In this Reply the question,—“Do the unimmersed commune?” is not argued directly, but is determined by another, which is allowed fairly to involve it, viz: Are the unimmersed in the church or kingdom of God? If I have not strangely misunderstood the scope of the Reply, this is a true representation of it, and I think I have not. In other words, it seems, in the Reply, to be granted that if the pious unimmersed are not in the kingdom, then do they not commune. Hence, determine the question, Are they in the kingdom? and the question, Do they commune? is also determined.
If the unimmersed are not in the kingdom, they, as well as we, ought to know it; and the kindest, the most charitable deed on earth, to them, would be to teach them so.
This question, as presented by the Editor, and re-presented by Theta, is confessedly a delicate, if not a difficult one; yet Theta has met and discussed it as a Christian ought to do. His soul has melted in benevolence over it. His biting sarcasm and subdued wit seem now and then to wound a little, only that the next soft strain might bring the balm that heals. So tenderly does he handle the subject.
As counselor “in the Court of final appeals,” he would appear in defense of those who do “the best they can in the circumstances which surround them.” Nay, he “stands for them,” even here, maintaining that though they may never have obeyed fully the laws of God pertaining to the kingdom here or hereafter, still they will be received with joy, not only into the everlasting kingdom, but also into the church below.
Well may the Reply be characterized as “daring.” When God has appointed neither the counsel nor the counselor, daring indeed must be he who volunteers to give the one and be the other. With me, to sit on the right hand of the Saviour or on his left, or to enjoy any other blessing here or hereafter, is not mine to give. With the Lord we leave the settlement of such questions, assured that the Judge of the whole earth will do right.
On page 201 of the Quarterly, Theta says: “The only question being whether, according to Scripture, every soul is absolutely and unalterably shut out of the kingdom, who has not been immersed, regardless of all palliating circumstances.” Of this proposition our author takes the negative; that is, he denies a [300] negative or affirms (omitting unnecessary verbiage) that some unimmersed persons are in the kingdom. This is a question of fact, and may be decided as just as any other of the same kind.
The argument of the Reply is—If Luther, taken as an example of the pious unimmersed, was admitted into heaven, in the absence of some of the fixed conditions of entering it, may he not, for a similar reason, have been admitted into the church or kingdom? The conditions of entering heaven being as fixed and well defined as those of admission into the church, and these being relaxed, in the case of Luther, at heaven’s gate, it follows, as Theta supposes, that by the same benevolent Father the conditions of entering the church are relaxed also. Granting both the suppressed and the expressed premises, does it follow that Luther was in the kingdom? If this conclusion be a truth, let us see what would follow from it; and as this is one of Theta’s modes of argumentation, he, at least, will have no reason to object.
1st. If the pious unimmersed are in the kingdom, it would certainly not be wrong for me to so teach—teach them—otherwise, I am forbidden to teach that which is admitted and published to be a truth. But to suppose that I am not allowed to teach the truth, the whole truth, to men in order to their salvation here or hereafter, is monstrous—cannot be true—therefore, I am allowed so to teach them; and not only so, but since it is a truth that the class alluded to is in the kingdom, I am not only allowed to teach them so; it is plainly my duty to do it. Did our learned brother never preach to the pious unimmersed, take their confession, and baptize them? And for what? If they are already in the kingdom, this whole procedure of our author would seem as strange to me as the lowing of oxen and the bleating of the lambs did anciently to the Prophet Samuel. The man who sincerely believes them to be in the kingdom, must leave them where they are, must not disturb them; for like Abraham when the angel called him in the land of Moriah, they are just where they ought to be. He wrongs them and wrongs the truth in any effort to lead them now into the green pastures of God’s blessed kingdom.
But it may be replied that the person presenting himself for admission confesses by this fact that he is not in the kingdom. All, however, that the really does admit is, that he believes he is not, and in this faith he is evidently mistaken as per hypothesis; therefore, he is not to be baptized except upon the assumption that the misguided man, in the first instance, had climbed up another way and now wished to climb back again, and enter through the true door into the sheep-fold.
