CHAPTER XVII.
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.
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 areSouthrons.” “If you areSouthronsyou 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 fromSenator 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 theright; 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 aredisturbing 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. TheMagazineand theCentral Christian Advocate, were the only religious journals that survived the outbreak. TheMagazinewas 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 torepent“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 iswhat 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 thatrepentanceandremission of sinsshould 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 throughFAITHin his blood, to declare his righteousness, for theREMISSION 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 whereREMISSIONof 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 openedit. 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 theirfactswhen they expatiate about Pentecost. 2. Water baptism is the door into the kingdom, is it? The kingdom, then, which is purely aspiritualinstitution, has amaterialdoor! 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 oneoutof the kingdom could lawfully initiate oneinto 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 baptizedbefore,at, orafterPentecost. 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 theMagazineon 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 theactof 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 isinseparablyconnected with the remission of sins,”—“no person was said to be converted until hewas 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 evensquintstoward 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 areentirelyremitted; 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. Bothyou 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 assaved,cleansed, orsanctifiedbywater—may not he then call that water, of which a person is born again, thewater, or bath ofregeneration.” (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, inturning 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 hisiniquities.” 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 theuniversalityof the promise, and says that the “blessing isspiritualandeternal.” How he or you can restrict salvation to thefewwho are immersed, with this passage before your eyes, and this admission, is a mystery.
2. If you are correct, but asmall portionof 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 becrowded, and heaven almostempty. 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 thereis no respect of persons.” Col. iii. 25. Your theory makes a “respect of persons;” it says that the immersed “shallNOTreceive 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 theunimmersed“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 waftedright 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,viathe 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 sinnedonceand 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 thesoul; 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 thevery 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 exertionbrings 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: “Ournaturewascorruptedby 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 afallen, consequently asinfulnature.” (Christian System, pages 28, 29.) Now, as there is no salvation without baptism, why not baptize infants? Will it not savelittlesinners as well as large ones? It wouldnot 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: “Noprayers, 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 thatimagineshimself pardoned, will feel ashappyas 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 canimaginethemselves saved, pardoned; canfoolthemselves 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 isno 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 savingthe world, he will save but a verysmall partof 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 drawALL MENto me.” John xii. 31, 32. According to my friend, we can go to Christ onlythrough immersion, and as but a small part of all men are immersed, the conclusion is, thatonly 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 thisdodging. 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, asMr. Smith does, would he have made that remark?
25. Mr. Campbell again says, “Baptism isdesignedto 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 isTHE MEANSby which Goddesignsto 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 usethe meansby 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 theimmersedonly are in this condition, or state. Only those who submit to theact, 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 dothe actwhich alone can put men into a saved state or condition.