry is, has the English language a word
corresponding in meaning with the Greek word baptizo?
If so, why not translate the term? If the word means to
sprinkle or pour, why not in one instance translate the word
by these terms? It is translated dip in 2 Kings v. 14; and
bapto, a word from which baptizo is derived, is translated
to dip nineteen times, and once by the word plunge — a word
which occurs but once in the Bible.
As the Lord selected baptizo from the Greek vocabu
lary of words to set forth the action of this institution, I
come more specially to notice what is the true meaning of
the word?
In answer to this important interrogation I will submit
the following argumentation in favor of immersion being
the action set forth by our Lord :
1. Bapto — the root of baptizo, signifies to immerse;
hence, its derivative means the same also. This I have
shown in preceding remarks.
2. The translation of baptizo in various versions.
It is rendered either immerse or dip in the translation of
the Scriptures by Luther, George Campbell, P. Doddridge,
J. Macknight, Dr. Conant, American Bible Union, Dr. B.
Wilson, H. T. Anderson, Samuel Searlet, Dr. Thiele, Dr.
Tischendorf, H. A. Schott, J. J. Junckernot, S. S. Jaspis,
N. N. Whiting, A. C. Kendrick, M. Guitzlaff, J. H. Keitz
and others.
Concerning these, I remark:
1. About one-half of these translators were of the
Paedo-baptist school.
2. Is it not remarkably strange, if sprinkling or pour
ing were the scriptural action of baptism, that none of
these versionists translated baptizo sprinkle or pour?

35
3- Is i' not peculiarly strange, if immersion is not bap
tism, that these versionists uniformly translate "baptizo"
immerse ?
3. The Lexical use of baptizo proves immersion. The
definitions of this word, as given by all Lexicographers of
any note, harmonize with the idea of immersion, over
whelm, etc., and inconsistent with sprinkling and pour
ing. It is thus used by Schreirlius, Schleusner, Henricus
Stephanus, Scapula, Thesaurus, Robertson, Pasor, Donne-
gan, Greenfield, John Jones, Bretschneider, Bass, Sokius,
Hedericus, Prof. Rost, Constantinus, Schoettgenus, Al-
stedius, Grove, Suidas, Baily, Wilson, Robinson, etc.
I remark relative to these :
1. All agree that immersion is the ordinary and pri
mary meaning of baptizo.
2. In some of the classifications of baptizo the effects
are found associated with the word, such as cleanse, wet,
wash, purify, stain, etc.
3. Some of the most learned of these Lexicons inform
us why this was done : ' ' Because a thing is usually dipped
or immersed in water that it may be cleansed."
4. The idea of immersion is always present where the
word is found, and no other idea is always present. Stain,
wet, wash, purify, etc., are simply results of baptizing in
certain substances, and not meanings of baptism.
For instance, some persons give stain as a meaning of
baptizo. But there can be no such meaning in the word,
for any meaning really in the word is always present where
the word is found. The idea of stain is not always present.
We read of persons baptized in the Spirit. In this case
we have no idea of staining. Should we read of a person
baptized in ink, we would receive the idea of staining, not
from baptizo, for there is no stain in it ; but from the word
ink. We read of persons being baptized in water. From
this we receive the idea that they were wet, not because
that idea is in the word baptize. We find that idea in the
word water. When we read of baptizing in fire, we re
ceive no idea of wet, stain, or wash, because baptize has
no such idea. I repeat, that these ideas are simply results
from baptizing in certain substances, and not meanings of
the word "baptize."
5 . No credible published Lexicon gives pour or sprinkle
as a meaning of baptizo.

3°
6. If there are any Lexicons to be found having sprinkle
or pour as a meaning of baptizo, the author's work has
been garbled, or else made by a partisan Paedo-baptist,
and since the year of our Lord 1800. after the baptismal
subject became so rife ; and as such is not credible.
4. The classic use of the word baptizo. The meaning
of this word is ascertained by its use in the Greek writings
of early authors. Some of these are called classics.
The word is used in the sense of immersion, overwhelm
ing or covering in water by Pindar, Heraclides, Ponticus,
Polybius, Plutarch, Lucian, Strabo, Epictetus, Themistius,
Hippocrates, Dionysius, Diodorus Siculus, Evenus XV.,
Heliodorus, Clemens, Plato, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom,
etc. Thus extending over a period of nearly seventeen hun
dred years, commencing 1 285 years before Christ and end
ing with Diodorus Siculus, 400 years after Christ, was the
word used by classical writers in the sense of immersion.
Did Christ employ words in a different sense from all
other authors ?
5 . Testimony of Pcedo-baptists that baptizo was understood
in the sense of immersion '.¦ and immersion was invariably
practiced throughout what was called the Christian world
for the first 1300 years, excepting after the middle of the
third century. In cases of extreme weakness, where it was
decided the subjects were not able to endure immersion,
sprinkling or pouring was admitted; but in these cases
they could not hold any office in the church.
I refer to Mosheim, Dr. Wall, Von Collin, Hinton, Sal-
masius, Parmelius, Grotius, Neander, Rheinwald, Winer
Eusebius, Geiseler, Du Fresne, Dr. Burnett, Dr. Tower-
son, Sir John Flavor, Dr. R. Wetham, John Calvin,
Stackhouse, Stuart, etc.
6. The practice of the Greek Church itself The Greek
church, which speaks the very language in which the
New Testament is written — a church extending over large
portions of Turkey, Austria, Prussia, Greece and Grecian
Isles, Wallachia, Moldavia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, Ly-
bia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, Palestine, etc.,
uniformly practices immersion.
I would, however, here remark, that about the eighth

37
century the Greek and Latin sections of the church divided,
making the Greek and Papal churches, which still exist.
Now the Greek church invariably immerses; but the
Papal or Latin church practices sprinkling for baptism.
Therefore either the Greek or Latin church must have
changed the form of this rite since the separation, for we
have not the least intimation of a difference upon this
point before the division. Which party has changed? It
is a notorious fact, that the Greeks claim to have continued
the practice according to the sense of the word baptizo and
the example of the primitive church, and protest that they
have not changed the rite. And the Papal church confesses
that it has changed the form of the act, and claims that
it has the right to do so. The assumptions of the
Papal church are plainly demonstrated. She exalts herself
above God, and supplants the Gospel by her traditions.
The spirit of usurpation is exercised in changing baptism
to sprinkling, or baptizo to rantizo; and the Protestant
sects, that have come out from Rome, have copied this
tradition, practice and defend this Papal usurpation, and
sprinkle their candidates rather than baptize them. In
case of sick persons, at an early day, the Baptists were
accustomed to wet the party thoroughly upon his bed,
though this was not formally authorized, and, indeed, was
generally discouraged until the eighth century.
Here I present the history of the first law that the
Papal church ever enacted, authorizing sprinkling for
baptism. — Edinburg Encyclopedia, Art., Baptism. "The
first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following man
ner: Pope Stephen Second being driven from Rome by
Adolphus, King of the Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin,
who, a short time before had usurped the crown of France.
Whilst he remained, the Monks of Cressy, in Brittany,
consulted him, whether, in case of necessity, baptism
poured on the head of the infant would be lawful. Steph
en replied that it would. It was not till the year 1311
that the legislature, in a council held at' Ravenna, de
clared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scot
land, however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary
cases till after the Reformation (about the middle of the
sixteenth century). From Scotland it made its way into
England, in the reign of Elizabeth ; but was not authorized
in the established church."

3«
Every scholar knows, or ought to know, that this history
of the case is correct. The right of sprinkling came in
by degrees; was practiced without authority, was winked
at, just as the other corruptions of Papacy were, and in
the eighth century secured a formal recognition. This the
Papists concede and justify. Protestants who have copied
this tradition, but do not like its parentage, tax their
utmost ingenuity to prove that sprinkling was practiced by
the primitive church,, and that it is not inconsistent with
the word which Jesus employed to describe the act of
baptism. Which party is most consistent the reader can
judge. The fact is, that sprinkling is purely a Papal tradi
tion, and there is no more authority for it in the Gospel,
or in the practice" of the primitive church, than there is for
any of the other corruptions of that mother of heresy. Take,
then, the claim of the Greek church, that it has not
changed the rite; and the confession of the Papal church,
that it has changed it, and the history of the case, setting
forth when, how and for what reason they adopted sprinkling
for baptism, how can we escape the conclusion that all who
sprinkle and call it baptism are, in thus doing, following
Rome and not Christ?
7. The Jewish use of baptizo is in favor of immersion.
I might quote numerous authors. I refer to Josephus, who,
in his work, employs this word in describing scenes in
the sense of sinking, plunging, immersion, overwhelming,
etc. 8. Translation of baptizo in oriental versions. Syriac,
Amharic, Armenian (ancient), Armenian '(modern),
Georgian, Coptic, Sahadic, Arabic, Turkish, etc., use a
word in their several languages, to set forth the nature of
this institution, corresponding in meaning with the English
word immerse.
9. We also have a word in their several languages, set
ting forth this religious rite, corresponding in meaning
with the English word immerse in the following Western
versions: Latin, Gothic, German, German Swiss, Belgian,
Danish, Swedish, Welsh and Sclavonian.
10. The use of baptizo among Pcedo-baptist divines.
Such there are of the Independents, Germans, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, etc., who agree that the
ordinary meaning of baptizo is immersion.

39
ii. The act of this rite was changed from immersion
to sprinkling and pouring.
i. Richard Watson, Calvin, Prof. Stuart, Dr. Bogue,
Dr. Hill, Piscator, Richard Baxter, Bishop Burnett, etc.,
claimed and taught that the church had a right to make
this change.
2. The writings of Turretine, W. Perkins, Dr. Wet-
ham, Voncollin, Heckermanus, Bossuet, Gurtlerus, Cham-
ierus, Sir John. Floyer, Bloomfield, H. Altingius, Dr. Hill,
etc. , show that a change did take place from immersion to
sprinkling and pouring.
3. Dr. Towerson, Dr. Wall, Storr, Blatt, Winer,
Neander, and a host of others, refer tot this change, its
origin and progress.
4. The writings of Valesius, F. Brenne, and others,
show that the change in the action of baptism was op
posed, even for the sick.
12. The testimony of Cyclopcedists is in favor of immer
sion. I will reject Religious Cyclopaedists, as they are
sectarian, and therefore likely to be prejudiced. Literary
and Scientific Cyclopaedists are more likely to be unbiased
by partisan zeal. The Edinburg Encyclopaedia, Brand's,
Chamber's, Brittanica, London, and the Encyclopaedia
Americana, perfectly agree with the above testimony, that
the primitive practice was to immerse, and that this is what
baptizo signifies. Now these works were not written to
defend sectarian dogmas, but for historic and scientific
purposes; and they are the production, generally, of ripe
and independent scholars. They agree with the Greek
dictionaries as to the meaning of baptizo, and with one
voice reject the assumption that rantizo and baptizo are
one in meaning. Rantizo is the word which signifies
sprinkle, and is never confounded by the sacred writers
with baptizo, to immerse.
13. Meaning of baptizo gathered from the history of the
church harmonizes with immersion. In the Pastor of
Hernias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Chrysostom Bishop of
Constantinople, Ambrose, Augustine, Dionysius, the Coun
cil of Toletan, Cyril, Basil, Gregory Bishop of Nyssa,
Gregory Bishop of Nazianzen, Damascenus, the Apostoli
cal Constitution, Photius, etc.

40
14. The understanding of baptizo by the Jews, when
they used it to introduce proselytes into their communion,
is in favor of immersion. As witnesses to this fact, I refer
to the writings of Prof. Stuart, Bishop Home, Prof. Hill,
Mr. Merchant, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. A. Clarke, Bishop
Hoadly, Dr. Brown, etc.
15. Baptizo is not translated in King James' English
version of the Scriptures, but merely adopted with an
English termination. But King James' translators have
rendered the word, in its first occurrence in the Bible,
as found in the Septuagint, in the case of Naaman, "dip,"
thus admitting that they knew how the word ought to be
translated. Hence, if they had uniformly, properly and
regularly rendered the- word it would have read dip univer
sally, and thus precluded the many controversies about the
meaning of baptize.
16. The Christian world, from the origin of baptism
down to the present time, cordially endorses immersion as
baptism. Hence, it is correct baptism. To illustrate this,
suppose I go into court and offer to prove myself the only
heir to my father's estate. I produce my witnesses, and
they testify that I am the only heir known to the will of
my father. Their testimony is received and admitted into
the court. But in the meantime, two other gentlemen
come into court and claim to be heirs also. They admit
me to be a legal heir, but they deny that I am the only
legal heir, and they claim to be equal and joint heirs with
me. On whom will the burden of proof now rest? Surely
not upon me. The court will not ask me to prove any
thing more than what I have proven, viz.: that I am a
lawful heir, according to my father's last will and testa
ment. Hence, it becomes the duty of the other two
claimants to show by competent testimony that they also
are heirs according to the will. If this cannot be done,
then it remains an established fact that I am the only law
ful heir. It is similar with immersion. Immersion is a
recognized claimant, by the Christian world, to the action
of this rite; hence, it stands correct and approved. Now,
if no other actions can be proved by incontestible testi
mony to be meanings of the word baptize, then immer
sion stands alone as its proper meaning. This becomes an
established fact.

4i
17- The early erection of spacious baptisteries is proof
of immersion. These were not needed for the action of
sprinkling or pouring.
18. If the whole body is not to be submitted to the
action of baptism, why is not the part to which the water
is to be applied specified? The law of circumcision was
far more specific.
19. If baptism in the days of Peter was not the immer
sion of the body in water, why should he caution the
brethren from supposing that baptism put away filth of the
flesh ? Does sprinkling a few drops of water in the face
look like putting away filth of the flesh?
20. When the untutored heathen learn to read the
Scriptures, become converted to God and obedient to the
Gospel, they invariably choose immersion as the action in
this rite. This has no exception, unless they are pre
viously taught otherwise by a Paedo-baptist teacher.
21. Nothing but immerse, or some other word of like
import, can be substituted for baptizo and make sense.
There is a rule in language, or in interpretation, that
the proper definition of a word inserted for that word, or
in place of it, will make sense and give the true meaning
to the reader.
22. God never commanded the sprinkling or pouring
of common, unmixed water upon any person as a religious
rite. 23. "One baptism" is taught in the Scriptures. Now-
a-days, more; hence, there has been a departure. The
ministry, in departing from the appointment of God, it is
probable, departed from the more laborious, inconvenient,
etc., to the more easv, convenient and pleasant — and not
vice versa.
24. Pouring and sprinkling do not satisfy the con
science, but immersion invariably does.
Thousands of those who had water either sprinkled or
poured upon them have become dissatisfied and could not
rest till they were immersed. Many in the hour of death
have lamented that they had not been immersed. Can
that be of God that gives way in death? Where has it
been known that persons immersed have become dissatis
fied and could not rest till they had water poured or
sprinkled upon them?

42
25. Immersion of a believer confers a glorious blessing
to the same ; hence, the joy usually expressed on such oc
casions. New Testament, as well as modern day examples,
clearly establish this fact.
Do sprinkling and pouring afford such joy? Do facts
exemplify this matter?
III. The New Testament Examples of Baptism.
The places and circumstances mentioned in connection
with the administration of the ordinance plainly refer to
immersion as the rite performed.
i. The Places. John baptized "In the river of Jor
dan." — Mark i. 5; Matt. iii. 5. The Bible describes
Jordan thus:
1. It overflowed its banks in the time of harvest. —
Josh. iii. 15.
2. It was a proper place for dipping. — 2 Kings v. 14.
3. Persons were in the habit of' crossing it in ferry
boats. — 2 Sam. xix. 18.
4. It was fordable only in particular places. — Judges
iii. 28; xii. 5.
5. A miracle had to be performed in order that the
children of Israel might cross it.— Josh, iii.
In ALnon, near to Salim, because there was much water
there. — John iii. 23. Where was ^Enon ? Let the Metho
dist Sabbath School Dictionary answer: "A place eight
miles south of Scythopolis, between Salem and Jordan. —
p. 137. The reason for the selection of this place is stated
— " because there was much water there" — and any candid
man can see that the water was used for baptism.
"In Bethabara, beyond Jordan." — John i. 28.
Beth is a Hebrew word signifying house. Abara is a
Hebrew word signifying crossing or passage. Bethabara
was a ferry-house on the river Jordan. It is called Betha
bara in the Old Testament. — Jud. vii. 24; Josh. ii. 7, and
iii. 15, 16. The Methodist Sabbath School Dictionary
says: "Bethabara signifies, in the Hebrew, a place of
crossing, because it was a ford on the river Jordan, on the
east bank of which it stood, over against Jericho." — p. 61.
2. The Circumstances. "And were baptized of him
in Jordan. In the Greek language there are about 18
prepositions ; 6 of these are monosyllables and 1 2 dissyl
lables. The English language has about 50, to each of

43
which from 5 to 30 definitions are given. This furnishes;
a rich field for the caviler. One preposition is often used
for another in the English language: much more so in
Greek, as the number of prepositions is less. The English
scholar, however, finds no serious "difficulty in his language
to understand the difference between one preposition andl
another. "In (en) Jordan." The preposition en (in) occurs in
the New Testament about 2,500 times. It is translated by
the word in, 1,977 times; by within, 12 times; among i2r
times ; into, 1 9 times ; under, 2 ; upon, 3 ; etc. , etc.
Its obvious meaning, from the foregoing, must be evi
dent to every candid reader.
It would be as consistent to say that John preached with
the wilderness of Judea, or baptized with the river of Jor
dan, as to say that he baptized with water. The very same-
word is used in the original. The Vulgate, Syriac,. Arabic
and Ethiopic versions, as well as Tyndall 's and George
Campbell's translation into English, render it "in water."
Every Lexicon and elementary Greek book gives "in"
as its primary meaning.
"And they went both down into (eis) the water" — Acts.
viii. 38.
Eis occurs in the four Gospels alone no less than 795
times. It is translated into, 372 times; by to, designating
an entrance into a house, the temple, cities and villages,
more than 100 times where into would be its proper render
ing, and is in fact the meaning of the term ; thus making;
in all about 500 times. It is translated into in Matthew
alone, 121 times. Where a penetration into a place is
expressed, it is the only preposition which can properly be
used. The criticisms usually made by rantizers upon this
word, if true, would as effectually keep the saints out of
heaven, Noah out of the ark, the wicked out of hell — out
of everlasting punishment, the righteous out of life eternal,.
Daniel out of the lions' den, Jonah out of the sea, the
herd of swine out of the Lake of Gennesareth, as they
can keep the baptismal candidate out of the water. The
same word is used in connection, with appropriate verbs in
all these instances.
Indeed, in the case of the Eunuch the Holy Spirit has-
been remarkably precise. They came to (epil) a certain.

