THE REBELLION COMMENCED--WHAT SENATOR DOUGLAS SAID--DEFENDERS OF OUR
COUNTRY--CAMP JACKSON--REBEL FLAG--GREAT EXPECTATIONS--SUBSCRIBERS
LOST--MONEY LOST--ALL BUT TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS JOURNALS
STOPPED--COULD DO BUT LITTLE IN MISSOURI--SOCIETY IN ST. LOUIS--G.
S. WEAVER LEFT--THE UNITARIAN SOCIETY--PUBLISHED PAMPHLET ON WATER
BAPTISM--DISCUSSION WITH B. H. SMITH--EXTRACTS FROM THE DISCUSSION.
While sitting at the breakfast-table, at a boarding-house in St. Louis,
on the morning of the 14th of April, 1861, it was announced through the
morning paper, that the South Carolinians had fired on Fort Sumter. I
remarked, “The rebels will rue that traitorous deed.” The landlady took
fire, and with eyes darting vengeance, said, “We are _Southrons_.” “If
you are _Southrons_ you need not be rebels.” The whole city was wild
with excitement. Americans had fired on their own flag, civil war was
inaugurated; but how far it would extend, and what would be the result,
were problems the wisest could not solve. Would the whole land be
desolated? Would treason, with fire and sword, march through the length
and breadth of the country, scattering death and destruction, where
peace, harmony and happiness had so long prevailed? Was the sun of the
Great Republic about to set, and set in blood, fire and desolation? Was
our glorious Union about to be rent asunder by profane hands? Where
would the division end? Would it be torn in two, twenty, or thirty
parts? No wonder loyal men and women were excited and alarmed.
A day or two after the announcement of that insane act of South
Carolina, I heard a man on Fourth street read a private dispatch he had
just received from Senator Douglas at Washington, “_Tell my friends
they must sustain the government._” It made my heart leap for joy, and
I exclaimed to a by-stander, “God bless Douglas.” “God d---- him,” said
an enraged “Southron.” In a few days more, President Lincoln’s call
for volunteers was published; and then the drum began to beat; and the
farmers, mechanics, merchants, doctors, lawyers, preachers, all over
the land, left their homes and enrolled themselves, “DEFENDERS OF OUR
COUNTRY.” And many a prayer went up to heaven for their protection and
success. When General Lyon, a few weeks after, marched five thousand
loyal soldiers through the city and captured “Camp Jackson,” the union
portion of the population were delighted, but the rebels were dismayed.
For weeks a rebel flag had been hanging over a building on the corner
of Pine and Fifth streets, the head-quarters of treason, and several
leading papers in the city working to get Missouri out of the Union.
These treason plotters, north and south, east and west, had great
expectations. One of them said to me,
“We shall succeed. The South will sustain itself. The North will not
fight. And having the mouth of the Mississippi river, the South will
compel the Western States to join them; we shall have a strong and
magnificent government, and the Eastern States may go to destruction
for ought we care.”
I replied: “Three or four years of war will open your eyes, if you
shall have any then to open, with regard to the North and the South. Do
not delude yourself with the fancy, that the northern people will not
fight for the _right_; you will find that they will fight, and as men
hardly ever before did fight. It is true they greatly prefer the arts
of peace; but when their country is in danger, the country for which
their fathers bled and died, you will find that the spirit of ’76 is
not degenerated. You do not know what you are about; you are insane.
You are disturbing a lion, and by and by he will spring to his feet
and crush you to death.”
But after the Camp Jackson affair, and the citizens were taught by
several bloody lessons, to let the soldiers pass through the streets
undisturbed, we had peace and safety in St. Louis. The rebel element
was strong, but it was harmless amid a preponderance of loyalty,
supported by an army of the “boys in blue.” But in Missouri, outside of
St. Louis, with the exception of here and there a place where soldiers
were stationed, there was but little peace, or safety.
I had nearly three thousand subscribers in Missouri, and the Southern
States, when the war commenced, and I lost all the Southern, and nearly
all the Missouri subscribers, by the mails being discontinued, and
by the general confusion that reigned. My loss was, at least, five
thousand dollars. Three religious periodicals--Methodist, Baptist and
Presbyterian--were discontinued at the beginning of the strife. The
former was suppressed by General Lyon, for its treasonable utterances.
