MY REASONS FOR LEAVING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND JOINING THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.  
(R. M. BRYCE THOMAS, LONDON, ENG.)
 
Previous to my visiting Salt Lake City, Utah, in the months of July and August, 1896, I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints beyond the fact that it was commonly known as the Mormon Church.
 
During my stay of nearly a month in Salt Lake City I heard from those quite unconnected with their Church that the so-called Mormons, but whom I shall hereafter designate as "the Latter-day Saints," were the most peace-loving and quiet of people, honest, thrifty, well behaved and good citizens, and exceedingly kind to their poor, who were so well looked after that public begging was not known among them.
 
I found that this people possessed a beautiful Temple and a very fine Tabernacle, with grounds prettily laid out and well cared for; their houses, too, were neat and picturesque, with nice gardens attached to them, while they could boast of a Tabernacle Choir of about 600 men and women, the best that I have ever heard. Everything to do with this people appeared to be most excellently managed and looked after, while their missionaries were preaching the Gospel in most parts of the world, having gone out altogether at their own cost, and at a very great sacrifice of self in all cases. The Church organization of the Saints, too, appeared to be complete and effective, and it became evident to me that they were a very interesting and extraordinary people, and I therefore decided to secure some of their books, especially the Book of Mormon, in order to learn more of their character and doctrines.
 
This I did, and after I had read some of their publications a light seemed to dawn upon me, and I commenced to wonder if we were living in the times of the great apostasy which had been predicted in so many parts of the inspired scriptures. {459} I quote a few references to these predictions in the note below,[A] but these are by no means all. My mind expanded still more when I had carefully read through the Book of Mormon, a book which I found to be replete with divine truths and elevating principles, and which bore the very strongest testimony to the truths contained in the Bible, both in the Old and in the New Testament; a book, too, which made plain and easy of understanding so many parts of the Bible that appear at present to be vague, or regarding which the numerous sects of Christendom have set themselves against each other in argument and dispute. In that book (Book of Mormon) it was clearly stated that the great apostate church would be upon the earth when the book itself would come to light. In Revelation St. John spoke of the apostate church of the latter days as "Babylon,"[B] and as "Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth,"[C] and he added that this apostate church was to rule peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues,[D] which would make it almost if not quite universal.
 
[Footnote A: Isaiah 24: 1-5; Matthew 24: 4-31; Acts 20: 29, 30; II Thess. 2: 3, 8, 9, 10; I Timothy 4: 1-3; II Timothy 3: 1-5; II Timothy 4: 3, 4; Revelation, chapters 1, 2, and 3; Revelation 17: 2-5.]
 
[Footnote B: Rev. 14: 8.]
 
[Footnote C: Rev. 17: 5.]
 
[Footnote D: Rev. 17: 15.]
 
Now the question which concerned me was whether the Church of England, of which I was a member, was a portion of that church to which the Bible predictions in respect to the great apostasy referred, or whether the church of Rome or some other Christian church, was the only one alluded to. That it was a Christian church to which the texts in the Bible referred is not, I think, likely to be denied by any one; and indeed we know that even in as early days as those in which John the Revelator himself lived, he discovered the commencement of apostasy in the seven truest churches of Christians among those then existing.[E] The other branches of the then Christian church would appear to have gone altogether wrong, for these seven were, it seems, the only ones worth divine mention, and they too were becoming so corrupt even in those early days that God threatened them with complete rejection.
 
[Footnote E: Rev. chaps. 2, 3.]
 
In order to enable me to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, it was necessary for me to turn to the Bible as my guide, and to ascertain therefrom what constituted the primitive Church of Christ, and what were the exact doctrines and ordinances as laid down by Him and as taught and practiced by His Apostles. Having ascertained these facts, I had then {460} to compare them with the constitution of the Church of England and with the doctrines and ordinances as taught and practiced by her. It appeared to me to be quite evident that if the primitive church as planted by Jesus Christ and built up by His Apostles and servants, with all its organization and powers, had not been maintained in its completeness and perfection, or if any of Christ's doctrines had been altered, or His ordinances changed in any one respect without due authority, this could only have come about through false teachers arising in the church, as St. Paul had predicted would be the case after his days.[A] I felt that I should then be compelled to admit that the Church of England had fallen into error, and that therefore the texts in the scriptures regarding the latter day apostasy could not but refer to her as well as to the other churches of Christendom which were teaching and practicing a gospel not in accordance with that found in the Bible. And further that the following inspired prophecy of Isaiah pointed to her equally as much as to the other churches: "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant,"[B] (or in other words apostatized). One of the Latter-day Saints has very appropriately written the following words in this connection: "It is contrary to scripture and to reason to suppose that Christ would set up two or more discordant religious systems to distract mankind, and cause strife and contention. God cannot create confusion. His mind is one, the minds of men are various, so that when we see various opposing religions in Christendom, it is conclusive evidence that men have been engaged in their invention, and that they have established but very imperfect imitations of the true church of Christ."[C]
 
[Footnote A: II Tim. 4: 3, 4.]
 
[Footnote B: Isaiah 24: 5.]
 
[Footnote C: See Mormon Doctrine, 6th leaf.]
 