44
water, and they went down into the water. Mark the dis
tinction made between coming to the water and entering
into it for the administration of the rite.
Apo. "And Jesus, .when he was baptized went up
straightway out of (apo) the water." — Matt. iii. 16.
Apo is rendered out of forty-six times in the New Testa
ment — seventeen times in Luke alone. In many instances
where it is rendered from the expression out of is perfectly
-admissible. See the following passages where the word is
used: "Take twelve stones from (out of) Jordan,"
" Brought me up from (out of) a horrible pit, from (out
¦of) the miry clay," "Pull out the mote from (out of)
thine own eyes," " Mary Magdalene, from (out of) whom
he had cast seven devils," "An unclean spirit came from
•{out of) a man," "Devils came from (out of) many," "A
cloud received him from (out of) their sight," "Peter
was come down from (out of) the ship," "The devil
taketh away the word from (out of) their hearts," "Then
"went the devils from (out of) the man," " From (out of)
whom the devils had departed," "God shall take away
his name from (out of) the Book of Life," " From (out
of) the holy city," etc. Will the advocates of sprinkling
inform me what word or words in the Greek can be used
to signify out of, if apo or ek will not do it ?'
Another evidence of the Savior's coming up out of the
water is found in the use of the term anabaino, rendered
¦coming up. This word is used for emerging, having been
previously immerged. The New Testament will furnish
no exception when the word is used in connection with
water. " Go thou to the sea, and cast in a hook, and take
up the fish that cometh first up — anabanto. ' ' The fish
certainly was in the sea. "And I stood upon the sand of
the sea, and saw a beast rising up — anabainon — out of the
sea." "Another beast coming out — anabainon — of the
sea." If anabainon means to emerge from after being immerged
in the case of the fish and the beasts, it must have the
same signification when referring to our Lord's baptism.
Hence the Lord was immerged, from which he emerged.
This is so clear that it should settle the question as to the
Manner' of the Savior's baptism.

45
Ek, or Ex — out of. "And when they were come up — -
anabaino — out of the water — ek hudor. — Acts viii. 39.
In the case of the Eunuch, the Holy Spirit has selected'.
another preposition, but the advocates of sprinkling are no
better pleased with ek than they seem to be with apo.
Still ek is translated out of 161 times in the New Testament.
Out of is the primary meaning of the word.
This word is used with appropriate verbs to designate
the action of persons or things coming out of the Temple,
Synagogug, house, ship, tombs, grave, sepulchre ; out of
Jerusalem, Sion, Nazareth, Judea, Galilee, the land of
Egypt, the land of the Chaldeans, the Holy City; out of
afflictions, sleep, darkness, fire, smoke, the sea, the earth,
the bottomless pit ; out of this world, of prison, of tribula
tion ; out of the body, mouth, heart, whomb ; out of the
loins of Abraham, out of the church, out of heaven, devils
coming out of men, etc., etc. Is it possible that a word
means "out of" in all these relations and loses its primary-
meaning when used in relation to water?
John, it is said, was "baptizing in iEnon, near to Salim,
because there was much water there ; and there they came
and were baptized." — John iii. 23.
Now, if sprinkling or aspersion could have answered the
end of the institution, what need would there have been
for going to a place where there was much water? The
reason for the selection of this place is stated, "because
there was much water there," and any candid man can
see that the water was used for baptizing.
The words hudata polla — rendered "much water" — are
said, by the advocates of sprinkling, to mean "many
small streams or rivulets. ' '
The proof of this cannot be drawn from the use of these
words in the Holy Scripture, nor from the plural form of
the terms. The word hudata — waters — is applied in its
plural form to the river Jordan, confined within a single
channel, 2 Kings ii. 14; and to the sea, where the waters.
form but one collection, Matt. viii. 32.
Homer uses hudor and hudata interchangeably — "Throw
ing him — eis hudor — into the water, and he immediately
expired — en hudasin — in the waters." — Batrachom, 99.
Orpheus speaks of the sacred waters — hudata — of the-
Euphrates.

46
The use of these words in the Bible proves their mean
ing, and that the singular and plural forms are interchange
ably used.
They are applied :
i. To the ocean. Psalms cvii. 23; Isa. xxiii. 3; Ezek.
xxvii. 26, etc.
2. To the river Euphrates. Jer. Ii. 13.
3. To the river Tigris. Ezek. xxxi. 7. See, also, Isa.
xvii. 12, 13; Rev. i. 15; Psalms xxix. 3; xciii. 4; Ezek.
i. 24; Cant. viii. 7; Jer. xli. 12; 2 Sam. ii. 12-17.
The foregoing use of these words illy comports with the
idea of sprinkling or pouring; or do they mean "much
water ' ' when applied to other things, but a small quantity
when applied to baptism?
IV. The Typical and Figurative use of Baptism.
There are several typical baptisms spoken of in the
Scriptures, as:
1 . There is a typical baptism spoken of in 1 Peter iii.
20, 21. Here the Apostle refers to the waters of the flood,
¦of which he makes baptism the antitype. In this circum
stance the windows of heaven were opened, the great deep
below broken open, and the ark, which was a hollow ves
sel, with Noah and family inclosed in it, who were for a
time, as it were, buried or covered, and immersed in water.
This answers to immersion, but not to a few drops of water
when sprinkled on the face of a person.
2. There is a figurative baptism spoken of in 1 Cor. x.
1, 2. For a clue to this text, see Ex. xvi. 19, etc.
Here I remark :
1. This is not a literal but figurative baptism. Baptism
was not instituted as an ordinance until a long time after
ward. 2. The children of Israel passed through the sea, under
the cloud — a "pillar of fire."
3. There is no evidence that " the clouds poured out
water, " as it is sometimes claimed :
1 . Because there were no " clouds ; " it was ' 'a cloud, ' '
or, rather, "the cloud." — 1 Cor. x. 1.
2. Because on the occasion it was "the pillar of fire and
of the cloud," and there is no evidence that the least
water came from this cloud.

47
3. Because if it had rained upon them, as the cloud
was a "pillar of fire" when the children of Israel passed
through the Red Sea, would not the water have been hot?
Would not this have injured the children of Israel? Scalded
them? 4. Because if the cloud had poured water upon them,
as it is sometimes claimed, could the children of Israel
have passed through the Red Sea upon "dry ground,"
"dryland," and "dry shod?"
4. They were not baptized in the dew, spray, mist or
rain, nor with it, but "in the cloud and in the sea."
5. With this view agree Witsius, Whitby, Stuart and
hosts of others.
6. In the version of the American Bible Union, Em
phatic Diaglott, Dr. George Campbell, H. T. Anderson
and others, the passage reads: "And were all immersed
into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea."
7. The analogy between a literal immersion and this
figurative transaction, set forth under the idea of an im
mersion metaphorically, is about as follows :
1. They went down into the sea, and came up out of
it. The candidate in baptism goes down into the water
and comes up out of it.
2. The sea was a "wall unto them on the right hand
and on the left." The Apostle informs us they were under
the cloud. A cloud of darkness stood between them and
the Egyptians, while the cloud of fire gave them light.
Hence they were covered and concealed out of sight, as
the baptized are surrounded with water. This figure fitly
represents immersion, but not sprinkling; for had there
been much sprinkling or pouring, the ground could not
have remained "dry."
3. The sufferings of Christ are called a baptism. — Luke
xii. 30. "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how
am I straightened till it be accomplished ? ' ' The word is
here used to show the greatness and abundance of Christ's
sufferings. For as in baptism, when rightly administered,
a person is immersed or plunged into water, so our blessed
Lord and Saviour was immersed or plunged in an ocean of
sufferings. Can sprinkling a little water on the face ap
propriately exhibit an image of the overwhelming suffer
ings of Christ? If Jesus designed immersion to exhibit,

48
in a beautiful emblem, the overwhelming sufferings of his
soul, how that design is frustrated by sprinkling ! Observe
the Christian as he comes out of the water, having been
enveloped in it ! How the water flows from his head, his
hands, his feet — marks the pathway he treads. Then think
of the baptism of the blessed Jesus, when he was over
whelmed in sufferings and plunged in death.
Concerning these sufferings the Psalmist represents Jesus
as saying, "I am come into deep waters, where the floods
overflow me." — Psalms lxix. 2.
How common it is in all languages to say " overwhelmed
in grief," "immersed in afflictions," "immersed in the
world," " plunged in sorrow," etc.
4. The extraordinary donation or gift of the Holy
Spirit is called baptism. — Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; John
i. 26, and Acts i. 5. If the example of Jesus in giving
the Holy Spirit can direct us to ascertain the action of
baptism, we must not overlook the circumstances of the
case. They are as follows :
1. The disciples were in an upper room. — Acts i. 13.
2. The number together were about 120. — Verse 15.
3. The circumstance is stated, " Suddenly there came
from heaven a sound, as of a mighty rushing wind, and it
filled all the house in which they were sitting." — Chapter
ii. 2. " And they were filled with the Holy Ghost. — Verse 4.
4. They were as completely overwhelmed in the Spirit
as a man is enveloped in the air. This circumstance refers
them to the effect of the baptism, or the bestowal of the
Spirit. The Spirit was not to be baptized out upon the
people ; the Spirit was not to be baptized, but the people ;
hence, it is the effect that is contemplated. And what was
the effect ? Answer : Their whole souls were imbued with,
brought under the control of, and overwhelmed by the
Spirit. Sprinkling is a most insignificant and false repre
sentation of the wonderful effect of the gift of the Spirit
which was shed upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost.
It filled their souls and controlled their speech ; it over
whelmed — immersed them. Nothing short of this expresses
the abundant gift of God.
5. The manner of the Spirit's descent is not the bap
tism any more than the pouring of water into the bath is