2d. The temple built of dead stones, each prepared for its [301] place ere it was brought in to the building, was a type of the “church of the living God;” and no stone unprepared was allowed by the master workman to be placed in that beautiful edifice. “See that thou make all things according to the pattern shown thee in the Mount,” was an ancient oracle; and I think that the principle is equally applicable when applied to the erection of the spiritual house of God—the church. Now if Luther, &c., were in the kingdom, it follows that God is less concerned about the antitype than he was concerning the mere patterns of things; which it would not be safe nor right to suppose.
3d. If the pious unimmersed are in the kingdom, then God has two modes of induction or doors of entrance.
On the first page of the article under consideration we have it declared by Theta, “that no man can enter the church or kingdom on earth without a birth of water and Spirit.” Here is one door of the right pattern, heaven-appointed and God-approved. This language is singularly strong and explicit. By implication only are we here informed who may be regarded as in the kingdom; but it is by express declaration that we are told who may not be so regarded.
The pious unimmersed are in the kingdom, as per hypothesis, and yet they, confessedly, entered not by the door above mentioned; hence there are two doors. This second door, of late discovery, is, most likely, of the “ram skin and badger skin” pattern, and the discoverer should certainly apply at the next session of the ecclesiastic court having jurisdiction for his patent.
While musing upon the subject of this new door, I am forcibly reminded—and it may seem strange that it is so, but am reminded—of the reply of an evil spirit, once made to some vagabond Jews: “Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?” Acts xix: 15.
I raise no question as to whether John iii: 5, or any other passage, “stands out as an inexorable law, an iron rule that God himself can scarcely manage, even when the circumstances seem to demand it.”
The question with me is not, what can God do; nor yet, what does he do in such cases; but rather, what must I do? and do I know that God can, consistently, and that he does really relax his law in favor of the honestly misguided, so far as to receive them into his kingdom?
Are there any means by which I may distinguish these favored of heaven, that I may know how to treat them and avoid mistreating them?
Of this new door I know nothing. If it be a cognizable truth, it may be reached in one of two ways: either it is an intuition, or it is taught in the holy Scriptures. [302]
I. Is it an intuition? According to one classification of intuitions—which, whether scientifically accurate or not, exhausts the subject—they are divided into intuitions of sense, of consciousness, and of reason.
1st. Is this idea of a second way of entering the church or kingdom an intuition of “sense? the faculty of external perception, the faculty which perceives the qualities of external material substances?” The ready answer from every one is, No; therefore, to say more about it would be to say too much.
2d. Is it an intuition of consciousness? “the faculty of internal perception, which perceives and apprehends the operations or phenomena of the mind itself?” I think no will so contend. Now, if it be not an intuition of sense nor of consciousness, it is not an intuition at all; for an intuition of reason is but the apprehending of the logical antecedents or consequents, one or both, of the phenomena perceived by sense or consciousness. But this logical connection could not exist, unless the phenomena alluded to should first exist. These we have said, if not shown, do not and cannot exist; hence the idea of a new door into the church of God is not an intuition.
II. Is it taught in the holy Scriptures?
1st. Is it expressly taught? Certainly not. The idea is not only not embraced in the law of induction, but is, by necessary implication, excluded by an allusion to the law, as before observed. But it is not claimed that the existence of a second door is expressly declared in the Scriptures; hence we may dismiss this part of the subject without further remark.
2d. Is it taught by necessary implication? Remarks on this second division of the question are reserved for another place, where we shall consider the Scriptures referred to in the Reply.
Let it be admitted that Luther, &c., are received into heaven. Upon this concession our learned author makes the following remarks: “Should we now affirm that the same considerations that excused Luther at the gate of heaven, and admitted him in the absence of some of the fixed conditions, may also have excused him at the door of the church, and may have admitted him in the absence of some of the regular conditions of initiation there, who could invalidate the argument?” Or, condensing the argument, it stands thus: If some of the fixed conditions of entering heaven may be relaxed, so may some of the fixed conditions of entering the church. I grant the antecedent; does the consequent follow? I certainly think it does not. Upon what principle must we allow the consequent? Is it that the compromise is as great in the former case as in the latter, and that God, who, it is admitted, does make the compromise in the one case, does (not may) actually [303] make it in the other? This is precisely what our essayist does not know, and yet must know before he can be certain that his conclusion is true. As God does relax some of the conditions of entering heaven, he may relax some of the conditions of entering the church, and he may not. Here with the logician the controversy ends. Nay, but it is contended that the compromise at the gate of heaven is even greater than it is here, &c. The compromise, if indeed any is made, is, in either case, one of principle, with which, it would seem to me, the idea of magnitude can have nothing to do. But really did not Luther, when he died, lack, so far as legal preparation was concerned, the same fitness for the church as for heaven, neither more nor less? By the amount that he failed to comply with the terms of induction into, and regulations of, the church here, by so much and no more did he fail of a proper preparation for heaven; and hence the compromise in either case or in both would be the same.
