ARTICLE VIII.

Remarks on the Doctrine of Immersion for the Remission of Sins.

THE doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins, as taught by Mr. A. Campbell, and embraced by his followers, is contained in an essay of some seventy-five pages, duodecimo, and published in 1835. The subject of this essay is highly important, and it becomes the more so, as Mr. C. is making the attempt to introduce a new system of theology, entirely unknown to any sect of the Baptists, since the period of the Reformation. The claims which he has set up for the new theory, require an impartial and candid investigation; and if it be founded in truth, it ought to be received; but if it be founded in error, it ought to be exposed and rejected. It is our intention to give the subject a fair and candid hearing, and fully yield to it all of truth it can justly claim. One great evil which has arisen from theological discussions, is an attempt, too often made, to widen the breach between the parties, and to represent the difference of sentiment much greater than it really is; but I sincerely hope that, in this case, nothing of the kind will be attempted, but that, on the contrary, an effort will be made to break down prejudices, to remove error, and to unite the Disciples and the Christians in the truth, as it is in Jesus. These two great bodies of the professed followers of Christ, holding as they do so many sentiments in common, should, if practicable, be brought to act together in harmony, and unite their efforts to build up the cause of truth. So far as the writer of this article is concerned, he most sincerely desires that this may be the case.

In entering upon the discussion of the question contained in this essay, the writer of this paper freely admits that he labors under some embarrassment, arising from fears that he may not have been able fully to perceive all Mr. Campbell's abstractions. His mind is so metaphysical, his style so abstruse, and he has such a command of words, and pours forth such a torrent of them, that the reader often finds himself inundated with words, but sometimes finds it difficult to perceive the true idea intended to be conveyed. This always enables Mr. C. to rebut the most logical argument, by merely saying, "I am misapprehended;" but when he re-states his positions and his arguments, the reader labors under the same difficulty as at first, arising from the circumlocution and verbosity of his style. The writer of this paper is not alone in this view of Mr. C.'s style of writing, and method of debating; he has heard the same idea expressed by some of the first men in the country; and he has heard them assign this as a reason for not replying to some of the positions assumed by Mr. C. in his theory of religion. It shall be our object, however, fairly to state Mr. C.'s views, and then, if we dissent from them, fairly to refute them by Scripture

argument and testimony. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

We shall now proceed to state Mr. Campbell's theory, as laid down in this essay, in his own words. He says: "The converts made to Jesus Christ by the apostles, (by immersion,) were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; and were addressed as pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved persons, by all who first preached the gospel of Christ. These terms are expressive, not of any quality of mind-not of any personal attribute of body, soul, or spirit but each of them represents, and all of them together represent a state, or condition." That "this change of state is effected by an act of faith." This "act of faith is immersion into Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;" that when a person is "immersed into Christ, he is then in Christ," and "not before;" that "conversion, immersion, and regeneration, are all descriptive of the same thing, different names for the same act, contemplated in different points of view, are convertible terms, and all signify immersion in water, constituting the process by which a change of state is effected; so that a man's state is changed when he is immersed.” I understand this to be Mr. C.'s system, as laid down by himself; having received his last finishing touch, and being rendered perfect and complete.

This system, including merely a change of state, and not of character, merely a relative holiness, and not a personal holiness, can give to no man a title of future blessedness, an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth not away; and, consequently, all such converts, if they have nothing more to entitle them to the promises of everlasting life, will certainly perish. If a man be personally unholy and impure, no change of state, without a change of character, can make him personally holy and pure. Pluck up a thorn and a thistle, growing in the wilderness, and plant them in a vineyard; and although their states are changed, yet they still remain a thorn and a thistle, and will produce neither grapes nor figs. A corrupt foreigner may leave his native land, and emigrate to this country, and his state may be changed by naturalization, by which he will become a citizen of the United States; but if his character be not changed, he will still remain the same corrupt man he was in his native country. A dissolute woman may enter into the bonds of matrimony, by which her state may be changed; but if her character be not changed, she will still remain the same dissolute woman she was before this change of state. A minister of the gospel may incorporate into the temple of God, by immersion, hay, wood, or stubble, by which the state of these materials will be changed; but this change of state will make them neither gold, silver, nor precious stones: the materials will remain essentially the same after, as before this change of state. And so a cor

rupt and dissolute man may be immersed into Christ, by which his state will be changed; but if his character be not changed-if he do not acquire by this change of state "any new quality of mind, nor any personal attribute of body, soul, or spirit"-he must necessarily remain the same corrupt and dissolute man he was before this change of state. We, therefore, maintain that no mere change of state, without any change of character, without personal holiness, and without love to God, can give to any man a title to that rest that remaineth to the people of God. It is the unchangeable law of Christianity, that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." This system, it appears to me, by leaving out a change of character, is radically defective, and admirably calculated to build men up in the cold formality of religion, who are destitute of its spirit and power. The system, then, cannot be founded in truth; it must be built upon mistaken notions of the true meaning of the Bible.

By referring to history, it will be seen that this doctrine was derived from pagan origin, and constituted one of the corruptions of Christianity in the dark ages. Purifying by water is a ceremony of the highest antiquity. Grotius maintained that it was practised in commemoration of the flood. Whatever might have been its origin, it was practised by the Romans and the Greeks, the Etruscans and the Egyptians, the Druids and the Celts. In general, the pagan purifications were divided into two classes: the one common, which was immediately before divine worship, or at sacrifices, or public festivals; and the other special, at an initiation into mysteries.