49
the bathing. Paedo-baptists, when speaking of the baptism
of the Holy Ghost as being done by pouring, confound1
things which are different. The pouring was over before
the baptism began, as the river flows over the candidate
before the immersion is performed ; or the water is poured
into a baptistery before the baptism is administered.
Where the term pouring is used with relation to the Holy
Ghost, in Acts x. 45, we read thus: "On the Gentiles,
also, was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." What
was this gift? "Speaking with tongues." — Verse 46.
There is a difference between the Spirit and his gifts ; there.
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. — 1 Cor. xii. 4,
8, 9.
5. The punishment of the wicked is represented as a
baptism of fire. — Matt. iii. 11; Luke iii. 16, 17. "He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."
"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge
his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but
the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. ' ' The bap
tism of fire is the punishment of the wicked. Fire, in the
sacred oracles, sometimes, and here, denotes punishment of
the ungodly. Sometimes it denotes trials, afflictions, or per
secutions. Now, is the punishment of the enemies of
Christ properly represented by sprinkling? Can the word
mean, "And the chaff shall be sprinkled with a few drops
of punishment?" Nothing short of immersion can repre
sent this destruction of the chaff — this baptism of fire.
V. The Design of Baptism.
The design of baptism is to represent the burial and re
surrection of Christ, and by consequence the ultimate re
surrection of the body at the last day. (See Rom. vi. 3,
4; Col. ii. 12, and 1 Cor. xv. 29).
The figure employed by the Apostle is that of a burial in
-the grave, and that figure is found in baptism.
Had there been no resemblance between the rite of bap
tism and a burial he would never have compared baptism
of any kind to a burial, for none can be properly said to
be buried unless put under ground, or covered over with
earth; so none can be properly said to be baptized but
such as are immersed, or put under water, as nothing short
of this can be a representation of the burial and resurrection
of Christ, and ours with Him.
4

5°
A corpse cannot be properly said to be buried when only
a little earth or dust is sprirdded or poured on it ; so
neither can a person be properly said to be baptized when
only a little water is sprinkled or poured on the face.
To say that to be buried with Christ in baptism has no
allusion to water baptism, but to the baptism of the Spirit,
is an admission that the baptism of the Spirit involves a
burial. If the baptism of the Spirit involves a burial, can the
symbol by which it is represented be anything less than a
burial ?
The following scholars held to and advocated the view
I here have set forth, viz. : Wesley, Luther, Benson,
Clarke, McKnight, Doddridge, Barnes, Haldane, Hill,
Michael, Wolfius Kappe, Wette, Olshausen, Schaff, Bloom-
field, Conybear, Sherlock, Burkitt, Whitby, Trollope,
Rosenmuller, Sadolet, Origen, Stuart, Locke, Wall, Til-
lotson and others.
I might extend remarks on this proposition, as well as
continue arguments in favor of immersion being the scrip
tural action of baptism, but the present limits forbid fur
ther extension.
I will next state and consider the leading and most
popular VI. Objections Brought Against Immersion.
They are numerous, but flimsy. I shall weigh them in
the scale of reason and Scripture.
It is claimed :
I. That immersion is often inconvenient and imprac
ticable. This is on account of the scarcity or the total want of
water in some countries to immerse, or on account of the
extreme cold in other parts.
Query: Do people live where there is no water (either
in deserts or frozen regions) sufficient for household pur
poses? For their stock? The answer is, we cannot live
where there is no water. And if there is a sufficient
amount of water for these purposes, there is also for im
mersion of believers.
Were this a valid objection to immersion, then the
scarcity or want of bread in some countries lies with equal
force as a valid objection against the Lord's Supper.

5i
But, when a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no
objections from difficulties can be admitted, except they
involve an impossibility.
II. Immersion was not the primitive practice of this
rite, because John baptized "with water."
To this I submit the following considerations :
i . The Greek preposition en is not fairly rendered in
our common version.
2. Every lexicon and elementary Greek book gives in
as its primary meaning.
3. Out of 2,542 occurences of the preposition en in the
common version of the New Testament, it is translated
about 2,000 times in.
4. En is rendered in in this passage, in ancient versions,
such as the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, etc.
5. It is rendered in, not with, in the version of Tyn-
dale, George Campbell, Conant, B. Wilson, American
Bible Union, etc.
6. It would be as inconsistent to say that John preached
with the wilderness of Judea, or baptized with the river of
Jordan, as to say that he baptized "with water."
7. Even were we to admit that this version is correct,
it does not militate against the idea of immersion :
1 . Because we do not immerse without water.
2. Because when we immerse the candidate is plunged
in and covered over ' ' with water. ' '
Because of the common expressions, ' ' colored the rai
ment with dye." How? The raiment was dipped into
the dye. "Clothes were washed with water and soap."
How? By putting the clothes into the water mixed with
the soap.
III. It is objected to John immersing so many in so
short a time.
This objection is stated thus :
John's mission continued about eighteen months; Jeru
salem, all Judea, and the regions round about Jordan were
baptized of him. Objectors suppose without evidence, or
even probability, that the population of Judea amounted
to two or three millions.
The Bible facts are about as follows :
1 . The word all, when used in such connections, does
not imply each one. " All men came unto him. " "All

52
men seek thee. " "I please all men in all things." "Ah
countries went to Egypt to buy corn," etc.
2. John refused baptism to numerous sects in Judea.
i. To the Pharisees. — Matt. iii. 7, 8.
2. To the Sadducees. — Matt. iii. 7, 8.
3. To the Publicans. — Luke iii. 12.
3. Many rejected the counsel of God against them
selves, being not baptized of Him  Luke vii. 30.
4. Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. —
John iii. 22; iv. 1, 2. In fact, the same baptizeth, and all
men come unto him. — John iii. 26-30. Upon the same
principle that the advocates of sprinkling construe the
word all, in Matt. iii. 5, 6, it may be denied that any
candidates were left for John, except John and Jesus were
rebaptizers. 5. But does not the number baptized by John militate
as effectually against the idea of sprinkling or pouring as
against immersion?
Does it require less time for Paedo-baptists of modern
days to perform the ceremony of sprinkling water on the
candidate than for a Baptist to immerse the same number?
6. The fact that John the Baptist sprinkled water upon
the people with ' ' scarlet wool and hyssop, ' ' is wanting of
evidence. The record is against it.
IV. Immersion cannot be reconciled with the baptism
of three thousand on the day of Pentecost.
Concerning which I remark :
1. The document does not say that three thousand
were baptized.
2, The record is, "There were added unto them about
three thousand souls" — Acts ii. 41.
3. It is altogether probable of those three thousand
church accessions many were baptized by John or Christ's
disciples before.
4. If there were three thousand immersed, then there
was no want :
1. Of administrators.
The twelve Apostles were there ; also the seventy disci
ples, which made eighty-two scripturally qualified adminis
trators. 2. Oftimem

53
If all would have immersed, then the candidates could
have observed the ordinance in about thirty minutes ; if
only twelve acted as administrators, then all could have
been immersed in three hours.
They had plenty of time to perform it.
3. Of water.
1 . Because of the fact that Hezekiah attempted to stop
the fountains and streams outside of the city, and the
"upper water course of Gihon," in order that the King
of Assyria might not find "much water." — 2 Chron. xxxii.
3, 4 and 30.
2. Because it is a fact, attested by history, that no
army which ever surrounded Jerusalem suffered for want of
water. Thousands perished with hunger; none with thirst.
3. Because no city of the. size of Jerusalem would have
been built in a place where there was not sufficient water
to immerse two or three thousand converts. God Himself
selected the location.
4. Because of the abundance of water in Jerusalem.
1. See the streams we have just referred to.
2. The various pools. We read of the Pool of Beth-
esda, Siloam, Solomon's pools, three in number. The
king's pool (Neh. ii. 14); the old pool (Isa. xxii. 11); the
lower pool (Isa. xxii. 11), and the upper pool (2 Kings
viii. 17 and Isa. vii. 3).
V. It is sometimes said that there was not enough of
water in the Jordan river to immerse.
This objection is invalid, as is seen —
1 . In the descriptions given thereof by modern visitors
to it.
2. In the modern geographical descriptions of the
river. 3. In the Bible descriptions thereof. It overflowed its
banks in the time of harvest. — Josh. iii. 15. It was a
proper place for dipping. — 2 Kings v. 14. Persons were
in the habit of crossing it on ferry boats. — 2 Sam. xix. 18.
It was fordable only in particular places. — Judges iii. 28;
xii. 5. A miracle had to be performed in order that the
children of Israel might cross it. — Josh. iii.
VI. It is objected that immersion is dangerous to
health. Is this objection valid? Is bathing an injury? Are

