CE-08-Chapter VIII.

ChapterVIII.

OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEDING DOCTRINE OF REMISSION CONSIDERED.

Section I.

OBJECTION FIRST. "Baptism, according to the ’ancient gospel,’ is not the figure or formal acknowledgment of the remission of sins, but the indispensable, and, it would seem, the only, condition of obtaining it. Is this scheme of forgiveness scriptural? Is baptism, like repentance and faith, an indispensable condition of the remission of sins? Let the reader notice, —first, that this scheme of remission flatly contradicts plain and numerous Scripture testimonies. These testimonies, or specimens of them, I have already adduced. Now, it is a sound and admitted principle of Biblical interpretation, that the Scriptures should be construed in harmony with themselves. The obscure must be elucidated by the clear, and the figurative by the literal. It is impossible for words to express more clearly, pointedly, and emphatically, than do the Scriptures, that God has suspended the forgiveness of sins on the exercise of faith. Take, for an illustration, the words of Christ to the Jewish Rabbi: —’ He that believeth on him (the Son) is not condemned,’ and is, consequently, pardoned or justified. Now, baptism for the remission of sins—a phrase susceptible of different interpretations—must be construed in harmony with this unambiguous language of the great Teacher. And the remark is true of all the texts under consideration." In this extract, which contains Mr. Jeter’s leading and certainly his most serious objection, occur several things which we think it best to single out and notice separately.

Candidly, we are not seldom at a loss to know how to characterize some of Mr. Jeter’s assertions without transcending the limits which courtesy imposes. To call this assertion a downright falsehood would be too harsh, and to call it the truth would be a falsehood. Nameless, then, we let it stand. Mr. Campbell maintains (and Mr. Jeter is perfectly acquainted with the fact) that there are three conditions on which remission of sins depends,—to wit: belief, repentance, and baptism. Wherefore, then, the preceding false and slanderous assertion?

In what cases the Savior will dispense with a condition to which he has required all to whom the gospel is preached to submit, is a question the decision of which we are not bold enough to undertake. The Savior himself has not decided it, neither have the apostles. We should tremble to enter eternity in the gloom of their silence.

This is a grave charge, and, if true, certainly the "scheme" against which it is urged merits universal condemnation. Has Mr. Jeter sustained the charge? We shall now examine what he alleges in its defense.

Substituting, for the ridiculous expression "the exercise of faith," simply faith, and every word of this is granted. But it is certainly possible for words to express most clearly a very different proposition,—one which the Scriptures do not express, and which is the sole ground on which Mr. Jeter’s objection rests,— namely, that God has suspended the forgiveness of sins on faith alone. This proposition the Scriptures do not express, for the simple reason that they express nothing which is false; and this is the only proposition which our "scheme" of remission contradicts.

If the phrase, as it stands in Mr. Jeter’s assertion, were the whole of the phrase in the word of God, then, perhaps, there might be some foundation for his remark. But such is not the case. The phrase in the word of God is not baptism for the remission of sins, but repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. There are no two interpretations of which this phrase is susceptible. Whatever repentance is for, baptism is for; and whatever baptism is for, repentance is for. Consequently, since repentance is for—that is, is necessary to— the remission of sins, remission of pins is what baptism is for, or the thing to which it is necessary. Why, now, we ask, unless to conceal this, was Mr. Jeter guilty of the preceding mutilation of a portion of God’s holy word? Alas for a man when he can be moved to render such service as this at the shrine of Orthodoxy, for no higher end than merely to be considered a votary there!

The passage from which this conclusion does not follow was spoken by the Savior previously to his prescribing the grounds on which justification, during his reign, is to be enjoyed, and, hence, previously to baptism. Consequently, to infer from it that we are now justified by faith alone without baptism is to confound times which are wholly distinct, and to render null an existing institution by a passage which applied before it had an existence. But in all such passages faith is to be viewed not so much as a condition of remission (though it certainly is one) as the great principle of action which leads to compliance with all our other duties; and, where it is the faith of a sinner, as standing for—because it leads to compliance with them—the other conditions of remission, precisely as one of a class frequently represents the whole class. There is no passage in the word of God which represents faith as the sole condition of remission during Christ’s reign, and hence none which our "scheme" of remission contradicts.