The _Magazine_ and the _Central Christian Advocate_, were the only
religious journals that survived the outbreak. The _Magazine_ was
pretty badly crippled, and but for the aid it received from the loyal
states, it would have succumbed.
I traveled and preached but little in Missouri during the war. Most of
the men were in the army, north or south; some left the state, and the
few who remained did not think much about religion. The society in St.
Louis went to the shades. Mr. Weaver left the year before the war, and
located in Lawrence, Mass., where he has been remarkably successful.
He is a noble man, and an excellent pastor and preacher. Before a
successor to him could be obtained, the war broke out, and that killed
the society. Our cause was always feeble in St. Louis. The Unitarian
society was old, numerous, well established, and rich; but instead of
aiding us by its sympathy and co-operation, it stood off as cold as an
iceberg. I hear much of the love Unitarians bear for us, but have never
seen much evidence of their love. They doubtless would like to have
Unitarians and Universalists unite, but it must be like the marriage of
man and woman, according to Blackstone, the twain must be one, and that
one, Unitarian. We are fine fellows if we will allow ourselves to be
swallowed, head and heels, without kicking.
About this time, I published a pamphlet entitled “Seventy-two Reasons
why Salvation is not by Water Baptism.” The Reformers, or Campbellites,
a numerous and growing sect in the West and South, contend, as is
well known, that immersion in water is a condition of salvation. This
pamphlet is designed to refute that strange notion. The following is
the twenty-eighth “Reason”:
“Then said Peter unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts ii. 38.
If “baptized” here refers to water baptism, it is the only place in
the New Testament where it is connected with “remission of sin.” And
shall all that Christ and his apostles have said about sin being
removed by grace, hope, faith, repentance, be set aside, because in
one instance baptism and remission of sins are mentioned in connection
with each other? But even in this passage Peter tells his hearers to
_repent_ “for the remission of sins,” and there is common sense in that
exhortation. Repentance means to reform, to cease doing evil and learn
to do well, and when that is done, of course, our sins are remitted.
If a drunkard repents, reforms, the sin of intemperance is remitted,
and so of all other sins--when we abandon them, they abandon us. If
we resist the devil he will flee from us. That is what forgiveness,
pardon, and remission of sin means. And that is what Peter means in
the above words, as is evident from his address to the people in Acts
iii. 19. “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out.” Here baptism is left out, clearly showing that the
author, in the other place, did not mean that water puts away sin.
The same is taught by Jesus. “And that _repentance_ and _remission
of sins_ should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning
at Jerusalem.” Luke xxiv. 47. Nothing about water. The apostle Paul
teaches the same truth. “Whom God hath sent forth to be a propitiation
through FAITH in his blood, to declare his righteousness, for the
REMISSION OF SINS.” Rom. iii. 25. Here again baptism has no credit for
remitting sin; it is done through faith. Again this apostle says, “This
is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the
Lord, I will put my law into their hearts, and in their minds I will
write them: and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now
where REMISSION of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Heb.
x. 16, 17, 18. Of course, when the law of God reigns supreme in men’s
hearts, their sins are remitted, whether they have been baptized or
not. It is the law of love that banishes sin, not water baptism. It is
evident from the above testimony, that water baptism has nothing to do
in putting away sin, and that the Reformers have departed far from the
truth in their notions about the saving influence of water baptism.
And here is another error they commit. They are forever telling us
that the kingdom of God was set up on “the day of Pentecost.” Their
notion runs about thus--Jesus Christ set up his kingdom on “the day of
Pentecost.” The key thereof being given to Peter, he unlocked it on
that occasion, and commenced baptizing men and women into the kingdom.
Baptism is the door. Not a living man, woman, or child was inside the
door when Peter opened it. On this theological curiosity we have a
few words to offer. 1. We have not a particle of evidence that the
kingdom of God was set up on that occasion. Peter, who was the sole
speaker, said not one word about the kingdom of God, not one word
about its keys, not one word about unlocking it, not one word about
baptism being the door into the kingdom, not one word about immersing
anybody into it. If the august kingdom of the living God was really set
up, opened, dedicated, and Jesus commenced his reign on “the day of
Pentecost,” it is very remarkable that there is not one word said about
any of these important matters by the great apostle. Our Reformers draw
largely on their imagination for their _facts_ when they expatiate
about Pentecost. 2. Water baptism is the door into the kingdom, is it?
