The following is a transcription of an article which appeared in the Alabama Baptist paper, Southwestern Baptist, on January 30, 1851, written by Rev. Stephen Newberry Hilbun. This same article was also published in the Tennessee Baptist paper the following month. These articles can be found on Newspapers.com with a subscription.
Stephen N. Hilbun’s great-great grandson, Rev. Joel P. Hilbun transcribed the article. It follows:
“On a certain occasion I stood, as a spectator, on the water’s edge, where the solemn ordinance of Baptism was to be administered by a Baptist minister. He declared that believers are the only subjects, and immersion the only mode, of baptism known in the New Testament; and although I had heard as much affirmed many times before, on this occasion a powerful impression was made on my mind. Is it a fact that the Scriptures furnish neither precept nor example of Baptism by sprinkling or pouring, nor of infants as subjects? Would Baptists constantly and openly affirm such a thing and no one be able to put them to silence, if they have not the Word of God to sustain them? Is the prejudice of education—is the force of circumstances of associations—sufficient to shut our eyes to facts as plain and palpable as Baptists say they are, in this case? Thus, perplexed and reflecting, I turned to the New Testament and sought carefully, patiently, and I think, honestly, for the truth, willing to know and practice it as far as capable. The result of that investigation was, I came fully and satisfactorily to the following conclusions.
1. The Baptism of John, the disciples of Christ, and the apostles was, without the least possibility of successful contradiction, immersion only, and that of believers, in the name of the holy Trinity.
—For instance the baptism of Jesus in Jordan—John ‘baptizing in Enon near to Salim because there was much water there”—Philip and the unoch both went down into the water, &c. In short whatever the manner of the baptismal action is hinted at, it is most clearly to my mind immersion. And as to the proper subjects. The Bible contains not one most distant allusion the baptism of infants, or any but believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. But believers, “both men and women,” Acts 8:12—“those who had received the Holy Ghost, Acts 10:47—Lydia, hearing Paul preach by the “river side” and her household in which it is not likely there were many infants, and certainly no proof, Acts 16:14, 40—the Jailer ‘with all his house rejoiced believing in God’ 34—Chrispus ‘believing in the Lord with all his house,’ Acts 18:8—Stephanas and his house, who ‘addicted themselves to the service of the saints,’ 1 Cor. 1:16—these were baptized & such as these, but no infants, in apostolic times.
2. There being no Bible authority for infant baptism or any other mode of immersion, the usage of the Baptist church in this respect, is consistent and Scriptural. I am acquainted with the logic of learned Pedo-baptists; but it can not satisfy minds that take an intelligent and impartial view of both sides of the question. But I do not say this to question or impeach the candor and honesty of my brethren whom I have left. I doubt not their honesty; but I think they have looked at only one side of the question, or looked through colored glasses as I did.
3. With these views, honesty and candor compelled me to dissolve my connextions with the Methodist Episcopal church, and seek a connexion with that church which clings to the Bible and repudiates the doctrines and commandments of men, in ecclesiastic faith and practice.
Thus, beloved brethren and friends, I have given in a few words, my principle reason for becoming a Baptist, and, I think honestly, as in the sight of God. For the last twenty years I have been a Methodist, and nine years of that time have been trying to preach the Gospel. I was contented in that church, and have been satisfied with her usages and doctrines, and enjoyed the consolations of religion, as well as I expect to in the Baptist church; but a sense of duty, and a conviction of truth, have influenced me in this step, and I feel that God is with me, and his word sustains me in the confident belief that I am right.
I do not by any means, discard infant salvation because I do infant baptism. Baptism is no Saviour—Christ the Lord of glory crucified, is the only Savior; & we must obey him as King in Zion & Head of all things to the church, even if his commandments do clash with our prejudice & education. Unconscious infants cannot obey, nor is there any commandment in the Scriptures addressed to them, or obligatory upon them until they are capable of understanding something of its import; & a proxy obedience to a divine law or requirement, is either inconsistent, or else for all I can see, might be extended as in the Catholic church, to supererrogation, so that the son or daughter might be saved for the righteousness of sponsors or parents.
May the Lord help us by his Word and Spirit to live to his glory, and when our pilgrimage has ended, save us in his kingdom.”
Stephen Hilbun
Brooklyn, Ala., Jan. 30th, 1851
Transcribed by Rev. Joel P. Hilbun, great-great grandson of Stephen Hilbun.
Hilbun 