But it does not; for he

our Saviour has said on the subject. immediately adds what renders it altogether nugatory to infer anything from the foregoing clause: "He that believeth not shall be damned."

If, then, the Campbellites will resort to inference, we have no objection; as, of course, we have the same privilege. They are welcome to infer from the former clause, that such only as are baptized shall be saved; and that all others must be lost, if even they do believe. We, on the contrary, have of course the same right to infer from the latter clause, that those only who do not believe shall be damned, and that all others shall be saved, whether they have been baptized or not. And how much Campbellism can gain by such a procedure, every one will judge for himself.

one

The last that we deem it necessary to examine is their

Argument founded on Acts 2: 38.

This passage thus reads: "Repent and be baptized, every of you, for the remission of sins: and from it the Campbellites argue that baptism is as intimately connected with remission as repentance is: and that remission cannot be obtained without baptism, any more than without repentance. But repentance is essential to salvation, and therefore so is baptism.

It will not be disputed that the idea contained in this passage may, with propriety and correctness, be rendered "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, that your sins may be remitted :” εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. In our translation, for seems to convey a meaning not supported by the original. The word is not yáo but is; "be baptized unto the remission of sins." It steers clear of the idea of desert being attached to baptism; and this in fact is Mr. Campbell's own rendering: "Reform, and be each of you immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of sins."

The confidence with which Mr. Campbell relies on this passage, in support of his system, may be seen by the following quotation from his Extra, No. 1. p. 14. "They were informed that though they now believed and repented, they were not pardoned; and must reform, and be immersed, for the remission of sins.""This testimony, when the speaker, the occasion, and the congregation, are all taken into view, is itself alone sufficient to establish the point."

But what is it, I ask, to be baptized εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ? The clause can easily be understood by a reference to a few of similar construction. "John preached the baptism of repentance (is) into the remission of sins"—the same phrase. See Mark 1: 4. So Rom. 6: 3, "Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized (is) into Jesus Christ," etc. 1 Cor. 10: 2, "And were all baptized (is) into Moses." Matt. 3: 11,"I indeed baptize you with water (sis) into repentance." These

references are sufficient. The construction is precisely parallel to the one under consideration. And now we ask,-What did John the Baptist mean by "I baptize you unto repentance ?" Did he mean that repentance was brought about by baptism? If not, how can it be imagined, that when Peter used the expression, "Be baptized into the remission of sins," he meant that baptism was to bring about remission of sins? A similar question may be asked in relation to the other passages referred to.

But let us take another brief view of it. With what is εis äqsoiv áμαoriæv (remission of sins) here connected? With repentance, or baptism, or both? Peter himself, who uses the expression, shall also answer the question: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," etc. Acts 3: 19. If then water baptism is in every case as inseparably connected with forgiveness as repentance is, Peter has here committed an unpardonable omission. If he has made no omission, then the vital connection in the text under review is not between baptism and remission, but between repentance and re

mission.

But further: The peculiar circumstances of the case mentioned in Acts 2: 38, prove it to be a particular instance in the strictest sense of the term and it is illogical and utterly out of the question to deduce general conclusions from it, and apply them to the present circumstances of mankind at large. I have no objections to allow that in the case of the persons here spoken of, baptism may have been essential to remission; and yet this case would afford no ground for concluding that baptism is essential to remission in every case. But unless this can be shown, the passage confessedly affords no support whatever to the system. A few remarks will show how peculiar were their circumstances.

1. The persons here spoken of, must either have obeyed the command, and have been baptized, or have remained open and avowed enemies to the cause of Christ.

2. It was the best possible, and in fact the only satisfactory evidence that they could then give, of their sincerity in renouncing Judaism and embracing Christianity. The step involved the loss of all things.

3. They, circumstanced as they were, could not even innocently mistake, or misunderstand the command. The apostles were present, and if any difficulty occurred it could be promptly obviated. Hence it was not even possible for them to be in error respecting their duty on the subject.

4. They had ample time and opportunity to obey the command.

circumstances, must argue an And to the possessor of such granted. And hence baptism

Now to disobey under such impenitent, unhumbled heart. a heart remission could not be was essential to the remission of their sins.