The kingdom, then, which is purely a _spiritual_ institution, has a
_material_ door! What an idea! And it was reserved for the nineteenth
century to make that wonderful discovery. 3. If our friends are right
in their curious notions, we should like to be informed how the first
one got into the kingdom. When Peter opened it not a soul was inside,
and no one could get in without being baptized. Now, we should like
to have one of their wise men tell us how the first one got inside.
Did Peter baptize him in? But Peter was an “outsider.” And will our
friends pretend that one _out_ of the kingdom could lawfully initiate
one _into it_? This, though, must have been done, or some one must have
slipped inside without immersion, and then went to work in good earnest
putting others through the watery door into the spiritual kingdom. 4.
If our friends are right, not one of the twelve apostles entered the
kingdom of God, for they were not baptized _before_, _at_, or _after_
Pentecost. Not even Mathias, who was chosen after the resurrection of
Christ, was baptized. They did not enter through this singular door.
How then can they be saved?
Soon after this pamphlet appeared, I made arrangements with B. H.
Smith, pastor of the Reformers’ church in St. Louis, to have a
discussion in the _Magazine_ on the efficacy of water baptism. He
proposed affirming that “Water Baptism is a Condition of Salvation.”
He was to write twelve letters. He wrote seven and then laid aside his
pen, and I could never induce him to write any more. The following is
part of my reply to his first letter:
You advocate a proposition that consigns nearly all mankind to hopeless
ruin. You affirm that water baptism is a condition of salvation, and
consequently that there is not, and cannot be, any salvation without
immersion in water. Your brethren, generally, adopt the same theory.
Rev. Alexander Campbell, well known to be a prominent man in your
fraternity, distinctly avows your position. Speaking of the “act of
faith” which he declares to be immersion in water, he says, “Whatever
the act of faith may be, it necessarily becomes the line of demarkation
between the two states before described. On this side, and on the other
side, mankind are in quite different states. On one side they are
pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted and saved: and on
the other, they are in a state of condemnation. This act is sometimes
called immersion, regeneration, conversion.” (_Christian System_, page
193.) This “act of faith,” you see, is immersion in water, and is
called “regeneration,” and “conversion.” On one side, that is, all who
are immersed, are “saved, pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled,
adopted,” but those on the other side, that is, not immersed in water,
are condemned, lost, unpardoned, unsanctified, etc. In one word,
immersion is the line between heaven and hell, between the saved and
the damned, between those God loves and those he hates. On page 197,
he says that “Immersion is _inseparably_ connected with the remission
of sins,”--“no person was said to be converted until he was immersed;
and all persons who were immersed, were said to be converted.” The same
saving power is attached to immersion all through Mr. Campbell’s book.
But, sir, reason, common sense, common justice, and every thing else
that even _squints_ toward the true and right, condemn such a theory.
But as you appeal to the New Testament to sustain your proposition, I
trust I can show you misunderstand its letter and spirit.
Your doctrine of the purifying power of water baptism, is rank
Heathenism. The Pagans, publicly and privately, used lustral water,
which they thought had the virtue of purifying the soul, and of
remitting the punishment of sins. “The Indians,” writes father Jesuit
Bonchet, a missionary to India, “say that in bathing--that is,
immersing--in certain rivers, sins are _entirely_ remitted; and that
their mysterious waters, wash not only the bodies, but also purify the
souls in an admirable manner.” This testimony, Chateaubriand adds, is
confirmed by the “Memoirs of the English Society of Calcutta.” The
waters of the Ganges are supposed by the Hindoos, to purify those who
are immersed in them. This sounds very much like your proposition. The
Catholics, like yourself, have incorporated this item of Heathenism
into their faith. Their General Catechism treats on baptism thus:
_Q._ What is baptism?
_A._ A sacrament which cleanses from original sin, makes us christians
and children of God; and heirs to the kingdom of heaven.
_Q._ Does baptism also remit the actual sins committed before it?
_A._ Yes; and all the punishment due them.
_Q._ Is baptism necessary to salvation?
_A._ Yes; without it, we cannot enter the kingdom of God.
You agree exactly with the Romish Church. Both you and that church
contend, that baptism cleanses the soul, makes us christians, children
of God, heirs of heaven. You say, that “baptism is a condition of
salvation,” and the Pope says, “baptism is necessary to salvation.”