54
those immersed more sickly than others ? Are the admin
istrators of this ordinance more sickly than those who
administer sprinkling or pouring for baptism?
Is it true? Facts demonstrate the contrary. It far
more frequently improves than impairs health. This is
ocularly demonstrated almost continually.
VII. Immersion is said to be indecent.
Those who raise this objection are such as make no ob
jection to circumcision.
Was that rite indecent ?
It is said by objectors that ladies have a great struggle
with their delicacy. But how can we account for the fact
that thousands of them resort to the various seaboards,
where they bathe in the presence of gentlemen and a pro
miscuous crowd? Does a fashionable practice atone for
and sanctify its indecency? I would say to such objectors,
and especially to objecting preachers, to crucify the old
man with all his deeds, and mortify the flesh, and
then they would find less cause for objection. I
awfully fear the true state and dreadful fate of some
preachers and professors.
VIII. As the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, it is
thought this militates against immersion.
That baptism was by pouring, and not by immersion.
I remark —
i. If so, it militates against sprinkling too.
2. If pouring is baptism, then the Spirit was baptized,
for the Spirit was poured. , .
3. If Paedo-baptist logic be correct, and as the Spirit
is said to be "given," "fall upon," "to shed forth," "to
testify," "to fill," to "write," etc., therefore giving, fall
ing, shedding, testifying, filling, writing, etc., are all bap
tism. Surely this is not correct.
4. The manner of the Spirit's descent is not the bap
tism any more than the pouring of water into a bath is the
bathing. Paedo-baptists, when speaking of the baptism of
the Holy Ghost as being done by pouring, confound things
which are different. The pouring was over before the bap
tism began, as the river flows over the candidate before the
immersion is performed, or the water is poured into a"bap-
tistery before the baptism is administered.

55
5. The proper meaning is this, that they in the room
were submerged, overwhelmed, or enveloped in the Spirit
as a person is by or in the air.
IX. It is argued that the question, "Can any man
forbid water that these should not be baptized ? ' ' Acts
x. 47, weighs against immersion.
This is not the case when we consider that the question
simply meant, Can any man forbid the baptism of these
Gentiles, who have received the.Holy Spirit as well as the
Jews? Or, else, Can any man forbid the use of water that
these Gentiles should be baptized as well as the Jews?
X. Saul of Tarsus it is affirmed was baptized standing
up, hence not immersed.
The word anastas — "arose" — it is claimed is expressive
of standing up, etc., which is not the case; it implies the
beginning of a process which ended in his baptism. "And
many arose (anastasd) in those days and went into the hill
country," etc. — Luke i. 39. Did Mary stand up and go?
Does not anastama here denote the beginning of the pro
cess by which she reached the hill country? In Luke xv.
18, the prodigal son says, "I will arise (anastas') and go
to my father," etc. In verse 20 it is said, "And he arose
(anastas) and came to his father." Did he stand up and
go to his father? Was not anastas the commencement of
the returning movement?
So Paul also arose and was immersed. But no rising up
- — no anastas — was necessary if water was to be poured or
sprinkled upon him. Paul explained his own baptism in
Rom. vi. 3, 4, where he says he was "buried with Christ
by baptism." His baptism involved a burial.
XI. It is said that the jailer could not have been im
mersed in the prison. — (See Acts xvi. 30-34).
I would remark that the record does not state that the
jailor was baptized in prison. The history says, after bap
tism " the jailer b ought them into his house." Hence,
baptism was performed out of it. But where? The record
does not state. Probably in the river which was near tp
Philippi. — (See Acts xvi. 13).
XII. The use of the word baptism, when no allusion is
made to the ordinance, has been supposed to be unfavora
ble to the idea of immersion.

56
The baptism of cups, pots, vessels and tables, etc. —
Mark vii. 4. I remark:
1. These things were to be cleansed by being put into
water. — (See Lev. xi. 32; xiv. 6-8, Num. xxxi. 23, 24, etc).
2. These tables, or couches, were very different from
ours. Persons just' recovering from palsy could take them
up and carry them home. — Matt. ix. 2-6 ; Mark ii. 9, John
v. 11, 12, etc.
3. The term klinai, or couches, is applied to the bier
on which the dead are carried to the grave. — JOsephus
Antiq. 7, 16.
They were frequently made of ivory (Amos vi. 4), and
used as settees now are. Candles were put under them. —
Mark iv. 21; Luke viii. 16, etc.
There can be no question but these were dipped in the
water as the law required.
XIII. The washing of the Jews and Pharisees, as re
corded by Mark in chapter vii. 34, it is thought by some
weighs against immersion.
Concerning which I remark :
1. Two washings are mentioned.
First. Of the hands before every meal, expressed by
' ' nipsontai. ' '
Second. Washing after returning from market, ex
pressed by ' ' baptizontai. ' '
2. There is an advance in the thought. We are first
told of a daily custom of washing hands before eating.
When returning from market the cleansing is more thorough,
and demanded an entire dipping. On any other principle
the sacred penman is guilty of tautology.
3. Some versions, such as the Syriac, Ethiopic and
Persiac, apply this last washing to the things bought in
market. 4. Dr. George Campbell renders this passage thus :
"The Pharisees, and, indeed, all the Jews who observed
the tradition of the elders, eat not until they have washed
their hands by pouring a little water upon them; and if
they come from the market, by dipping them ; and many
other usages there are, which they have adopted, as im
mersion of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds."
XIV. Paul speaks of " diaphorus baptismois" — "divers
washings" — in Hebrews ix. 10, which is claimed by some
to be against immersion.

57
But let us see :
i. Divers means several, more than one'; it does not
imply disagreement. Diaphorus, the original word, is
used four times in the New Testament,(See Rom. xii. 6;
Heb. i. 4; viii. 6; ix. 10), and is translated by the words
different, more excellent and divers.
2. There are several immersions or dippings under the
law. — (See Lev. xv. 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 27; xvi.
26; xvii. 15, 16, Num. xix. 7, 8, 19, etc).
3. Where Paul refers to sprinkling under the law he
uses the word rantizo, and not baptizo.
4. There is not a single case of sprinkling mere water
recorded in the Levitical law. We read of sprinkling
ashes, oil, blood, dust, and the water of purification.
The water of purification was the lye which had run
through the ashes of the red heifer burnt. — (See Num. xix.
9, 13, 17, 18, 20, xxxi. 23).
5. Dr. McKnight renders this passage thus: "Divers
immersions and ordinances concerning the flesh."
XV. The advocates of sprinkling usually refer to pas
sages where the rite of baptism is not mentioned, and
where the word is not used.
Reference is made :
First. To Isa. Hi. 15, "So shall he sprinkle many na
tions," etc.
Who is to sprinkle the nations? Answer, God.
Second. To Ezek. xxxvi. 25, etc., " Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from all your
filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you.
Queries :
1. Has this passage or its contents any allusion to bap
tism ? Surely not.
2. Who performs the work? It is God.
3. What is the object of this sprinkling? Answer, To
cleanse from idolatry and filthiness.
XVI. Some claim that Nebuchadnezzar's wetting is
against immersion. — (See Dan. iv. 23, and v. 21).
1. The passages read: "The same hour was the thing ful
filled upon Nebuchadnezzar, and he was driven from men,
and did eat grass as oxen, and his body — ebaphe — was wet
with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like
eagle's feathers, and his nails like bird's claws." "His
body was wet — ebaphe — with the dew of heaven."

58
2. The ablest scholars claim that the Hebrew word
here is not taval, to dip; nor nozah, nor zorah, to sprinkle;
neither is it shopkahh, to pour ; but it is zitsfava, a Syriac
word, the definition of which is "shall be made wet.''
3. As the dew or wetting of Nebuchadnezzar was a
judgment of God upon him, it was, of course, extraordinary.
The Seventy, when they came to this word, translated it
in the Septuagint by ebaphe — from bapto, to dip — to
show the judgment of God upon a wicked king, and not
an ordinary or common dew that was alluded to by Daniel.
Now, are we to conclude that bapto does not mean to dip,
because here, in this single case, the common version of
the Scriptures, instead of expressing an act of immersion,
simply speaks of wetting with the dew of heaven ? By no
means. A little attention to this passage will show that
bapto, even in this place, retains its primitive meaning.
Let it be remembered that the dews in the East are remark
ably heavy.
4. Nebuchadnezzar was submerged or overwhelmed in
the dew, and of sequence was "wet with the dew."
5. As proof of this, I refer to the statements of his
torians, who have visited the eastern countries, and became
acquainted with the heavy dews which fall there.
I quote Maundrell, who, traveling near Mt. Hermon in
the year 1697, says — "We were instructed by experience
what the Psalmist means by the dew of Hermon, Psalms
cxxxiii. 3, our tents being as wet with it as if it had rained
all night." Dr. E. D. Clark says — "So copious are the
dews of Egypt after sunset that the water runs copiously
down the tent poles."
6. Keeping these facts before us, let us notice the pas
sage again and we shall find it highly figurative. Nebuch
adnezzar is driven into the field, where he eats grass as did
an ox, his hairs are grown as eagle's feathers, and his nails
like bird's claws — his body is overwhelmed with the dew
of heaven.
7. Thus he is represented as having been immersed in
the copious dews that fell, just as we have heard persons
say in common language, when speaking of one who had
been in a heavy shower of rain, ' ' He has had a ducking, ' '
that is, he is as wet as if he had been dipped in the water.