In the same sense that baptism was essential to the remission of sins in this case, it is also essential to remission at the present time; e. g. when it is admitted that baptism is positively enjoined on all his followers by Christ; and when there is time and opportunity to obey the command. Under these circumstances I do contend that no one can be in a salvable state while he lives in the open violation of this command. We have no more right, under these circumstances, to dispense with this, than with any other acknowledged command of the Saviour.

But then it does not follow that if baptism be essential to the salvation of persons thus situated, it therefore is essential in the case of persons not similarly circumstanced; e. g. of sick persons, or of others, in whose cases it would be impossible to administer the ordinance. Yet unless it does follow that baptism is absolutely essential to remission in every instance, the passage confessedly affords no support to the theory that baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sin. If but one instance can be produced (and I have produced a number already), wherein it is admitted that remission of sins either was, or may be granted without baptism, the argument attempted to be deduced from this passage is false.

But on this subject we want no better authority than that of Mr. Campbell himself. Let us therefore hear him. On p. 165, Vol. VII. of his Christian Baptist, he says: "I doubt not but such Paedobaptists as simply mistake the meaning and design of the christian institution, who nevertheless are, as far as they know, obedient disciples of Jesus, will be admitted into

the kingdom of glory."* Now Mr. Campbell maintains that Paedobaptists are not baptized. Of course then, he himself being judge, the passage under consideration does not prove that baptism is equally essential to salvation as repentance. For while he admits that no sinner can be saved without repentance, he also "doubts not" that the unbaptized Paedobaptist may be saved. It follows therefore, that according to Mr. Campbell's own testimony, the Campbellite exposition of Acts 2: 38 is false.

It is also worthy of remark that although in this instance we find "repentance, baptism, and remission of sins," in connection; yet in other passages we find "repentance and remission of sins" without any reference to baptism. A fact wholly inexplicable on the theory that sins are remitted by baptism. An instance of this has been given above; and the following are a few others. Acts 5: 31, "Him hath God exalted with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins." Luke 24: 47, "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." See also Acts 9: 18. 2 Cor. 7: 10. Hence Paul also tells us, (1 Cor. 1: 17,) that "Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel ;" and he thanks God that he baptized "none" of the Corinthians, save a very few.

On

There are a few other passages which the Campbellites adduce (though the foregoing are the chief ones,) such as Acts 26: 17, 18, "I send thee (Paul) to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith." which Mr. Campbell remarks, here is "first faith, or illumination; then conversion; (i. e. baptism,) then, remission of sins; then, the inheritance." That is, Paul was sent to baptize the Gentiles! A direct contradiction to the Apostle himself. is quite unnecessary however to investigate any more of their

It

* But alas! it is hard to know whether we can even take comfort from this charitable concession; for in Extra No. 1. p. 30, he says, "But whether they may enter into the kingdom of eternal glory after the resurrection, is a question much like that question long discussed in the Schools, viz.: Can infants who have been quickened, but die before they are born, be saved? We may hope the best, but cannot speak with the certainty of knowledge."

"Scripture arguments." Our brief examination of the chief passages on which they depend for the support of their system, has evinced, it is believed, that not the shadow of a reason can be adduced in its favor from the word of God.

[NOTE. We regret that our limits will not allow us to conclude this article in the present No. of the Repository. In the remaining sections, the author presents a brief synopsis of direct arguments against Campbellism, considers, at some length, the Unitarianism of the system, and reviews with much point, and in a very satisfactory manner, the Translation of the New Testament adopted by the Campbellites, showing it to be a gross deception practised upon the public. His arguments are characteristically biblical, and the article, as a whole, appears to us highly valuable and appropriate at the present time, as an able and learned refutation of the scheme of a pretender, whose popularity in some parts of our country has given him the power of destroying much good. The reader will also perceive that the strong language of disapprobation used by Mr. Landis, is fully justified by the facts in the case. The conclusion will appear in the Repository for April next.-EDITOR.]

ARTICLE VIII.

ADVANTAGES AND DEFECTS OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

By Calvin E. Stowe, D. D. Prof. of Biblical Literature, Lane Seminary, Cincinnati.

"He hath not dealt so with any nation."-Psalm 147: 20. "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes ?"—Isaiah 5: 4.

It is obvious that the people of the United States are placed in a different position from any which has ever before been occupied by a nation. Our providential advantages are such as ought to work out a state of society far superior to any which has ever existed before, in the universality of its intelligence, virtue and happiness; while our abuse of these advantages has been such as in some respects to throw us backwards from the