The Pagans call the baptismal water, “lustral water;” the Catholics,
“holy water,” and your people, “regenerating water.” Mr. Campbell says,
“No one acquainted with Peter’s style, will think it strange that Paul
represents as _saved_, _cleansed_, or _sanctified_ by _water_--may not
he then call that water, of which a person is born again, the _water_,
or bath of _regeneration_.” (_Christian System_, page 265.) You will
observe that you, the Catholics and Pagans, are beautifully harmonious
concerning the saving power of water.
The savages of the West, appear to be strictly Orthodox in their
notions concerning the regenerating influence of water. In the early
settlement of the West, two whites were captured by a band of Indians;
and when on the bank of the Ohio, they were led into the river
and immersed by their savage captors. The chief then informed his
prisoners, that this immersion had changed their characters--that they
were no longer pale faces, but Indians, and were members of the tribe.
We smile at the red man’s absurdity, but let us be careful and not be
equally absurd. This is the first account we have of a western stream
being deemed a “bath of regeneration;” but since then another people
have christened all the rivers, creeks and ponds in the West, “baths of
regenerations.”
In the course of the correspondence, I offered the following objections
to his theory:
1. “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God
made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all
the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised
up his Son, Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning every one of you
from his iniquities.” Acts iii. 25, 26. This is from Peter’s sermon,
delivered on Solomon’s porch, and from which you have quoted in your
argument. Your position is, that salvation is only for those who are
immersed, and as but a very small part of mankind are immersed, but a
small part of mankind will be blessed with salvation. But the above
passage promises blessedness to “all the kindreds of the earth,” and
we are informed what that blessing is--“Turning away every one of you
from his _iniquities_.” That is the blessing, and it is promised to all
mankind. Mr. Campbell, in the book from which I have before quoted,
page 135, admits the _universality_ of the promise, and says that the
“blessing is _spiritual_ and _eternal_.” How he or you can restrict
salvation to the _few_ who are immersed, with this passage before your
eyes, and this admission, is a mystery.
2. If you are correct, but a _small portion_ of mankind will be
saved--only those who are immersed in water. Every child, dying in
childhood, every idiot, every Jew, every Mohammedan, every Pagan, every
Catholic, every Episcopalian, every Methodist, every Presbyterian, must
go to hell, if you are right. You deny salvation to every body who is
not baptized. If you are correct, hell will be _crowded_, and heaven
almost _empty_. My God! what a theory!
3. According to your proposition, a person may spend three score years
and ten in crime of the blackest dye; may trample under foot the laws
of both God and man, and receive little or no punishment in this world;
and by being immersed the last hour of his wicked life, his sins are
all washed away, and he occupy as high a seat in heaven as St. John
or St. Paul. Now, the Bible teaches that every transgression and
disobedience shall receive a just recompense of reward. (Heb. ii. 2.)
“He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done;
and there is no respect of persons.” Col. iii. 25. Your theory makes
a “respect of persons;” it says that the immersed “shall NOT receive
for the wrong which they have done,” but that wrath and vengeance will
be meted out forever and ever on the unimmersed. “For the Son of man
shall come in the glory of the Father with his angels; and then shall
he reward every man according to his works.” Matt. xvi. 27. Mr. Smith
affirms, that heaven will render to the _unimmersed_ “according to
their works,” but the immersed will be saved from the just punishment
of their sins. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of
Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether good or bad.” 2 Cor. v. 10. Mr.
Smith denies that God will punish the immersed for the wicked deeds
they have done. In fact, his theory asserts that God will not punish
them at all, but saves them from the penalty of their sins. This, also,
is a very serious objection to your proposition, and I hope it will
receive from you something besides a laugh.