Unquestionably the phrase must be so construed. How now shall this be done? The language of the great Teacher does not say, neither does it imply, that faith is the sole condition of remission; while the language of the Apostle Peter does say that repentance and baptism are for remission. Hence, since the language of the Apostle expressly includes repentance and baptism as for, or necessary to, remission, and since the language of the Savior does not even by implication exclude them, as not necessary, therefore, since not thus excluded, they must be considered as intended by the Savior to be understood as necessary. Certainly, what one passage does not exclude as not necessary to remission another may include as necessary without involving a contradiction. Thus, therefore, baptism for the remission of sins can be made to harmonize strictly with the language of the great Teacher. But Mr. Jeter "maintains, in common with evangelical Christians of every name, that the sinner passes from a state of condemnation to a state of justification at the precise moment when he truly believes in Christ, or, which is the same thing, receives him as a Deliverer." At the precise moment, then, when a person believes, his sins are remitted. In other words, faith is the sole condition of remission, all others being excluded. But faith precedes and is distinct from both repentance and baptism; hence they are both excluded as conditions of remission. And yet the Apostle Peter says that repentance and baptism are for—i.e. necessary to—remis­sion. Here now is an irreconcilable contradiction, and that too between Mr. Jeter’s own "scheme" of remission and the word of God. Will he, therefore, relieve his own "scheme" of the odium of contradiction before he again attempts to charge it upon the "scheme" of Mr. Campbell?

Section II.

OBJECTION SECOND. "That the Scriptures manifestly make a distinction between the relation which faith and that which baptism bears to the remission of sins, we read in the Scriptures; and many such passages may be found:—’He that believeth not shall be damned.’ ’Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ ’If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha.’ Now, we do not read, nor is it intimated, nor is any thing recorded from which it may be fairly inferred, that if a man is not immersed he is condemned,—doomed to perish and to be anathematized at the coming of our Lord. But if Christ has made, as Mr. Campbell contends, repentance, faith, and immersion equally necessary to forgiveness, how can it be accounted for that neither Christ nor his apostles ever uttered a malediction against the unbaptized."

They manifestly make this distinction,—that faith is the first and baptism the last of the three conditions on which remission depends; but they do not make this distinction,—that faith is essential, but baptism not, to remission.

Mr. Jeter’s question amounts to this:—that one thing which the Bible does say is to be rejected because it does not say another. The Bible does say that repentance and baptism are for the remission of sins, and it does not maledict the unbaptized: what then? Shall we reject the thing which it does say because it does not say the other? How foolish some men can make themselves appear! But, if he who "keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point is guilty of all," will Mr. Jeter inform the world whether the word of God must anathematize the unbaptized before his negligence can be considered a crime for which he may be condemned?

Section III.

OBJECTION THIRD. "There are consequences involved in the theory of baptismal remission which may well make us hesitate to adopt it." The first of which, in Mr. Jeter’s own language, is the following:—"That the salvation of men, even of penitent believers, is in the hands of the authorized baptizers. Popish priests have claimed the power of remitting sins; but Protestants have ever considered the claim an arrogant assumption. I freely concede that those who maintain the sentiment which I am opposing may not have examined its bearing and consequences. I speak not of them, but of their doctrine. It is, however, as clear as that two and two make four, that the remission of the believer’s sins, according to this theory, depends, not on the will of God, but on the will of men. He cannot baptize himself; and, if the qualified administrator does not choose, under no matter what plea, to baptize (or regenerate) him, he must either be pardoned without immersion, be saved without pardon, or be lost. No sophistry can evade this consequence." The Apostle Paul propounds the following questions:— "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" The reply to which is, they cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard, neither can they hear without a preacher. And yet the Savior says, "He that believeth not shall be damned."

Now, there are consequences involved in this theory of salvation which may well make us hesitate to adopt it. We mention the following:—That the salvation of men, even of the best-intentioned, is in the hands of the authorized preachers. Popish priests have claimed the power of remitting sins; but Protestants have ever considered the claim an arrogant assumption. We freely concede that the Savior and the apostles may not have examined the bearing and consequences of the sentiment they have published to the world. We speak not of them, but of their doctrine. It is, however, as clear as that two and two make four, that the salvation of the sinner, according to this theory, depends, not on the will of God, but on the will of men. He cannot save himself, he cannot be saved without belief, and he cannot believe without a preacher. Now, if the qualified preacher does not choose, under no matter what plea, to preach to him, (save him,) he must either be saved without belief, believe without hearing, or be lost. No sophistry can evade this consequence. But doubtless Mr. Jeter will say the cases are not parallel, since, when the Savior says, he that believeth not shall be damned, he alludes to a person only to whom the gospel has been preached, who consequently has it in his power to believe and yet will not. Exactly so: and so we say that baptism is obligatory upon those only to whom the gospel is preached and who have the power to obey it. Even the laws of God bind no one, when deprived against his will of the power of action; and, to whatever extent the salvation of a sinner depends on the will of another, to that extent precisely, if the other fails to act, the sinner is free.

Section IV

OBJECTION FOURTH. "That salvation may be entirely beyond the reach of the most humble, obedient, and faithful servants of Christ. Let me suppose a case. Fidelis, after a careful examination of the subject, became a convert to Christianity. Deeply conscious of his guilt and unworthiness, he cordially embraced Christ, as his prophet, priest, and king, consecrating to him, in the unfeigned purpose of his heart, his body, soul, and spirit Enraptured with the Savior’s charms, he rejoiced in his word and worship from day to day. Having settled his views on the subject of baptism, he designed at the earliest opportunity to take on him the badge of discipleship in baptism. But, by order of Tyrannus, an inveterate enemy of Christ, he was arrested and cast into prison for his ardent zeal and dauntless testimony in the Redeemer’s cause. To him baptism is now impossible. And poor Fidelis cannot enjoy the remission of his sins."

When Mr. Jeter produces a most obedient and faithful servant of Christ—a convert to Christianity—who has never been baptized, then his petitio principii will be entitled to notice] but until then it is passed with the contempt which it merits.

Second. But did "poor Fidelis" enjoy, while evincing his "ardent zeal" and bearing his "dauntless testimony" and rejoicing in the Savior’s worship "from day to day," no opportunity to be baptized. Bather let it be said of him that, by neglecting his duty during this time, he proved himself a disobedient wretch, who, if cast into prison, deserved to suffer the whole consequences of his folly. Clearly, he was not taught by a man who practiced after the apostle’s example, else the same hour of the night in which he heard the Truth and believed it he would have been baptized: what then would have signified his imprisonment?

Third. Or did he neglect his duty because taught, as Mr. Jeter teaches, that baptism is not essential to remission? If so, let him be condemned for preferring the counsels of wicked men to the counsels of God, and hold the presumptuous preacher responsible for the lie which led him astray. But, if he had not the opportunity to be baptized, then it was not his duty. It is no more a man’s duty to be baptized, where baptism is impossible, than it is to believe where belief is impossible. It is not what men cannot do, but what they can do and have the opportunity of doing, that God requires at their hands. Where there is no ability there is no responsibility.

Section V.

OBJECTION FIFTH. That the enlightened and tender conscience can never be fully satisfied. Questions as to the validity and sin-cleansing efficacy of baptism must arise. I can easily know when I have passed from Virginia into Ohio, because they are separated by water. I may certainly know that I have been immersed; but whether I have received valid, regenerating baptism, is another matter. Does its efficacy depend on the qualifications of the administrator?—on his piety?—on his baptism?—on his church connection?—on his ordination?—on his intention? Is apostolical succession, either in the line of baptism or of ordination, essential to its validity? Is its sin-pardoning virtue connected with the views entertained of it by the subject?

Certainly not. The man of enlightened and tender conscience should "seek religion" a year or two, groan a few weeks over the "mourners’ bench," see a few sights, hear a few sounds, obtain a hope, doubt a little, be "catechized," relate a "Christian experience," and then, "at the earliest opportunity," "take on him the badge of discipleship in baptism." A child can understand how this can satisfy the enlightened and tender conscience.

To an upright man, who has been made acquainted with what the Savior and the apostles teach upon the subject of baptism, these questions never occur. These are questions of a corrupt mind, which, having exerted all its powers to distort and pervert the truth, is seeking by dishonest quibbles to justify its deeds before the world; or of a mind bewildered and confused by the teachings of men who hide the truth from honest hearts and seek to supply its place with myths and dreams. No honest and intelligent man, who has been immersed in the fear of God and in obedience to the authority of Christ, ever yet doubted either the validity Or value to him of his baptism.

