If in the treatment of theological questions and difficulties enumerated by Mr. Campbell there appears in the Book of Mormon the same difficulties that have agitated the eastern world, it must be remembered that the source of error is the same—the limitation of human knowledge, reason and judgment; the ever present inclination in man to follow after his own devices; and that the same tempter to evil operated in the western hemisphere as in the eastern hemisphere, and evidently has reproduced the same theological difficulties and led men into the same errors.
Take for example the matter of infant baptism, which Mr. Campbell says the Book of Mormon settles, and indeed it does, by most emphatically pointing out the error and wickedness of it when the doctrine is made to teach the salvation of one innocent child because it is baptized, and the eternal damnation of another innocent child because it was not baptized;[[20]] but the Book of Mormon condemnation of that wicked doctrine was not recorded in its pages because of any controversy existing on the subject in New York, as Mr. Campbell pretends, but because the Nephite prophets were aroused against this doctrine by reason of their people running into the same error—the doctrine of eternal damnation of unbaptized infants—which burdened the teachings of so called Christian Churches. The proof of this statement is in the fact that the native Americans at the time of the Spanish invasion of their country were practicing infant baptism. The fact is related by all the authorities, varying slightly in their description of it, according as they get the tradition from this, that, or the other section of the country. Perhaps, however, Sahagun's description is the most minute and covers the subject more completely than any other of the writers, and hence I give at length the passage on the subject as quoted by Prescott in his appendix to the "Conquest of Mexico."
When every thing necessary for the baptism had been made ready, all the relations of the child were assembled, and the midwife, who was the person that performed the rite of baptism, was summoned. At early dawn they met together in the court-yard of the house. When the sun had arisen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms, called for a little earthen vessel of water, while those about her placed the ornaments which had been prepared for the baptism in the midst of the court. To perform the rite of baptism, she placed herself with her face towards the west, and immediately began to go through certain ceremonies. * * * * After this she sprinkled water on the head of the infant, saying, "O, my child! take and receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our life, and is given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to wash and purify. I pray that these heavenly drops may enter into your body, and dwell there; that they may destroy and remove from you all the evil and sin which was given to you before the beginning of the world; since all of us are under its power, being all the children of Chalchivitlycue" (the goddess of water), She then washed the body of the child with water, and spoke in this manner: "whencesoever thou comest, thou that are hurtful to this child; leave him and depart from him, for he now liveth anew, and is born anew; now he is purified and cleansed afresh, and our mother Chalchivitycue again bringeth him into the world." Having thus prayed, the midwife took the child in both hands, and, lifting him towards heaven, said, "O Lord, thou seest here thy creature, whom thou hast sent into this world, this place of sorrow, suffering, and penitence. Grant him, O Lord, thy gifts, and thine inspiration, for thou art the Great God, and with thee is the great goddess." Torches of pine were kept burning during the performance of these ceremonies. When these things were ended, they gave the child the name of some one of his ancestors, in the hope that he might shed a new lustre over it. The name was given by the same midwife, or priestess, who baptized him.
This is a perverted form of baptism preserved in the customs of the native Americans. The Nephites, in the days of Mormon—and how much before that is not known—fell into this error of infant baptism and were evidently teaching the damnation of those infants who did not receive that ordinance. When young Moroni was called to the ministry, his father, Mormon, charged him strictly against this error and sharply proclaimed against the iniquity of it. Yet it seems to have persisted in the customs of the native Americans until we see it in the form represented by Sahagun, though of course it may have received modifications—such for instance as being administered by women—since the period with which the Book of Mormon closes.
It is in this manner that the Book of Mormon settles the question of infant baptism, not, as Mr. Campbell insinuates, viz., that the question of infant baptism being under discussion in western New York Joseph Smith inserted a decision on the controversy in the Book of Mormon.
Further in relation to this matter of baptism in the Book of Mormon, it does settle the question of the manner of baptism through the instructions which Jesus is represented as giving to the Nephites—and was there a subject in relation to the gospel on which Christians needed instructions more than upon this? And now Jesus to the Nephites:
Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them; behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name ye shall baptize them. And now behold; these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying. "Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." And then shall ye immerse them in the water and come forth again out of the water.
There can be no doubt as to the manner of Christian baptism after these instructions from the Master, by those who accept the Book of Mormon as an authority. How much wrangling and idle disputation would have been saved the Christian world if something as definite as this had been found in the Christian annals of the eastern world! In passing, and in proof of the divinity of this ceremonial, I call attention to the simplicity and yet comprehensiveness of it; to the directness of it. Place the simplicity and directness of this formula of baptism in contrast with Sahagun's description of baptism among the native Americans, or contrast it with the same ceremony as practiced among the paganized Christians of the old world,[[21]] and the simplicity and dignity of the ordinance as given by the Savior to the Nephites will not only appear, but will strongly plead for its divine origin.
I also call attention to the settlement of what Mr. Campbell calls "transubstantiation," this is, to the Christian memorial known as the Lord's supper, about which gathers some of the most vexed questions of Christian controversy. For the manner in which this simple memorial of Christ's atonement was changed to what was considered a magnificent spiritual, yet real sacrifice, the reader is referred to what is said in volume I of the New Witness, chapter v. Here I only wish to call attention to the simple beauty and comprehensiveness of the prayer which consecrated the emblems of the body and blood of Christ, found in the Book of Mormon. Trusting to the presence of qualities of simplicity and appropriateness to establish the divine origin of said formula, which result, if accomplished by the citation, will tend also to prove the general claims of the Book of Mormon.
Now the prayer of consecration: