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.