Section VI.

OBJECTION SIXTH. "That repentance the most sincere and lasting, faith the most vigorous, love the most self-sacrificing, the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, the atoning blood of Christ, his intercession before the throne, and the abounding grace of the Father, are all, without baptism, unavailing for salvation. I do not affirm that all who adopt the sentiment which I am combating push it to this extent, but I fearlessly aver that this is its plain, legitimate, and inevitable consequence. This gives to baptism an unscriptural prominence in the Christian system. It must tend, as the kindred dogma of transubstantiation has tended among Papists, to engender superstition. At first the water of baptism is deemed of equal moment in the scheme of salvation with the cleansing blood of the Redeemer; and by degrees the sign will come to be substituted for the thing signified,—the ceremonial to be preferred to the vital. What has occurred may occur again. Strange as it may appear, the error which I have been exposing is the root of infant baptism." Of this extract the first part, so false and so confused, merely revives the old ad captandum question, Can a man be saved without baptism? We shall, how over, put the question to Mr. Jeter in a far more pertinent form:—Are sins remitted without one of the conditions on which remission depends? If to this he replies that the very question in debate is whether baptism is one of these conditions, then we ask why he did not confine himself to this question, which, if we collect his meaning, he has not done? If baptism jointly with faith and repentance is for the remission of sins, as we unwaveringly believe it is, then we still steadily affirm that no unbaptized person has in this life the assurance that his sins are remitted. And if our heavenly Father, notwithstanding the negligence of such persons, will still condescend to save them ultimately, we have only to say, we know not the passage in the Bible which teaches it. But it seems that our view of the design of baptism is the "root of infant baptism." Our view of the design of baptism is concisely this:—that baptism when preceded by faith and repentance, but never without them, and then only as a joint condition with them, is for the remission of sins. How, now, can this view lead to the baptism of infants, who can neither believe nor repent, and who have no sins to be remitted? Did Mr. Jeter not know the assertion to be false when he made it? Infant baptism had its origin in a very different cause. It originated in the supposed imputability of Adam’s first sin. When men in their speculations had, as they supposed, discovered that Adam’s first sin is not only imputable, but actually is imputed, to all his posterity, they at once started the inquiry, What provision, since infants are sinners, and since none can be saved in their sins, has the gospel made for their salvation? In this extremity, fancying that baptism alone is for the remission of sins, (which is utterly false,) they baptized their infants. But this, beyond all doubt, was a perversion of the ordinance. Hence, the practice had its origin in a misconception of the nature of sin, and consisted then, as now, in an abuse of baptism. This is the true account of the origin of the practice.

But, even allowing it to be true, (which is not the case,) that infant baptism, which is in every possible view of it a scandalous abuse of the ordinance, sprang from the same view of the design of baptism which we entertain, would this be any argument against that design? Is the abuse of a thing in the midst of the nineteenth century deemed a good argument against it? It may not be unworthy of Mr. Jeter to think so; but school­children nowadays know better. And yet, if there is any point in what he says on the origin of infant baptism, this is the amount of it.

Section VII.

OBJECTION SEVENTH. "What will be the condition of a believer dying without baptism? I have already shown conclusively that the believer is born of God,— that he possesses everlasting life,—and that he is a child of God; and yet, agreeably to the theory under consideration, he is unpardoned, unjustified, unsaved. In this condition he may, unquestionably, die. What would become of him?"

Last of all, "Mr. Campbell recoils from the consequences of his own doctrine." Mr. Campbell’s doctrine is precisely that of the Apostle Peter; but from no consequence legitimately deducible from it has he ever yet recoiled. Mr. Jeter’s assertion is wholly false. That not only Mr. Campbell, but all common sense and common honesty, might recoil from many consequences feigned by Mr. Jeter to be deducible from this doctrine, full well we can believe. A man who can tax all his powers of cunning, who blushes at no trick, is ashamed of no quibble, to make an apostle falsify the mind of the Spirit which moved him to speak, is capable of deducing from what that apostle says any consequence, no matter how monstrous, if it should chance to serve a turn. From such consequences it would be Mr. Campbell’s shame not to shrink.