4. A wretch murders in cold blood a thousand unbaptized, good men, and,
according to your proposition, not one of them can be saved--they die
unwashed of their sins and must be lost. As soon as he has killed their
bodies, and sent their souls to hell, he attends Mr. Smith’s meetings,
on Olive street, listens to one of his excellent exhortations to come
forward and be immersed into the fold of God. He gives you his bloody
hand, makes the good confession, and is immersed at the levee--the
very spot where he murdered the men, and some of their dead bodies are
still at his feet. His sins are all forgiven, his soul is pure, and he
is an heir of heaven. But in going back to the sanctuary, he stumbles
over one of the dead bodies of his victims, falls to the ground and
breaks his neck. He complied with the “conditions of salvation,” and
his sanctified soul is wafted right to heaven. But the thousand
victims of his wickedness, not having been immersed, although they
were righteous men, are lost forever. According to Mr. Smith’s theory,
just such a series of events may occur. One man may kill a thousand
men; their souls may all go to hell; and the murderer, by faith and
immersion, may be saved from all the consequences of deeds that have
sent thousands to perdition. The murdered in hell, and the murderer in
heaven. The outrage and injustice of this is a formidable objection to
your proposition. Admit this is an extreme case; but I want to know how
you will dispose of it?
[A case much like this occurred in St. Louis soon after this was
written. A condemned murderer “believed,” and was marched from his cell
to the Olive Street church, and was there immersed, and then marched
to the gallows, _via_ the prison, and if Mr. Smith is right, thence to
heaven, while his victim likely was sent to hell.]
5. One sin may ruin a soul forever without immersion, but a million
sins are harmless if followed by immersion. To illustrate: a man
commits one sin, and dies without being immersed. You say, he cannot
be saved, for immersion is a condition of salvation. Another commits
a million of sins, and is immersed immediately after committing the
last one, and, having complied with the conditions of salvation, he
is saved. Can you see any equity in this? Even if it is possible for
a child, dying ere it attains the age of accountability to be saved,
suppose it lives to commit one sin, and dies without being immersed,
according to Mr. Smith, it cannot be saved. It sinned _once_ and died
without immersion, died with that sin unforgiven, and consequently it
cannot be saved.
6. A serious objection to Mr. Smith’s view of baptism, is its arbitrary
character. There is naturally no power in water, or immersion in water,
to cleanse the soul; and making its salvation depend on the body
being dipped in water, sets aside all natural and spiritual laws. All
God’s commands, in the New Testament, are based in sound philosophy,
and are in perfect harmony with all nature; nothing is arbitrary;
all is natural and philosophical. But the doctrine of salvation by
immersing the body in water, is in direct variance with God’s method of
government, and therefore must be false.
7. If Mr. Smith is right, a wonderful miracle is wrought whenever he or
his brethren immerse a man or woman in water. Mr. Campbell says, “I am
bold to affirm that every one of them who, in the belief of which the
apostle spoke, was immersed did, in the very instant in which he was
put under the water, receive the forgiveness of his sins.” (_Christian
Baptist_, pages 416, 417.) The believer is cursed with all his sins,
exposed to the wrath of God and the flames of hell, till the _very
instant he is put under water_. When under the water his sins are all
forgiven, his soul is purified, his nature is changed, God becomes his
friend, and the door of heaven is opened to him. All this takes place
during the brief time he is under the water. What a miracle! There
is nothing in the catalogue of miracles equal to it. And then such
wonderful miracles are being wrought day and night in every stream and
pond in the land. If there is any truth in this theory, Mr. Smith has
performed far more miracles than Jesus Christ ever did. His brethren
often laugh at the Methodists, for their notions about the operations
of the spirit, and tell them they suppose a miracle is wrought,
whenever a soul is converted; but Mr. Smith and his friends believe in
greater wonders than the Methodists do, and those too that are not half
as reasonable and philosophical.
8. This theory suspends salvation on the will and act of another man.
To illustrate: Mr. Smith convinces one of his hearers of the truth of
the gospel, and he makes application to be immersed that his sins may
be pardoned. Mr. Smith does not doubt his faith, but refuses to immerse
him--has an old grudge against him--and the man dies the next day,
dies unforgiven, and enters into the presence of his God with all his
sins on his soul. Now, Mr. Smith, by not doing his duty, has sent that
man to hell. It may be said, that Mr. Smith will be sent there too for
this sin of omission; but that would not help the poor man who went
there before him. If this doctrine is correct, thousands may be lost by
others refusing to immerse them. Again: a son or a daughter becomes a
penitent believer, and desires to be immersed, but the father forbids
it, and the youth dies unimmersed, and consequently goes to perdition.
It may be replied, that God does not require impossibilities, and in
those cases he will take the will for the deed. But Mr. Smith affirms,
there is no salvation without baptism. If Mr. Smith is right, all such
unfortunate persons are lost.
9. This system enjoins an impossibility, and then damns a man for not
performing it. On the desert a man becomes a penitent believer, but
dies ere he can reach water in which to be immersed. A traveler in
the arctic regions makes the good confession, but freezes to death
before he can melt water enough to be dipped in. All such souls are
lost, for Mr. Smith and Mr. Campbell tell us, there is no salvation on
the desert, nor in the polar regions, without immersion. And this is
called the glorious gospel of the blessed God! A solitary traveler in
an uninhabited region, exclaims from the heart, “I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God,” and wills to be immersed; but he is in a bad
fix. There is no one within an hundred miles to immerse him, and he
cannot immerse himself. He makes a desperate effort to find somebody to
immerse him, as the salvation of his soul depends on his success. But
his effort is fruitless, his exertion brings on a fever, and he dies
alone on the desert. According to Mr. Smith, he goes into the other
world a sinner, and as there is no water there to be immersed in, he
must be immersed in hell-fire, not for a moment, but for all eternity.
10. It encourages superstition by attaching an extravagant importance
to immersion. It elevates an ordinance far above every Christian
virtue; above faith, hope, charity, love. In fact, it makes almost a
god of water baptism.
11. Mr. Smith’s superstitious notions of baptism lead directly to
infant baptism--are the father and mother of infant baptism. Speaking
of the origin of infant baptism, the learned historian and critic,
Salmasins, says, “An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved
without being baptized, and for that reason the custom arose of
baptizing infants.” Professor Hahn testifies to the same: “Infant
baptism arose from false views of original sin, and of the magical
power of consecrated water.” (_Prof. Hahn’s Theology_, page 556.)
Another noted critic says: “The immediate occasion of infant baptism
it cannot be denied was its extravagant ideas of its necessity to
salvation.” (_Dressler’s Doctrine of the Sacrament of Baptism._)
It is evident, then, that Mr. Smith’s idea of water baptism is the
legitimate parent of infant baptism; and it is a mystery to me that
he and his brethren do not baptize infants to save their souls.
According to Mr. Campbell they need salvation. Hear him: “Our _nature_
was _corrupted_ by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us;
and hence the hereditary imbecility to do good, and that proneness to
do evil, so universally apparent in all human beings. All inherit a
_fallen_, consequently a _sinful_ nature.” (_Christian System_, pages
28, 29.) Now, as there is no salvation without baptism, why not baptize
infants? Will it not save _little_ sinners as well as large ones? It
would not astonish me to learn that Mr. Smith is immersing infants. I
wonder he has not been doing it these many years.
12. According to my friend’s theology, a man may be full of faith, and
love, and good works, but if he has not been immersed in water he is
in a lost and ruined condition, and on the broad road to everlasting
destruction. His faith, and love, and good works, avail nothing without
immersion. Stating such a proposition in simple language is enough to
condemn it.
13. This theory is worse than infidelity. Thomas Paine, the noted
infidel, says, “I believe that religious duties consist in doing
justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures
happy.” (_Age of Reason_, page 6.) According to the theory in question,
our Creator has no respect for these religious duties, unless we are
immersed in water. He will neither bless us with salvation in time or
eternity, if we religiously perform all these duties, unless we are
immersed. With all due respect to my friend, I must say, that of the
two systems, Paine’s is the best, as far, at least, as religious duties
are concerned. My correspondent will doubtless reply, that he believes
in the duties Paine names, and urges his fellow men to observe them. No
doubt of it; but then he spoils his faith and exhortation, by telling
his hearers, that the observing of them will avail nothing in the way
of salvation without immersion in water.
14. This theory is worse than Calvinism. With all its cruelty and
savagism, it does not make our salvation depend on immersion in water,
whether there is any water to be immersed in or not, whether our health
will admit of immersion or not; whether we can find one qualified to
immerse or not, and whether if we find such an one he will accommodate
us or not.
15. We have not a particle of evidence that one of the twelve disciples
of our Lord was immersed. Matthew, one of the number, thus records
the call and acceptance of several of that chosen band. “And Jesus,
walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon and Peter, and
Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
And he said unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
And they straightway left their nets and followed him. And going on
from thence he saw two other brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and
John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their
nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their
father, and followed him.” Matt. iv. 18-22. In the tenth chapter we
are informed of the other disciples being called. There is not the
slightest intimation in the New Testament that one of the disciples was
immersed when they were chosen by the Master, or at any subsequent time.
