Part 29

We admit that the evidence is abundant “that pouring and sprinkling were used” from the beginning of the fourth century not only to the rise of the Anabaptists, but till now; but that pouring and sprinkling were held in doubt, in general, and utterly repudiated by many, is equally abundantly proved. The discovery that _baptizo_ means _immerse_, and nothing else, could not have been made by any of the fathers, for at that time no one denied that such was its meaning. In the few instances where sprinkling or pouring was used, it was not on the ground that _baptizo_ meant pour or sprinkle, but on the ground that pouring or sprinkling would do in extreme cases of weakness where they deemed the persons unable to endure immersion. No man can produce one scrap of authority to show that any man at that early period, or for many long centuries after, ever attempted to defend pouring or sprinkling on the ground that _baptizo_ meant pour or sprinkle. Those who practiced sprinkling or pouring generally in the early ages, did not think they were doing what the Lord commanded, or what the apostles practiced, but something else that _would do_. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Clarke, admitted that the ancient practice was immersion, but they thought sprinkling or pouring _would do_. This was the ground of argument for many long centuries. The idea of trying to prove that any person was ever sprinkled or poured upon, for baptism, in the time of the apostles, is a mere modern invention, and the idea that _baptizo_ means sprinkle or pour, is of equal modern date. These are new grounds altogether, taken by modern men, who have been driven from the old ground. It will not do in our time to admit—as all the ancients did—that the apostles immersed—that immersion was the ancient practice—that _baptizo_ means _immerse_, and nothing else, but that “this rite has been _changed somewhat_,” and that _something else will do as well_. This is too barefaced for our time, and the opposition have changed their ground, and are now trying to make us believe that their practice is sustained by the meaning of _baptizo_ and the ancient practice.

SHORTER CATECHISM FOR UNIVERSALIANS.

During our discussion in Decatur, Ill., we presented the following, substantially, as the “Shorter Catechism” for Universalians to test their pretences to a belief in the Scriptures:

1. Phil. iii. 18, 19, Paul, speaking of the enemies of the cross of Christ, says, “Whose end is destruction.” Can a man of sense believe that the end of a man is destruction, and at the same time believe that his salvation? The _end_ of a man will certainly be his last state, and if that is destruction, his end can not be salvation.

2. Mark iii. 29, the Lord says, he who shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, “hath never forgiveness.” Can a man of sense believe that a man who “hath _never forgiveness_,” shall be saved? To save a man without forgiveness, would be to save him _in his sins_.

3. John iii. 36, the Lord says, “He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Can a man of sense believe that those who believe not the Son, shall _not see life_, and yet believe that they shall _see life_?

4. Rev. xxii. 19, the Scriptures say of certain persons, that “God shall take away their part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Can a man of sense believe that a man whose “_part is taken out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book_,” can be saved?

5. Heb. xii. 15, the Scriptures speak of men “failing of the grace of God.” Can a man of sense believe that men may “fail of the grace of God,” and be saved? What! saved without the grace of God?

6. John viii. 21, the Lord said to certain persons, “Ye shall die in your sins; whither I go ye can not come.” Can a sensible man believe that men shall “die in their sins,” and that whither the Lord went they could not come, and still believe that all will be saved? Do not refer to what the Lord said to his disciples, for he said more than this to them. He said to his disciples, “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterward.” John xiii. 36. This he did not say to the Jews. But he did say to the Jews, “Ye shalt die in your sins: whither I go ye can not come.” Is that true? It is. Then Universalism is not true.

7. Heb. x. 26, 27, Paul says, “If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” Can men of sense believe that a man for whom “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” but for whom their remains “a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries,” will be saved?

8. John v. 29, the Lord declares that “they who have done evil shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation.” Can a man of sense believe that those who have done evil can “come forth to the resurrection of damnation,” and yet all men be saved?

9. Rev. xx. 13-15, we find an account of the dead standing before God and being “judged every man according to their works,” and the declaration is made that “whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire.” Can a man of sense believe that the dead shall be raised and judged according to their works, and the wicked, or those whose names are not written in the book of life, shall be cast into the lake of fire, and yet all men be saved?

10. Gal. v. 2, Paul testifies to certain men, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” Can a man of sense believe that those shall be saved whom Christ shall profit nothing?

11. Heb. vi., Paul declares of certain persons, that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. Can a man of sense believe that those can be saved whom it is impossible to renew again to repentance?

