himself in his will. No surmise or conjecture of any object, which the testator may be supposed to have had in view, can be allowed to have any weight in the construction of his will unless such objects be collected from the plain language of the will itself." (555.)

These writers all say that from the words of the law there must be no departure. Now this is perfectly evident. If this commission of Christ means immersion, we cannot depart from the letter and allow any other act. If it were "possible" or "even probable" that sprinkling or pouring was the act of baptism, yet they could not be admitted, since immersion is the "historical or primary" sense of the word baptizo. No room is left for construction, and we are to take the Scriptures just as they read. We are not to read meanings into the word of the living God.

3. If the commission is not perfectly plain and explicit in all of its terms it is of no binding force whatever. This the law books plainly teach. The maxim is, ubi jus incertum, ubi jus nullum: when the law is uncertain, there is no law. The learned Judge Pothier says: "A law that is hopelessly obscure is of no binding force, and no person can be held responsible for obedience to it." Greenleaf remarks: "In other words, in merely generally speaking, if the court, placing itself in the situation in which the testator or contracting party stood at

the time of executing the instrument, and with full understanding of the force and import of the words, cannot ascertain his meaning and intention from the language of the instrument thus illustrated, it is a case of incurable and hopeless uncertainty, and the instrument is so far inoperative and void." (On Evid. 300.)

Jesus Christ can claim no authority that is not expressed in His commands; and it would be a reflection to say that He did not make himself perfectly clear. If no man can tell what the commission means, or if it means any one of a dozen things, then is baptism not binding upon us. But such a proposition is at once sacrilegious and absurd.

4. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. If immersion is expressed, then is sprinkling and pouring excluded. There is "one baptism," and not three. Coke says: "The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of another; and that expressed makes that which is implied to cease. (Coke-Lit. 210.) And Brown says: "If authority is given expressly, though by affirmative words, upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the act authorized under other circumstances than those so defined." (653.)

Unquestionably the Scriptures teach that baptism is by immersion, and affusion is thus rejected by this law of exclusion.

5. It would be of no service to us if Christ had commanded us to be baptized, if we could not know what He meant. Mr. Coke says: "It avails little to know what ought to be done, if you do not know how it is to be done." "Where anything," says Brown, "is commanded, everything by which it is to be accomplished is also commanded." (482.) Certainly there would be no doubt thrown around the last command the Son of God ever gave.

6. Next to the authority of the New Testament, which is paramount, the admissions of learned Pedobaptists is the strongest proof we can possibly offer. The admission of the adverse party, when deliberately made, is the strongest authority in a court of law. The principle is the same whether applied to civil or criminal matters. Starkie and Greenleaf both put this proposition in the strongest terms. Greenleaf says: "It is generally agreed that deliberate confessions of guilt are among the most effectual proofs of the law. Their value depends on the supposition that they are deliberate and voluntary, and on the presumption that a rational being will not make admissions prejudicial to his interest and safety, unless when urged by the promptings of truth and conscience. Such confessions, so made by a prisoner, at any moment of time, and at any place, subsequent to the perpetration of crime, and previous to his ex

amination before the magistrate, are at common law received in evidence as among proof of guilt." (On Evid. 215.)

There can be but one conclusion in regard to the hundreds of Pedobaptist scholars who have admitted that baptism was originally by immersion. The truth forced them to this conclusion. I emphasize this fundamental principle of the law of evidence, that the admissions of the adverse party, against his interest or opinion, is the best of evidence in law, and is an estoppel in the controversy. I claim that the admissions of the best Pedobaptist scholars of this and every other age, forever close out affusion as baptism.

The law requires absolute obedience, and we have no right to change or in any wise alter its demands. No crime is greater than disobedience. (Jenks, Cent. Car, 77.) "Obedience is the essence of the law." (11 Coke 100.) Obedience is the crowning grace of all. It is that "principle, I mean, to which Polity owes its stability, Life its happiness, Faith its acceptance, Creation its continuance. This is the principle that recognizes the well nigh forgotten truth that Christ is Lord as well as Saviour. It is a far reaching truth, and strict obedience to it carries us into the

immediate presence of God. No more significant words are in the Bible than those of Jesus Christ, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you."

BEL

CHAPTER II.

HISTORY OF SPRINKLING.

ELIEVING there are many persons whose attention has never been directed to this subject, and who believe that sprinkling a little water upon a person will meet the requirements of Christ's baptism, I am impelled from a sense of duty to place the "History of Sprinkling" before you in as clear a light as possible.

I shall use all the helps at my command. I shall consult no author who is not standard authority. I shall not call upon a single immersionist to testify, but shall try the case before a court and jury, made up entirely of men who practice sprinkling for Christian baptism.

Is there any scriptural authority for sprinkling water upon a person "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" If so, we shall be glad to find it, and to accept it with the whole heart, since it makes not one whit's difference to me which is right -sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. The question is, which one is Apostolic? If the "history of sprinkling" for baptism, dates back to the days of the Apostles, and received their approval, then it must be of divine authority; for they spoke as they were guided by the Holy Spirit. If, on the other hand, the Apostles are