16. My friend maintains, that immersion is the door to discipleship, to
the kingdom, to salvation, pardon, heaven. If he is right, is it not
remarkable that there is not a particle of evidence, that one of our
Lord’s disciples entered that door? When some of them were called, they
were on the shore of the sea, but not a word is recorded of their being
immersed to prepare them for their mission. Never afterward did they
speak or write of being immersed, nor did any others refer to it. The
unavoidable inference is, that they were not baptized in water, and so
according to Mr. Smith, their sins were never forgiven, they were not
saved, never members of the kingdom of God. But let Mr. Smith and his
friends ponder well the fact, that men in those days could be disciples
of Jesus without immersion. Why not now?
17. This theory is immoral in its influence, as it affirms that the
unimmersed are under no obligation to do any thing which implies
spiritual life. The following are Mr. Campbell’s remarkable words:
“No prayers, songs of praise, no acts of devotion in the new economy,
are enjoined on the unbaptized.” (_Christian Baptist_, page 439.) If
Mr. Campbell is right, it is a great sin for any one who has not been
immersed in water to perform any of these acts. Ministers, then, of all
denominations, except immersionists and their congregations, spend each
returning Sabbath, not in serving God, but in open rebellion against
him. Christians, all over the world, morning, noon and evening, in
offering their prayers to God, and singing his praise, are guilty of
heinous sins. They do what they have no right to do. Their prayers,
their songs, and all their devotions, are so many sins against heaven,
and for which, by and by, they will be turned into hell. Such teachings
can have no other than an immoral influence.
18. On page 204, of “Christian System,” Mr. Campbell has the following
curious remark: “And we know so much of human nature as to say, that
he that _imagines_ himself pardoned, will feel as _happy_ as he that
really is so.” This is in reply to an objection, that according to his
theory, no one can be saved, pardoned, without immersion in water. His
reply is, that there is no evidence such can be saved; but they can
_imagine_ themselves saved, pardoned; can _fool_ themselves into the
idea that they are pardoned, yet full of sin all the time, and will be
just as happy as they would be if their sins were all forgiven, and
their souls pure as the angels. Where he got his mental philosophy I
know not, but surely not from the Bible. According to this wisdom, a
man, drunk and wallowing in the gutter, if he imagines himself a sober
man and virtuous citizen, “will feel as happy as he that really is so.”
Or a murderer, with innocent blood on his hands, and murder in his
heart, if he only imagines he is innocent, “will feel as happy as he
that really is so.” All such absurd notions proceed from the position
of my friend, that there is no salvation, no forgiveness, without
immersion in water.
19. The Scriptures teach that all sin is to be forgiven. “All sins
shall be forgiven unto the sons of men.” “Every plant which my heavenly
Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” The angel told Joseph,
“Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from
their sins.” Matt. i. 21. John, the forerunner of Jesus, pointed to him
and said, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world.” John i. 29. Many more passages might be cited, showing that
all sin is to be forgiven, abolished, taken away, made an end of. Now,
my friend’s theory is, that no sin can be forgiven without the aid
of water baptism. But only a small portion of mankind are immersed,
and therefore, if he is right, all those scriptures which teach the
extinction of sin, are so many mistakes. If all sin is to be forgiven,
Mr. Smith is mistaken.
20. “And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father sent the Son
to be the Savior of the world.” 1 John iv. 14. The men of Samaria,
after hearing Jesus speak of his mission, went away and said, “We
have heard him ourselves and know that this is the Christ, the Savior
of the world.” John iv. 42. If Christ was sent by the Father to save
the world, and if he saves only the few who are immersed in water,
instead of saving _the world_, he will save but a very _small part_ of
it; instead of doing his Father’s business, he will leave most of it
undone. How can you reconcile these precious promises with your very
partial salvation?
21. “Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this
world be cast out, and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw
ALL MEN to me.” John xii. 31, 32. According to my friend, we can go to
Christ only _through immersion_, and as but a small part of all men are
immersed, the conclusion is, that only a small part of mankind can go
to Christ. But this conclusion from Mr. Smith’s premises contradicts
the Savior. Jesus says, he will draw all men to him. It is clear
that my friend’s theory contradicts the letter and spirit of the New
Testament.
22. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1
Cor. xv. 22. When Jesus shall have made an end of sin, saved the world,
drawn all men to him, then will all who die in Adam be in Christ. But
Mr. Smith contends that no one can get into Christ, save by immersion.
That is a fundamental point with him; but as ultimately all men are
to be in Christ, he must be mistaken. Try, my friend, to reconcile
your faith with that glorious passage. Nearly all mankind die without
being water-immersed into Christ. All children, idiots, Jews, Pagans,
Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Friend
Quakers, Unitarians, Universalists, and hosts of other Christians,
live and die without being immersed into Christ, and it follows from
your proposition, they never can be in Christ; never can be saved from
their sins. None of these, you assert, have their sins forgiven in this
world. Pray, tell what will become of us all? You have evaded this
question long enough. I have urged you to let us sinners know what is
to be our fate beyond the grave. We know what is the condition of all
these classes in this world, according to Mr. Smith’s theory--they are
all sinners, all condemned, all out of Christ, all out of the kingdom,
children of the devil, without God and without hope in the world. Now,
it surely is not impertinent to insist that Mr. Smith tell us, plainly
and without equivocation, what is to be the doom of these countless
millions beyond the grave. I charge his system with involving the
endless sinfulness and wretchedness of all these multitudes of Adam’s
race. If I am mistaken, let him show wherein I am. Let us have no more
of this dodging. It looks bad, very bad, on the part of my friend, to
evade this point as he has done.
23. The apostle Paul writes, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but
to preach the gospel.” 1 Cor. i. 17. This is surely a remarkable
declaration, if water baptism is a soul-saving institution. If he
had believed that water baptism is a condition of salvation, would
he have said he was not sent to baptize? According to Mr. Smith’s
understanding, where Paul speaks about “obeying the gospel,” he means
baptism. If Mr. Smith is right, Paul was not sent to induce men to
obey the gospel. Again: Paul labored for the conversion of souls, and
Mr. Smith says, conversion is baptism. Then the apostle was not sent
to be instrumental in converting men. If the gentleman is correct,
the great apostle was not sent to labor for men’s salvation, or their
conversion, or to induce them to obey the gospel. This all follows, if
water baptism is a condition of salvation, for Paul declares, that he
was not sent to baptize; that is, was not sent to do the very thing
that must be done to insure salvation. This declaration of the apostle,
that he was not sent to baptize, is a perfect refutation of Mr. Smith’s
proposition, that water baptism is a condition of salvation.
24. In looking over Mr. Campbell’s “Christian System,” page 60, I find
the following wonderous things, said to be consummated by dipping a
man or woman in water: “The change which is consummated by immersion,
is sometimes called in sacred style, ‘being quickened,’ ‘made alive,’
‘passed from death to life,’ ‘being born again,’ ‘having risen with
Christ,’ ‘turning to the Lord,’ ‘being enlightened,’ ‘conversion,’
‘reconciliation,’ ‘repentance unto life.’” In another place, he asserts
the subject comes out of the water as “pure as an angel.” But mark, no
one can be thus purified, quickened, made alive, etc., without water
baptism, and yet, St. Paul says, he was not sent to baptize. If that
apostle believed in baptism, as Mr. Smith does, would he have made
that remark?
25. Mr. Campbell again says, “Baptism is _designed_ to introduce the
subjects of it into the participation of the blessings of the death and
resurrection of Christ.” “To the believing penitent, it is the means
of receiving a formal, distinct, and specific absolution, or release
from guilt.” (page 58.) Baptism is THE MEANS by which God _designs_ to
confer all these immortal and heavenly blessings on men, and yet one of
his greatest apostles declares, he was not sent to baptize; that is,
was not sent to use _the means_ by which alone men can participate in
these blessings.
26. Hear Mr. Campbell again: “The converts made to Christ, by the
apostles, were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified,
sanctified, reconciled, adopted, saved.” (page 187.) He then devotes
several pages to show that the _immersed_ only are in this condition,
or state. Only those who submit to the _act_, as he terms it, of
immersion, are in this new and changed condition, and yet the chief of
the apostles tells the world, he was not sent to baptize; that is, was
not sent to do _the act_ which alone can put men into a saved state or
condition.