It was customary with the Greeks, when persons re-appeared alive and well, who had been absent for a long time, either in war or travel, and had been reputed dead, and had received funeral rites and honors, to account them deuterogeneis, born again, or come to life again; and the return was called ecnagenesis, or palingenesis, a being born again. The Romans adopted the phrase-ology, and passed a law that slaves manumitted under certain conditions, should enjoy the right of regeneration; that is, the manumission should be regarded, in the eye of the law, a natural birth: they should enter into the same perfect freedom as if they had been free-born. Origen, who was full of the lore of oriental literature, finding in the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus, water, new birth, and kingdom of heaven, united, without attending to the connexion and drift of the discourse, applied the passage to baptism; and it seemed to answer his purpose admirably, for here was the external sign, water, and the internal something, new birth, and both connected with the kingdom of heaven. The doctrine, however, was attended with difficulties. Cases were frequently occurring, in which persons must die without baptism. But Origen was an extraordinary genius, and he got over all difficulties by distinguishing baptism into three sorts. Baptism was fluminis, flaminis,

sanguinis; that is, river-baptism, fire-baptism, blood-baptism. Riverbaptism is a being dipped in water. The baptism of fire is repentance, or a disposition to receive grace. Blood-baptism is martyrdom for Christ. In case the first cannot be come at, the two last supply its place, and a person may be saved without the application of water. This exposition of Origen was received by the church of Rome; and in the final settlement of the question, she decreed that water-baptism was necessary to salvation, in all conceivable cases. This doctrine the Catholic church still retains at the present time.

Retaining the necessity of water, to cleanse human nature from sin in order to salvation, exposed the church of Rome to great and almost insurmountable difficulties. Having adopted the doctrine, it became necessary to admit the consequences, that no person can be saved without being baptized in water. All pagans inevitably perish. All infants, dying unbaptized, were in the same unhappy condition. The absolute necessity of dipping in order to a valid baptism, and the indispensable necessity of baptism in order to salvation, were two doctrines which clashed; and the collision kindled up a war between the clergy and the people. The doctrine was cruel, and the feelings of humanity revolted against it. may give law, but it is more than power can do to make unnatural laws sit easy upon the minds of rational beings. This state of things rendered it very inconvenient for the clergy, for they were under the necessity of attending any woman in labor, at a moment's warning, night or day, in any season of the year, at the most remote parts of their parish, without the power of demanding a fee, whenever a case of necessity required; and if they neglected their duty, they were most severely punished.

To remedy the evils which grew out of the doctrine, a great many expedients were tried; but, for a long season, nothing succeeded. They accumulated on every hand. At first, infants were baptized in public, at two different seasons of the year. When it was observed that some died before the season for baptizing came, priests were authorized to baptize at any time, and in any place, in case of sickness. But it sometimes happened that a priest could not be obtained. To remedy this evil, midwives were licensed. Then cases occurred that, while the midwife was baptizing a child not likely to live many minutes, the mother was neglected and died. To prevent such accidents in future, it was decreed that anybody, licensed or unlicensed, a Jew or a degraded priest, a scullion or a felon, might baptize. It happened at other times, that a vessel large enough, or a quantity of water sufficient to dip an infant, could not be procured on a sudden; and while in the dead of night, and perhaps in a severe frost, the assistants were running to borrow utensils, or to procure water, the ill-fated infant expired. In vain were laws made expressly to require women, in certain cases, to have everything ready prepared; the laws of nature defied human con

trol, the evil was incurable, and the anguish intolerable. Some infants died the moment they were born, others before, both unbaptized; and all, for the comfort of distressed mothers, doomed like fiends to descend into a place of torment. In short, it became impossible to maintain the two propositions, that baptism was dipping, and that dipping was essential to salvation.

Finding that both propositions could not be maintained, the church of Rome was finally driven to another expedient, to substitute sprinkling for dipping, which at first was only done in extraordinary cases. This, however, remedied the evil but in part, for the doctrine of some sort of baptism, in order to salvation, was still retained, and gathered strength by this new provision. Since that time, a thousand ingenious devices have been invented to administer sprinkling in extraordinary cases. It would shock the modesty of persons unaccustomed to such a ceremony, to relate the law of the case. It must suffice, therefore, to observe, that if the hand or foot of a babe, dying with its mother in the birth, be sprinkled, it is baptism, and the child is saved. But it sometimes happens, in extraordinary cases, that pure water cannot be obtained; in such cases, casuists have determined that beer, distilled spirits, the juice of herbs, and liquids in which it may be doubtful whether there be any drops of pure water, may be used for the purpose of baptizing. But enough of these disgusting legends.

Mr. C. will doubtless say that he rejects the doctrine of infant baptism altogether, which we grant; but by rejecting this doctrine, and retaining the necessity of immersion, in order to salvation, he increases the difficulties of administering baptism, in at least a tenfold ratio; for baptism in no period of human life can be so certainly administered as in infancy. This period presents the fewest obstacles to be overcome of any period of our mortal existance. It must be remembered, that Mr. C. regards all persons as unbaptized who have not been immersed. The necessity of immersion, is an essential part of his plan. Baptism administered to persons who do not unite faith with the act, is also invalid, because, in order to the remission of sins, faith and immersion are both necessary; that is, necessary for the candidate to believe that through immersion God will pardon his sins. Mr. C. has now the Christian world before him, the principal part of whom, according to his views, are unbaptized. Let him now, if he can, reduce his doctrine to practice.

Let Mr. C., in the first place, define who is an authorized administrator of baptism under the new economy. Must the administrator be a man, or will baptism, administered by a woman, be valid? Must the administrator be a believer in Christianity, or will an unbeliever do? If a believer, must he be ordained, or will baptism be valid administered by any Christian person? Must the administrator be a believer in the doctrine himself, or will baptism be valid if a man plunges into the water without any administrator,