But I insist that the number of points in default is not material to the argument—that to violate the law in one point is to be guilty of the whole. James ii: 10. How, admitting that Luther was received into heaven, can it be inferred that he was also received into the church, unless it be assumed as a universal principle of God’s moral government for both earth and heaven that he always blesses every one with the object of his desire who honestly and earnestly seeks it, though his obedience be ever so imperfect. This assumption, however, cannot rightly be made; facts contradict it.
Uzza meant well, at the threshing-floor of Chidon, when “he put forth his hand to hold the ark;” yet “the anger of the Lord was kindled against him.”
The young prophet of Judah doubtless meant well when he ate and drank in Bethel contrary to the commandment of God; yet his “carcass did not come into the sepulchers of his fathers.”
King Saul meant well, I think, when he saved Agag the king, and a few of the best of the oxen and of the sheep, alive; yet he suffered the penalty of God’s violated law. Now, if the principle in question cannot be assumed as a universal one, and manifestly it cannot, it is illogical to conclude that Luther was a citizen of Christ’s kingdom, though it be allowed that he, or any number of such persons, was saved in heaven.
The kingdom of heaven, so far as the administration of its affairs on earth is concerned, is in the hands of men, God giving them the law. Our concern should be, “what is written in the law?” If God relaxes, on any account, the conditions of entering the church, the fact is known to him, not to us; and hence in our administration of the laws of the kingdom we can but hold all [304] non-conformists as aliens, no matter in what light God himself may regard them. God does most mercifully relax the rigor of his laws of induction into the kingdom, if at all, in a way that man may not certainly know, only, it may be, lest man, incompetent in so difficult a task, should attempt similar things himself. The present state of “the church” goes far to vindicate the divine foresight and wisdom in this respect. How eagerly every pretext is seized and embraced for disregarding the landmarks of the highway of holiness. How prone ten thousand tongues to tell that fallen man may rise again, in disregard of some of God’s fixed conditions to such an end. ’Tis not charity in me to hug my brother to my bosom, whispering soothing words, “all is well,” when I know that in his heart is festering the poison that may kill him.
In the Reply it is insisted that, if Luther was not immersed, he never did, according to the view which the Reply opposes: 1st. Obtain remission of sins. 2d. Enjoy the Holy Spirit. 3d. Become a Christian.
The antecedent of this proposition is, I believe true—Luther was not immersed; then the consequent, he did not obtain the remission of sins, &c., must be true, or the entire hypothesis is false.
Does our author admit the consequent? then we are agreed. Does he deny it? then he perpetrates a folly, violating the self-evident rule of hypothetical reasoning. There is just one means of escape from this dilemma, and that is by denying the entire hypothesis. Will he deny that the pardon of sins, the possession of the Holy Spirit, &c., are conditioned upon being immersed? To claim that the unimmersed possess them is to deny that they are conditioned upon it.
But we have the fact staring us in the face that Luther was saved in heaven; and hence, unless he carried his sins to heaven with him, “he must have been pardoned before his death, or at his death, or after he got to heaven, &c.” Now suppose I admit the difficulty to be great, so great, indeed, that for it I can find no satisfactory solution; does it follow that the one offered in the Reply is the true one, “that the Heavenly Father, seeing his good intentions and great efforts to serve him, passed over his intellectual mistakes, admitted him into his kingdom here, and took him through the church into heaven?” If Luther was taken to heaven, which is not denied, might not God have pardoned him at death or even before death, without its being necessary to conclude that he took him into the kingdom below? For aught our essayist knows to the contrary, he might; and hence it is not established that Luther was taken into the church. [305]
It is admitted that the heathen may be saved; but when, where, or how his sins are pardoned I think is not very certainly known; at least I suppose that it ought not to be affirmed that they are in the church of Jesus Christ. Now does not the case of the heathen present the same difficulty to Theta’s mind that he supposed in the case of Luther would to the mind of his opponent? But he says of the heathen, that they “are not to be judged by the New Testament.” Lurking under the cover of this well timed caveat I think I see a pressing conviction, if not an intentional admission, that the heathen are taken to heaven without passing through the church; that they at least, “walk all along through life just outside the holy place, and then enter the most holy. Why not let Luther travel the same road? Must his case necessarily be determined by the New Testament? Theta, as counselor for Luther, has not hesitated to set aside a part of the New Testament. Why not all of it? Because, doubtless, Luther knew a part of his duty, learned from the New Testament; therefore to this extent he should be judged by it. But another part of his duty he did not learn from the New Testament because of evil influences; hence Theta would excuse him. Now among the things which Luther did not learn was that of being “immersed into Jesus Christ.” Luther and the heathen differ only in this: Luther’s knowledge of the New Testament was greater than theirs. (Each is responsible for what he knows and can know, and for no more.) In this they are alike: the knew not the way into the kingdom and were not in it. A heathen man is heathen as to the Bible only in so far as he does not and cannot know it. I suggest, in conclusion of this division of the subject, that it is quite as rational to conclude that Luther, though not received into the church, was accepted in heaven, as though he had been.
On page 205 of the Quarterly we have the following question: “Do the Scriptures teach that God will in any case or for any cause pass by the neglect or violation of his law without bringing on the threatened penalty or withholding the intended blessing?”
Theta affirms this proposition and so will I. He adduces some passages of Scripture in proof, and I grant that they are unanswerable proof texts. But what do they prove? The question simply, no more, in which there is not the remotest allusion to either baptism or membership in the kingdom of heaven. If it be argued that these Scriptures imply the existence of a principle from which it must necessarily be inferred that Luther and “such like” were received into the church, all that I have to say in reply is, that no such principle can be eliminated from these Scriptures. [306]
The reason why the penalty, in the cases referred to, was not inflicted is not given, and hence they cannot now be quoted by us in justification or extenuation of any like omission of duty or transgression of law. If these Scriptures may be relied upon to prove that the unimmersed are in the kingdom, may they not also prove that persons are in it without any faith or repentance or any other condition made and provided in the New Testament? Are not infants and idiots on this principle in the kingdom also? The only reason, so far as I can discover, why the law of the kingdom is not binding upon or “does not include infants, idiots, heathen, or any other soul that ought not to be judged by the New Testament,” is, that these several parties are incapable, from circumstances which they cannot control, of the specific acts embraced in the law. Luther’s incapacity to enter the kingdom legally was just as perfect as is the infant’s; so if Luther is received I shall appear for the infant, and insist with true Spartan courage, that it be received also.
Let me call attention of my brother again to the cases of Uzza and Saul, where the penalty of violated law was inflicted. If I should conclude from these Scriptures that God never “makes allowance for the unfortunate circumstances” of men, I must think that I would reason as soundly as our author does; yet I should certainly reason fallaciously. All that we may rightly infer from his Scripture references of from mine is, that God does in some cases, and usually for unknown reasons, “pass by the neglect or violation of his law,” and that in some cases he does not.
I note nothing demanding further reply till I come to page 209. Theta says: “Finally, the end of the whole system of religion is love.” Following in the wake of this soft and blessed sentence we find some rhetoric, with the conclusion that certain named persons “must have loved, so had a right to commune, could commune, and did commune;” that is whoever loves, is in the kingdom. If I have not greatly misunderstood the Scriptures on the subject of an alien’s becoming a citizen of the kingdom, it is true that a man must love God with all his heart before he enters. Now if a man may love God before he enters the kingdom, the mere possession of love is not conclusive proof that he is in it. Many may love God to divine acceptance who keep not his commandments; but with me, “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” 1st John v: 3, et al. While, therefore, God may see that some men love him who keep not his commandments, I am not authorized to see it so; much less am I authorized to predicate any action of mine upon such a supposition.
Alpha. [307]
[Volume I: March, 1864]