12. Heb. ix. 27, Paul says, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” Can a man of sense believe that “it is appointed unto men once to die, but _after this the judgment_,” and not believe that God will judge men after death?

13. Luke xvi. 22, 23, we read of a “certain rich man,” that “the rich man died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments.” Can a man of sense believe that a man after he died and was buried, was “in torments,” and believe that there are no torments after death?

14. Matt. xxv., the Lord says of the wicked, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Be it observed, these righteous are in the life of a christian already, or before they go into _life eternal_, and the wicked are in all the hell there is for them in this world already. But here at the time the righteous enter _eternal life_, the wicked enter _everlasting punishment_. The same Greek word _aionion_, in the same sentence, expresses the duration of the _life of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked_. Can a man of sense believe that the Lord used _aionion_ in a limited sense in one place and an unlimited sense in the other?

15. Luke xiii. 23, we are informed that a man inquired of our Lord, “Are there few that be saved?” The Lord did not answer his silly question, but said to him, “Strive to enter in at the straight gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able.” Can a man of sense believe this statement, that they shall not be able to enter, and still believe that all shall enter? Do not begin to think of entering the church here now, for we know that all who seek to enter the church are able.

16. Ez. xiii. 22, the Lord says, “With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.” Can a man of sense believe that he strengthens the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life, and still believe that he is doing good in preaching that all men shall have life?

When our Universalist friends get so that they can answer these questions and explain the difficulties involved clearly and satisfactorily, the people may become satisfied that they _are not sceptics_.

POPULAR AMUSEMENTS.

Remarks upon a communication complaining of the increasing prevalence of _revelry_, under the plea of “innocent amusements.” Published in the _A. C. Review_, for July, 1860.

We have no doubt that many professors of religion are greatly sinning, as well as disgracing and dishonoring their profession, in the manner above described. But there is one trouble in writing or publishing any thing for that class. They are beyond the reach of writers. They subscribe for no religious publications, pay for none, and read none. They read nothing, unless it be some silly love tale, book of fashion, or mere novel. They can only be reached at all through older, wiser, and better heads, and then only occasionally, and but slightly. In most instances, the slightest reference to their inconsistent lives of folly and vanity, is regarded as a mortal offence. We were threatened, not long since, with being held _personally responsible_ for alluding to the mischief done by dancing masters, in a public discourse. It turned out that one was present, and, as if to publish himself as a live dancing master, distinguish himself and render himself as notorious as possible, immediately after the allusion to men of his calling, he cast his eye around the house, and saw all eyes upon him, when he bounced from his seat and went stamping out of the house, as if he intended trying the strength of the floor, every time he set down his foot. His _profession_ was too sacred to be alluded to without his being insulted. Some of the people, we learned, called him _Professor_——! Talk of preaching for such men! of writing to reform them! They would not hear an angel from heaven, unless he would wink at their dancing. They would not hear one who would rise from the dead, unless he would wink at their sin. If they could, they would lead our fair daughters to ruin, chuckle over the feat achieved, and dance on the graves of heart-broken fathers and mothers. They are leeches upon society, sucking the very life’s blood from the veins of better people, who suffer themselves to be gulled by them, and, at the same time, grinning like a weasel while cutting the throat of a chicken, and sucking its blood.

The entire clan of amusement manufacturers, from the poor music grinder on the street, up to Barnum, are pulling down, discouraging and destroying the good built up by the hard toiling and struggles of good people. It is useless to talk of their being gentlemen, polite, or moral; their work is to pull down, to ruin, to destroy, and to sink men and women in hell. Their work is against every prayer, every exhortation and sermon; every Sunday school, church and gospel mission. We may preach and pray, toil and struggle in tears, with our hearts aching and bleeding, trying to save men, and so long as we countenance worthless and silly amusements, we shall not be successful in saving men. Not only so, but if we allow those who are determined to run their length in all these amusements, to hang upon us, they will sink us all.

ACTIVITY IN THE MINISTRY.

The preacher’s life should be one of activity and industry, one of enterprise and diligence. The preacher can not be a _gentleman of leisure_. This is not his profession. He can not afford an hour or two every morning in primping, turning himself first this way and then that before a glass, smoothing down his hair, stroking his mustache and fitting on his attire. He can not afford another half-hour sucking an enormous cigar and filling a filthy spittoon, a thing that ought to be tolerated in no parlor, or genteel society. He should be a man of no idle habits, such as lounging upon cushions, loafing on the streets, at the corners, in shops, stores or places of business, or idleness. He should rise early, unless prevented from getting to rest sufficiently early, by preaching at night, dress himself out and out for the day in fifteen minutes, and spend at least five hours in his books. This should be a regular work, an every day work. Five hours only brings him to about ten o’clock in the morning, about the proper time to see sick persons, the poor, or any whom it may be his duty to visit. Three hours can now be devoted in this way. This brings him to one o’clock. Allow him two hours to take refreshment and rest himself. Now it is three o’clock, a good hour for him again to be among the people, where he may frequently spend two hours profitably.

If the preacher is a man of enterprise, he can have an engagement for a sermon, a lecture, a meeting for prayer, or something of the kind almost every night, either in the church, or some place in a short distance in the community, where he may be waking up some interest among the people. It is the business of the preacher to seek an opportunity for something of this kind, and have some work all the time going on round him, arresting the attention of the people, rousing them from their slumbers, setting them to thinking and working.

It is useless to stand and preach in one pulpit and wait for the people to come there, thus depending upon that wholly for saving men. We must go beyond that, find every nook and corner where a few people can be collected and preach the word to them, exhort them, persuade them and plead with them to turn to the Lord. The preacher must make it an every day work to preach. We must get in the way of preaching from house to house and from place to place, thus filling the whole land with the doctrine of the cross. We must be men of activity, perseverance and zeal, not waiting for “calls,” but penetrating the land from its center to its circumference. We must go into the field and do the work of the Lord, and the Lord will open the way and take care of us. We are anxious to see an army of zealous, powerful and enterprising young men, willing to go out into the world and convince the world of their ability and usefulness, by saving men, building up churches and extending the cause. In this way, they will soon make an opening for themselves and secure a permanent field of operation. How much more noble and manly this, than looking round for a rich church, raised up to hand by the labors of other men, where a young man can sit down with a fat salary and merely live upon the labors of those who have gone before him.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ON THE ACTION OF BAPTISM.

It is a fact that our Lord was baptized of John _in_ Jordan. Is it then more probable that he was sprinkled of John _in_ Jordan, than that he was immersed of John _in_ Jordan?

It is a fact that after the Lord was baptized “he went up straightway _out of the water_.” Is it more probable that “he went up straightway out of the water,” in going from sprinkling, than from immersion?

It is a fact that the people were baptized of John in the river of Jordan. Is it more probable that they were sprinkled of John, in the river of Jordan, than that they were immersed in the river of Jordan?

It is a fact that “John was baptizing in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there.” Is it more probable that he sprinkled in a place, because there was _much water_ there, than that he immersed in a place because there was _much water_ there?

It is a fact that Philip and the eunuch, both went down into the water, and he baptized him. Is it more probable that they both went down into the water to sprinkle, than that they both went down into the water to immerse?

It is a fact, mentioned by Paul, as a result of baptizing, that the _body is washed_. Is it more probable that the _body is washed_ in sprinkling, than that the body is washed in immersing?

It is a fact, stated by Paul, that “we are _buried with him in baptism_.” Is it more probable that we are buried with him in sprinkling, than that we are buried with him in immersion?

It is a fact, stated by Paul, that we are _buried with him by baptism_. Is it more probable that we are buried with him by sprinkling, than that we are buried with him by immersion?

We have now presented eight questions on the probabilities of the case. Now for the possibilities of the case:

It is a fact that the Lord was baptized in _Jordan_, and it is a fact that he went up straightway out of the _water_. This shows that when he was _in Jordan_, he _was in the water_, or he could not have gone “_out of the water_.” As a question of fact and possibility, could the Lord have been _sprinkled in the water_?

It is a fact, stated by Paul, that in baptizing, or, as a result of it, the “body is washed.” As a question of possibility, can the body be washed, or, as a question of fact, is the body washed at all, when sprinkling is performed in the usual way?

It is a fact, stated by the Apostles, that “we are buried with him in baptism.” As a question of fact, is this done in sprinkling? As a question of possibility, _can persons be buried in sprinkling_?

It is a fact, stated in Scripture, that “we are buried with him by baptism.” As a question of fact, are persons buried by sprinkling? As a question of possibility, _can persons be buried by sprinkling_?

“A MIGHTY GOOD FOUNDATION.”