59
8. The Psalmist makes use of a similar figure when he
says, "All the night make I my bed to swim." — Ps. vi. 6.
He did not mean that his tears were so abundant that his
bed did actually swim in them as something floating in the
water, but his intention was to express the greatness of his
sorrow, and this he does by figuratively representing his
bed as swimming in water, as in a stream.
XVII. Christ was baptized into the Priesthood, accord
ing to the ceremonial law, which was by sprinkling, some
claim and teach.
But I protest against it.
i. Because Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and
of the House of David. The Jewish priests were required
to be of the tribe of Levi, and of the House of Aaron.
Christ could not be inducted into the priesthood according
to the Levitical law, nor offer incense, under pain of death.
See Exo. xxvii. 43; Num. i. 51; viii. 7-16, xvi. 40.
2. Had Jesus been of the proper tribe for the priest
hood, His baptism by John in Jordan could not induct
Him into the priestly office according to the Mosaic law.
The manner of inducting the priest is recorded in Exo.
xxix. 1-3. Where, on this occasion, were the required
sacrifices? Such as the basket of unleavened bread, the
girdle, the breastplate, the mitre, the waive offering, the
boiling of flesh, the burning of bread, the application of
blood to the right hand, and to the great toe of the right
foot, etc. Why was it not done in the door of the taber
nacle? Why in Jordan?
3. Paul had a more correct idea of this matter when he
said, " Christ was not made a priest after the law of carnal
commandments, but after the power of an endless life." —
Heb. vii. 16.
4. Christ was made a priest, not after the order of
Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec. Did that order
require His baptism? Was Melchisedec inducted into the
priesthood in that way? I answer most assuredly not.
The design of the baptism of Jesus was nothing less than
to set an example before His followers.
With this view Doddridge and Scott fully concur.
The foregoing argumentation most surely settles the
question. that baptism originally signified the immersion of
a believer in water, in the name of the Father, and of the

6o
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This institution was changed
in the past by the Paedo-baptist fraternity from immersion
to pouring and sprinkling. It was claimed and taught
that they had a right thus to change the ordinance, and
the change was actually made. The origin, progress, op
positions it met, and the reasons thereof, are all on record
among the writings of Paedo-baptists. In the efforts of the
Church of God at the restoration of primitive Christianity,
we wish specially to restore immersion, so as to be a formal
representation of the burial and resurrection of Christ, as
it was in the Apostolic practice of this rite.
The Church of God proposes specially to restore to this
God-given system,
VII. The ordinance of washing the disciples' feet.
The divine record of this institution is found in John
xiii. 4-1 7, and reads thus :
" He riseth from supper and laid aside His garments and
took a towel and girded Himself; after He poureth water
into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet', and to
wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then
cometh he to Simon Peter, and Peter said unto Him, Lord,
dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto
him, what I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know
hereafter. Peter saith unto Him, thou shalt never wash
my feet. Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not thou hast
no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not
my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith
to him. he that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,
but is clean every whit ; and ye are clean but not all — for
He knew who should betray Him, therefore, said He, ye
are not all clean. So after he had w?shed their feet, and
had taken His garments and was set down again, He said
unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call
me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If I,
then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye
also ought to wash one another's feet : for I have given
you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the servant is not greater
than his Lord ; neither he that is sent greater than he that
sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do
them."

6i
In the investigation of this institution, I call attention
to the following considerations :
I. The essential elements of a divine, monumental insti
tution. An ordinance of religion is defined as being an "Insti
tution of divine authority, relating to the worship of God."
This definition of its character is sufficiently comprehen
sive for our present purpose. It evidently inculcates all
the essential elements of an ordinance monumental in
its character. A monumental ordinance in its observance,
involves the use of a corporeal element. This we propose
to develop as we proceed. We shall now proceed to notice
the indispensable elements of the monumental ordinances
relating to the worship of God.
They must be :
i-. Divine in their origin.
2. 'Have recognized subjects.
3. Have an object or design.
4. Have corporeal elements to represent this design.
5. Relate to the worship of God.
These five enumerated and noticed elements of a re
ligious, monumental ordinance are essential from the follow
ing considerations :
1. Abrogate the fact that Jehovah is their acknowledged
author, and you will destroy their binding character on the
disciples of Christ.
2. Cancel their subjects and what will be the inexora
ble result.
3. Take away from them their object or design, and
the same fearful consequence will follow.
4. Remove its representative — the corporeal element —
and it, as a monument, is destroyed.
5. Blot out the relation that they are made to sustain
to the service of God, and they will cease to be religious
ordinances; for it is this acknowledged element of their
character that makes them such, and therefore constitutes
them an important part of God's service or worship.
6. The historical observance of an ordinance after its
institution is not an indispensable attribute of its validity
or existence.
II. That the Washing of the Saints' Feet is a Di
vine, Monumental Institution.

62
If we shall be able to prove substantially, from the teach
ing and practice of the Saviour, concerning the washing of
the disciples' feet, that it contains in an unexceptional way
all the essential elements of a divine, monumental ordinance,
then on this account it must be such. I will now proceed
to accomplish this.
I. That Christ is the author of this institution.
His will is expressed upon this point in the following
forms :
i. It is instituted in the form of an example.
"For I have given you an example that ye should do as
I have done to you. ' '
Now let us notice :
i . The nature of an example. A pattern — a copy— a
model. 2. The design of an example. "That which is pro
posed to be imitated."
II. This will is again expressed by positive commands.
The fact is revealed three ways :
i. "That ye should do as I have done to you."
2. "Ye also ought to wash one another's feet."
3. "Happy are ye if ye do these things."
III. This will is also expressed under the form of a
promise. He says, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye
do them."
Let us notice the following particulars concerning it :
1. The things promised — happiness.
2. To them — the disciples — the promise was made.
3. The conditions on which happiness is suspended.
"To know these things and to do them."
4. The object of the promise, to encourage future obe
dience, and therefore it is offered as an inducement to se
cure obedience.
II. The subjects of this ordniance.
These are distinctly pointed out in the 13th chapter of
John. How?
1. By his command limiting its use to the disciples —
Verses 15-17.
2. By His example commanded, on contemplating His
disciples — Verse 15.
3. By His promise only acknowledging His disciples.

63
III. The design of the institution.
It is made by the Saviour to be a formal representation
of condescension and love. This is evident from Christ's
exposition of its use.
i. He inquires of His disciples after the performance
of the service, "Know ye what I have done to you?"
2. He enforces the obligation and object of this ser
vice by saying that the "servant is not greater than his
master," etc.
IV. The corporeal element of this institution.
It is water. Bread and wine are the corporeal elements
for the Lord's Supper. This is expressed in i Cor. xi.
22, 23.
These elements make the Lord's Supper a monumental
ordinance, together with the exposition of its use.
This is Paul's definition and exposition. This fact
settles this matter.
Feet-washing has water as a corporeal element ; hence,
must be a monumental ordinance. It can be no exception,
unless specially pointed out as such by its author. This is
not done.
V. The relation of this institution to the service of Christ.
Obedience to the Saviour's will is the service required
of His disciples ; obedience to the commanded example of
the Saviour concerning the washing of the disciples' feet
must be part of this service ; and because of this fact it
must necessarily relate to the service of God, like all the
other ordinances of religion.
VI. That Christ contemplated its observance by His dis
ciples. This is evident :
1. From the language of the command. It says, "That
ye should do as I have done to you."
2. From the authoritative manner He enforced the
future observance of His example. " I have given you an
example, that ye should do as I have done to you."
3. From the contemplated fulfillment of His promise.
4. From the import of its design.
VII. It is a social institution.
1. That the meeting at which it was instituted and ob
served was a social one is evident.
2. The observance of the institution was a social one.

64
3. Christ commanded his example to be followed.
How long? As no cessation is taught, it must be as long
as there were disciples.
4. The design of the institution and promise made to
encourage obedience contemplated a social observance.
Apart from those just submitted, some theologians claim
constituent elements, to constitute an ordinance of God,
as follows :
First Class.
1. Divine example.
2. Divine precept.
3. Divine design.
4. Divine promise.
Washing of the saints' feet clearly embodies all of the
above designated elements.
Second Class.
1. Divine example.
2. Divine precepts.
3. Observance of which embodies the use of corporeal
elements. 4. Divine design.
Washing of the saints' feet embodies all of the elements
embodied in the institutions of baptism and the Lord's
Supper. Contemplate,
VII. Answers . to popular objections offered against its
practice as a religious ordinance.
The usual and most popular objections to this ordinance,
which have come under our observation, are the following :
1. That feet-washing was an ancient Jewish custom,
and that Christ did it in conformity to that custom.
This view I contradict.
1. Because the practice of the Saviour and the Jewish
custom were two different things.
2. There is no evidence in the document that teaches
us that the Saviour washed the disciples' feet because they
needed it for cleansing ; but the contrary is evident : "Ye
are clean every whit."
3. The Bible practice teaches that it was customary
from Abraham's time down to the days of the Saviour, for
strangers (after the water was brought) to wash their own
feet. — (See Gen. xviii. 1-4; xix. 1, 2; xxiv. 32; xliii. 24;
Exo. xxx. 19, 21 ; xl. 31 ; Jud. xix. 21 ; 2 Sam. xi. 8, etc.)

