Twenty-five years in the West

by E. Manford

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.