Some years ago, our Bro. Burnet resided some eight miles in the country. We were in Mt. Healthy, a short distance from his residence, and took an omnibus for the city. In a few minutes the omnibus stopped in front of the residence of Bro. Burnet, with two respectable looking gentlemen in it, one sitting facing the residence and the other with his back towards it. The one facing the residence said, “Here is where Mr. Burnet resides.” The other replied, “Who is he?” “A celebrated Campbellite preacher,” was the answer. “What do the Campbellites hold?” inquired the other. “That the Bible is their foundation—their only creed,” was the reply. “They have a mighty good foundation—a very good creed,” answered the other. “Yes,” was the reply; and here the conversation ended. The same must be the response of every honest believer in the Bible. It is certainly a good foundation—a good creed. If there is any good doctrine, or _teaching_, as the word doctrine means, in the world, it is in the Bible, and the man who takes the Bible, finds it in his book. If there is any sure foundation for all our hopes beyond this life, it is found in the Bible. If there is any sure lamp to the path of weary and dying pilgrims in this world, it is the Bible. All other books are nothing compared with the Bible. It is _the book_ of all books, _the authority_ of all authorities, the only sure and infallible guide from this world of sin to the land of rest.

A HARD QUESTION FOR PREACHERS.

The Lord said once to a preacher, “Simon, lovest thou me more than these?” This question has been variously expounded. It has had at least the following three interpretations given to it:

1. “Lovest thou me more than these other disciples love me?” 2. “Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these other disciples?” 3. “Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these fisheries?”

1. The Archbishop of Cincinnati had the honor—if it be any—of giving the people the first of these, in the debate with Mr. Campbell. He thinks the Lord meant, “Simon, lovest thou me more than these other disciples love me?” He thinks Peter did love his Lord more than the other disciples did, and this is one of his mighty arguments to prove that Peter was the first Pope. But how Peter could answer such a question as that, unless, indeed, he was already the Pope, and _infallible_, we can not conceive. Certainly the Lord did not expect Peter to know whether he loved his Master better than the other disciples loved him, unless he was infallible. The Lord himself could have answered that question, but certainly no man could. Such a question was not only, in the very nature of the case, one that no man could answer, but one that could have no practical bearing nor use. Not only so, but the answer of the Lord was inappropriate, if he had intended Peter to be Pope. He commanded him, “Feed my sheep.” This was the last thing he would have commanded him if he had intended him to be Pope. In that case he would have commanded him, “_Fleece_ my sheep,” and not “_feed_ my sheep.” The business of Popes has ever been to _fleece_ the sheep, and not to _feed_ them.

2. The question, “Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these other disciples?” though Peter might have been able to answer it, would certainly have been one of but little importance. Not only so, but the language is scarcely capable of this import, and, therefore, it is not probable that such was the intention of it.

3. The sum of the question was, “Lovest thou me more than these fisheries?” Or, to express it more fully and liberally, “Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these fisheries?” The state of the case was, that the Lord had _called them to be preachers_. They had from the beginning been under a mistaken notion. Their idea was, that Jesus was to be a king in an earthly kingdom. This, they supposed, would all take place in his lifetime, on this earth. It never entered into their minds that Jesus would die before his reign commenced. It specially never entered into their minds that he would die by crucifixion. When he was crucified and actually dead, they thought he was defeated, that his enemies had triumphed, that all was lost and their mission at an end. In this view, Simon Peter said, “I go a fishing.” Another disciple replied, “I go along.” This was utterly giving all up for lost. Poor men; like most preachers, who quit their proper work of preaching the gospel, and turn aside to some secular avocation, they did not prosper. “_They toiled all night and caught nothing._” What a caution to preachers who turn aside from their work! The Lord appears to them and inquires of them, “Children, have you any meat?” They reply, “We have none.” He commands them, “Cast your net on the right side of the ship.” They cast the net and take the most astonishing draught of fish they ever saw. He caused their business to prosper beyond anything they had ever experienced. Their prospects in this avocation were now brighter than ever before. They are now in the midst of an excitement of prosperity, intensely engaged with their nets and fish. Every thing is purposely made as attractive and fascinating as it can be. While it is all before their eyes, in its most exciting, fascinating and attractive form, the Lord tries them, puts them to the test: “Lovest thou me more than these?” probably at the same moment, pointing his finger to the nets and fish. Peter replied, “Lord thou knowest that I love thee.” The Lord commands, “Feed my sheep.” That is, “If you love me more than these fisheries,” and are willing to forsake these and do my work, “Feed my sheep.” This question, “Lovest thou me more than these?” is one of so much importance that it is repeated three times over, and the Lord says to them, “I will make you fishers of men.” This remark he had made to them when he first called them from their fisheries. After this last charge, “Feed my sheep,” “Feed my lambs,” we have no account of their ever fishing any more.