65
4- That Christ at this time was not following any of
these customs is unanswerably manifest from His language
to Peter: "What I do thou knowest. not now, but shalt
know hereafter."
5. It was not a Jewish custom because Paul preached it.
6. If even it were a fact that washing of the saints'
feet, after the example of Christ, had been a Jewish custom,
and Christ borrowed it from thence and placed it into His
Church, this fact would not invalidate it as an ordinance.
The Jews were accustomed to pray before Christ enjoined
it as a duty. Does this fact make void this duty? Is it
therefore not to be observed?
II. That the word ought in the passage leaves the whole
matter a discretionary right with the disciples to do as
they pleased.
We remark :
1. That the word ophilo, translated ought, here signifies
bound, obligated.
Ophilo is translated in common version, ought, owe,
debt, due, bound, indebted, duty, must needs, need, be
hooved, etc. Each of these ten terms is expressive of
obligation. Hence its use in the lanauage is altogether
opposed to the idea that it denotes a discretionary right;
but it enforces an obligation upon its subjects.
3. Webster defines it, " To be held or bound in duty
or moral obligation." In confirmation of this definition
he refers to the following examples : Matt, xxiii. 16; Rom.
xv. 1; Matt. xxv. 27.
4. If it did denote a discretionary right in His disciples
to do as they pleased, then, the positive command, example
and promise of the Saviour could be made void by its
exercise. III. That there is no historic record of its after obser
vance. I remark:
1. If this were a fact it would not effect its validity.
Its validity depends upon its instituting authority.
2. Such a position would place primitive Christians in
an unenviable light.
3. But it is not a fact that we have no proof of this
rite being in practice among the first Christians. — (See 1
Tim. v. 10).

66
IV. That it was only a good work. In proof of this
supposed fact they refer to i Tim. v. 10.
Let us notice :
i . The character of a good work per se. It is an act
of benevolence done to persons because their necessities
require it irrespective of their moral character.
2. For instance, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked,
educate the orphan, visit the sick, etc., are good works.
The obligation only arises when there is an object in want,
and there are means at our disposal to answer it.
3. That the washing of the disciples' feet, in conformity
with the Saviour's command, example and promise, is not
a good work per se is evident :
1. Because there is no evidence in the New Testament
that Christ washed the disciples' feet on the ground of
need, and that it was the reason of its observance. In ab
sence of this fact it cannot be made a good work.
2. It cannot be a good work because Christ has limited
its use to the disciples.
3. It cannot be a good work because Christ's com
manded example makes it a social observance.
4. Christ's language to Peter shows that it was not un
derstood by him to be a good work when he performed it.
He says — "What I do thou knowest not now."
5. It cannot be a good work because Christ in His ex
position of its use makes it have a symbolic signification —
a representation of condescension and love. Good works
are not symbolic actions, limited in their use to saints."
6. Paul's language in 1 Tim. v. 10, does not make it a
good work. Why not?
1. Because he limits its use to saints.
V. That it was only a work of necessity. As it was
customary to go barefooted, or only with sandals, and as
it was warm and sultry, and as they had traveled far that
day, and their feet had contracted filth, it was pleasant and
appropriate that their feet should be washed.
This objection is weightless when we consider:
1. There is no evidence that they traveled in their bare
feet or even with sandals, for it was quite common to wear
shoes in those days — Luke xxii. 35 ; Mark vi. 9.
2. It is not in evidence that they traveled a long jour
ney that day.

67
3. It is not positively in evidence that they walked
even a short distance.
4. It is not in evidence that it was warm, sultry, or
muddy traveling that day, for they made a fire to warm
themselves by because it was "cold." They made a fire
even in the hall or house — Luke xxii. 56.
They could not have been at that time in Christ's pres
ence with unclean feet, for He said, "Ye are clean every
whit " (John xiii. 10), save Judas who was morally unclean.
Or I care not, it may be said his feet were unclean ; but this
would not help the objection any, seeing all the rest of
them were clean every whit.
VI. That only one Evangelist records it. It is said, if
it had been of so great importance, certainly all would
have mentioned it. I would answer —
1. That the ceremony or formula of Christian baptism
is important, yet only one Evangelist records it. — Matt.
xxviii. 19.
2. Does the objection mean that John's testimony as a
witness and an Apostle of Christ is not reliable?
3. If, indeed, we are at liberty to neglect a duty, or to
reject a doctrine because only one Evangelist, records it,
then we can denounce Christ's sermon on the Mount, and
other important portions of Scripture.
VII. That feet-washing was instituted and practiced
before His kingdom was set up, and His Church estab
lished, which was not accomplished before the day of Pen
tecost, and as the Apostles never transmitted it into His
kingdom, it cannot now claim the functions of an ordi
nance of the church.
To this I remark —
1. Was not baptism and the Lord's Supper instituted
before Pentecost; and, in fact, every ordinance given by
Christ? 2. Feet-washing was practiced in the new kingdom after
Pentecost by the Apostles, or else they criminally violated
their solemn obligations to Christ's precepts, because He
commanded them to wash each other's feet, as has been
fully demonstrated, not only up to Pentecost — the short
space of about seven weeks — but after Pentecost as well as
before. The institution of washing of the saints' feet is found

68
incorporated in the original God-given system ; but to a
very great extent lost sight of by modern theologians and
churches. Hence, the Church of God is endeavoring to
restore its regular practice, as it was observed in the land
of Judea, among primitive Christians ; and more especially
as it possesses all of the elements that other institutions
possess to constitute divine institutions.
All objections alleged against washing of the saints' feet
we can with equal force and propriety file against baptism
and the Lord's Supper.
We also claim to restore :
VIII. The Lord's Supper, as an institution of God, in
the manner in which the Lord submitted it, and as it was
observed by primitive Christians.
The divine record of this institution is as follows :
" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed
it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,
Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for
this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for
many for the remission of sins ; but I say unto you, I will
not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. "
Matt. xxvi. 26-29. (See also 1 Cor. xi. 23-29).
The external elements to be used in the observance of
this ordinance are bread and wine. — (See 1 Cor. xi. 23-29;
also Matt. xxvi. 26-29.
The principal use, object or design of the Lord's Supper
is to commemorate the sufferings and the death of Christ.
Christ died the just for the unjust — he died for our sins,
according to the Scriptures; hence the bread and wine of
the Supper are emblems of this event, and designed to
keep it in perpetual remembrance. Hence, it is said by
Paul: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup,
ye do show the Lord's death till he come." — 1 Cor. xi. 26.
Christians alone should approach the table of the Lord.
Besides, they are to examine themselves ere its observance.
For the record says: "He that eateth and drinketh un
worthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, no
discerning the Lord's body."
A man is commanded then to "examine himself." This
must be done to learn whether he is a Christian; whether

69
he understands the true nature and design of the Lord's
Supper, and whether he is at peace with the brotherhood.
To come to the Lord's table "unworthily," through
sinister and unworthy motives, or without discerning the
Lord's body, would be "eating and drinking damnation
to himself."
It is a fearful thing to eat and drink unworthily; hence
all should be solemnly cautious in this matter.
This ordinance, in latter days, has received the following
changes :
i. Respecting its communicants. In primitive times,
the disciples of Christ, who, after examination, felt them
selves worthy, observed it. This alone is correct.
But in modern days the unregenerate and penitents are
in places also invited to the table of the Lord. In other
cases the communicants are restricted to those only holding
membership in the church observing it. The Church of
God in its restoring work invites and urges all the Lord's
disciples to commune. None of the Lord's children
should be excluded.
2. Respecting the time for its observance. As it is
called the ". Lord's Supper," it should be obserwed at a
time corresponding to a supper.
(i). It was instituted by Christ in the night. "The
same night in which he was betrayed." — i Cor. xi. 23.
(2). It was observed by the disciples, in primitive
times, at night.
(3). Paul calls it the "Lord's Supper." — 1 Cor. xi. 20.
(4). Night observance more fitly represents the scenes
of the Lord's sufferings and death.
If, then, originally it was observed at night, it has been
changed since then to a time not to correspond to a supper.
The province of the Church of God is to restore its night
practice, as in the beginning.
3. Respecting the manner of its observance.
(1). It was observed in a sitting or reclining posture,
while eating at a table : but in the present age it is ob
served in a standing and kneeling posture by some churches.
The Church of God proposes to restore the practice as
originally given.
(2). It was observed originally in connection with the
washing of the saints' feet. If so, who possesses the right

70
to disconnect them ? What the Lord hath joined together
no one should put asunder. The Church of God in her
teachings and practice hath joined the two together, as our
Lord instituted them.
We, as people, claim to restore to the Apostolic platform,
IX. The Bible basis for Church and Christian union.
From the teachings of Christ and His Apostles we learn
that union was taught. The Bible record was clear.
Modern theology teaches otherwise. Many theologians
claim divisions are ordained by God, and that church
divisions are a wise arrangement, so that all persons can
unite with any church to suit their own pleasure.
Touching this subject, I here introduce the following
suggestions :
Facts demonstrate that commotions exist in the political
world, thus convulsing the nations from centre to circum
ference; so it is in the Christian world.
The church at present is rent in all its departments, thus
causing a lamentable state of things.
The inquiry naturally arises, as God designed the well-
being of the Christian family, did He order this state of
things, and is it for the good of His church? If not,
who is the author of this confusion? If not, what is the
basis on which the Lord designed to perpetuate Christian
unity? The following propositions we hold to be true —
These are questions of great moment, and these with
their bearings . I contemplate investigating on the present
occasion. That God seeks, by the use of all lawful means, to sub
serve the good of the moral universe. This is evident from
His revealed character, which is developed,
i. By the structure and formation of the material
universe. 2. By every element in the material universe. De
structive ones tempered for our good.
3. By the ends contemplated in the gospel.
4. By the ends contemplated in the church institution.
5. By the ends contemplated in the institution of the
divine ordinances.
6. By the ends contemplated in the institution of civil
government. .

If the above proposition holds good, then, is the pres
ent divided state of things in religion for the good of
the Christian family? I answer no.
i. Because it destroys brotherly love.
2. It destroys peace in families.
3. It leads to enormous expenses, and often to litiga
tions. 4. It begets a spirit of prejudice, hatred and bigotry.
5. It makes infidels and strengthens their hands.
6. It confounds the heathen, embarasses the mission
ary and hinders the conversion1 of the world.
7. It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the gospel.
8. It is opposed to Christ's last or intercessory prayer.
See John 17th chapter.
9. It is by Paul ranked among the works of the flesh.
Contrariwise, the union of the brotherhood of Christ
was most assuredly designed by the Lord.
This developed in the following —
I. The Lord instituted His own (and but one) church
for the happiness of His children.
I. He instituted His church.
1. He purchased her.
2. He established her upon the rock.
3. He gave her laws and ordinances.
4. He gave her ministers.
5. He endowed His ministers with power from heaven.
6. He prospered their efforts in church upbuilding and
extension. II. He named her.
He calls her "My Church" — claiming her ownership
and naming her.
It is God's Church, or Church of God.
1. Because she is so prophesied. — Isa. Ix: 2.
2. Because so named by the Lord.
3. Because so recognized by the early Christians. See
their sermons, letters, etc.
4. Because it is an expressive, as well as a reasonable,
church name.
III. He gave the church laws.
1. God, who is all-wise, gave them.
2. They are plainly presented.
3. They are all-sufficient.

72
4. They make the man of God perfect.
5. They are not to be superseded.
6. They embody all things necessary to be believed,
experienced and practiced in order to save us.
IV. The church is composed of converted men and
women. This is seen :
1. In the Apostolic condutt in church building.
2. The manner and terms used in their sermons and
writings to designate them. The terms are expressive of a
Christian character.
3. In their conduct of dismembering all unworthy
persons from church.
The above are the leading elements specified in the New
Testament for building up churches. A conformity to the
above will enhance Christian union. A departure there
from will cause schisms and divisions. This is wrong and
deplorable. II. From the nature and properties thereof we prove
Christian union.
Christians are to be united,
1. In feeling and affection.
2. In action and co-operation.
3. In name.
4. In church discipline.
5. In faith and sentiment.
Want of room forbids amplifying.
III. From existing facts we prove that God designed the
unity of saints.
1. The types of the Old Testament were a unit, and,
as such, prefigured the church — but one church.
2. The Lord established but one church.
3. The Apostles built the same — one church.
4. They established but one church in the same com
munity or city.
IV. From the general unity of the system of faith and
salvation. This is developed as follows :
1. There is but one God.
2. One Mediator.
3. One Saviour.
4. One Spirit.

73
5. One plan of salvation.
6. One doctrine delivered.
7. One doctrine preached.
8. One doctrine to be heard, and believed, and
obeyed. 9. One way of repentance.
10. One new and spiritual birth.
11. One body — the church.
1 2. One baptism.
13. One "straight gate."
14. One "narrow way" to heaven.
15. One code of laws to guide us in this way.
16. And but one heaven to which all Christians are
journeying. V. From the injunctions submitted to primitive Chris
tians, forbidding disunion, but by implication teach their
union. They are as follows :
1. To love one another.
2. To pray for one another.
3. To live in peace together.
4. To exhort and admonish one another.
5. To reprove each other for each other's faults.
Vi. From Christ' s and the Apostolic teaching on the
subject. 1. Christ' teachings. — Matt, vi: 10; xx: 1, 2; xxii:
23; John x: 14-16; xv: 5, etc. See also His interces
sory prayer: Johnxvii: 11, 20-23;
2. Apostles' teachings. — 1 Cor. i: 10, 11; xii: 12,
14-25; Phil, i: 27; ii: 2, 3, etc.
3. The Apostles opposed division. — Rom. xvi: 17, 18;
1 Cor. iii : i-8*.
The Bible basis for union alone is correct. This is
mutually agreed to. It is common ground. To illustrate
this principle, let me submit a few interrogatories.
Do all Christians agree that God established a church ?
Do all Christians agree that the church of the Scriptures
is God's? Do all Christians agree that God's word is a sufficient
guide for the church?
Do all Christians agree that believers in Christ are
Scripturally qualified for baptism ?

74
Do all Christians agree that a believer "buried with
Christ in baptism" is Scripturally baptized?
Do all Christians concur that God in His word has given
the true policy for the support of the ministry and benevo
lent interests?
Responses in the affirmative must be given. Hence,
they form the true basis for the promotion of Christian
union. To restore "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace," on a Scriptural basis, is a part of the work in
which we, as a church, are engaged.
There are yet other items of "faith once delivered to
the saints ' ' that have been changed, or left out entirely,
that we propose to restore, as the watchword is, a restora
tion of Christianity. But want of space forbids further
amplification. We now come to notice :
II. The Conditions of Success.
These conditions are two -fold :
I. Human.
II. Divine.
The conditions of the second are dependent upon the
fulfillment of stipulations on the part of the first.
I. Human. The conditions are noted in Christ's
commission to His disciples, and through them to all suc
ceeding gospel ministers. — (See Matt, xxviii: 18-20; Mark
xvi: 15, and Luke xxiv: 46, 49).
From this we learn :
1. The Lordship and authority of Jesus must be main
tained. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations" —
Matt, xxviii: 19.
This is the basis and inspiration of all activity in
Christ's service.
2. We must be qualified. Should be sanctified to this
solemnly important work. Be endued with heavenly
power. Unless we enjoy the living unction from on high
we cannot succeed. Enjoying the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, God will bless and prosper this glorious work.
3. They must go and make disciples of all nations.
" Go and teach all nations."
(1). We should go in person. It is a personal work.
Each one has a work to do. There is a variety of talent

75
employed by the Lord. Every man to his work. Each
one thus laboring, and the Lord aiding, the work prospers.
(2). We should begin at our fireside. In the home
circle. (3). We should go where? The answer is found in
Christ's commission :
"Teach all nations ;" " Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature;" and, "Repentance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. ' '
All people of all lands are to receive the gospel. It is
the only means of their salvation.
(4). We should go with our means. To give to the
Lord of our earthly substance is clearly taught in the
word of God. — (See Matt, x: 10; Lukex: 7; Actsxi:
28, 29; xx: 35; Rom. xii: 13; 1 Cor. ix: 7-16; xvi:
1, 2; 2 Cor. ix: 5-7; Phil, iv: 10-19: 2 Cor. xi: 8, 9 :
Mai. iii: 8-10; Prov. iii: 9, 10, etc.); while covetousness
and stinginess are condemned. — (Matt, xix: 21-24; Mai.
iii: 8; 1 Tim. vi: 10, 17-19, etc.)
(5). We should baptize those who are made disciples.
This is in accordance with Christ's commission.
4. There is a special command. "Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and,
lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world, "—xxviii : 20.
(1). After persons are made disciples and baptized,
then they are to be taught. Ministers are teachers.
They should teach those converts the way of life and
salvation. A great responsibility rests upon the teachers
in this respect.
(2). The extent of teaching, " All things whatsoever I
have commanded you." Not one thing of the gospel
system is to remain untaught. In this respect teachers are
held responsible.
(3). The limitations of the command are also implied:
" Whatsoever I have commanded you."
All things Christ commanded are to be taught. No
more, yet no less. The text book, God's wjrd, must be
carefully read and studied, and the word faithfully preached
as Christ gave it,

76
(4). These disciples are to observe all things Christ
commanded the disciples to observe.
It implies cheerful, willing and universal obedience on
the part of those newly-made disciples of Jesus.
These conditions being complied with, then,
II. Divine aid is promised : " Lo, I am with you."
i. The Lord is then with His ministers and people, and
how they enjoy His presence, guidance and blessings.
2. Though opposed, yet the work will prosper. See
Matt, xvi: 18. "The gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." This Scripture implies opposition, and yet it
insures security and success.
3. The Lord says, "lam with you always."
(1). I am with you. Others may forsake and oppose
you, but I will be with you.
(2). I am with you. To protect, assist and bless you.
(3). I am always with you. At all times, at all places,
and under all circumstances. Yea, in whatever you say
or do according to my will.
(4). I am with you always, even " unto the end of the
world. ' ' Precious promise ! The Lord ever abides with
His people. In life. In death. In Paradise, and will
dwell with them forever in His everlasting kingdom.
conclusion.
1. Let us, as a people, thank God that we are co
workers with the Lord in the Church of God.
3. Let us ever sacredly preserve the precious interests
committed to our trust. We should "keep," "earnestly
contend for," and "strive for the faith of the gospel."
3. Let us devote our lives, and all, after Christ's
example and teachings,' and we shall succeed. God will
help us. "I will be with you always,"
4. Toil having ended, the reward is sure.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08540 0977