The true church must always conform to the pattern of the primitive church of Jesus Christ and His Apostles in every respect, unless there is clear and undisputable authority in the scriptures for a divergence in any particular, and I have not been able to find any such authority in any portion of the New Testament. So that if the Church of England (for that is the only church with which I am concerned at present) is dissimilar in her organization or in her doctrines and ordinances from the primitive church, she can be but a very imperfect imitation of that church at best.
 
Well, on turning to the Bible I found that the church which {461} Jesus Christ planted on earth consisted of "First apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."[A] Elders, too, were ordained in all churches.[B] Then again evangelists and pastors are mentioned.[C] We further read why all these inspired apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers were absolutely necessary in the church, namely, "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."[D] St. Paul in writing to the Corinthians very clearly described the church of Christ, and he showed that not one of its members could be dispensed with without thoroughly disorganizing the body. He was then specially speaking of the various gifts of the Holy Spirit of God, which were considered so essential to the maintenance of the true church of Christ, and it will be seen that He practically forbade any one of the members of the church (Christ's body) to say of those miraculous gifts "We have no need of thee."[E]
 
[Footnote A: I Cor. 12: 28.]
 
[Footnote B: Acts 14: 23.]
 
[Footnote C: Eph. 4: 11.]
 
[Footnote D: Eph. 4: 12.]
 
[Footnote E: I Cor. 12: 21-28.]
 
Now I vainly look for a church of this pattern in the Church of England or in any of the other churches in Christendom, except in that of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I can find no apostles, no prophets, no workers of miracles, no discerners of spirits, no gifts and no interpretations of tongues; but I find popes, cardinals and archbishops. By what authority then was the organization of Christ's church altered, and her most important members lopped off? For I have already made mention of the reasons given by St. Paul why inspired apostles, prophets, and the wonderful gifts of the Holy Spirit, were absolutely necessary in the church of Jesus Christ as founded by Him. And I fail to discover any good reason why the church should now be able to get on without them any more than it found itself able to get on without them in former times. On the contrary, I am clearly of opinion that they must be just as essential now as in days of old, and that to their absence must be attributed all the discord, ill-feeling, and confusion that reign supreme in and between the very numerous sects in Christendom, all of which profess themselves to be members of the true church of Jesus Christ. All these different sects or churches, if I may so call them, are admittedly without the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit spoken of by St. Paul, for they do not teach nor do they appear {462} to allow that gifts of prophecy and miracles are actually necessary in these days. Indeed, they apparently consider that these gifts are not needed at all; the very thing which St. Paul forbids them to do when he says that, in respect to the Spirit's wonderful gifts, no member of Christ's church must say, "We have no need of thee."[A] So that prophets and workers of miracles have altogether ceased to be, although I can find no authority whatever in the Bible for their ceasing to exist. Inasmuch as they were necessary "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,"[B] how can saints now be perfected or the work of the ministry be efficiently and satisfactorily performed, or the body of Christ (the true church) be edified in these days? The Bible shows us that it was always through prophets that God revealed His will, commands, and instructions to His church under all the changing and trying circumstances through which she has had to pass since the world commenced. And it seems to me to be altogether opposed to scripture and to reason to conclude that in these admittedly evil days it is unnecessary for Him to intimate His will and commands, and to instruct His people in exactly the same way, in order that His church may continue to be guided through the great difficulties and trials that must beset her. For the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles I prefer to go direct to the Bible and be guided thereby, than to go to any of the churches of Christendom which teach doctrines not in accordance therewith. For instance, Jesus Himself said that miraculous signs should follow believers,[C] but the churches do not teach this doctrine. Then again St. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, recorded that apostles and prophets were necessary in the church, not only for his days, but "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."[D] How different this appears to be from the teachings of the various churches and sects in Christendom! In this passage of scripture which I have just quoted, St. Paul not only tells us how long apostles and prophets would be necessary in the church of Jesus Christ, but also how the church would be affected if prophecy ceased. {463} As inspired by God, he distinctly asserts that apostles and prophets would be required till we attain to perfect men, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. I think it will be admitted that we have not reached this perfection as yet. Again, St. Paul showed that if we had no apostles and prophets, the church would be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every kind of doctrine, etc. What do we see in the churches of Christendom but this very result, when we contemplate the numerous discordant and opposing religious denominations and sects, all teaching divers doctrines and ordinances? Thus it seems evident to me that a church, devoid of inspired prophets and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which played so very important a part, in the opinion of the apostles of Christ, in the primitive church, cannot possibly be anything but in error. This view is strengthened by the words of St. Peter, who tells us that the Spirit would continue to manifest His marvelous powers in the true church while the world lasted, if the people would submit themselves to the ordinances of the gospel, and obey God's commandments. He was preaching on the day of Pentecost, just after the Holy Ghost had fallen upon the assembled disciples, and had sat upon each of them in the form of cloven tongues like as of fire,[A] and he called upon all his hearers to repent, and to be baptized for the remission of their sins, and he promised them the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then he went on to say that this promise was not for those people only, but unto them and their children, and also to all who were afar off, even as many as the Lord our God should call.[B]
 
[Footnote A: Cor. 12: 21.]
 
[Footnote B: Eph. 4: 12.]
 
[Footnote C: Mark 16: 17, 18.]
 
[Footnote D: Eph. 4: 13, 14.]
 
[Footnote A: Acts 2: 3.]
 
[Footnote B: Acts 2: 38, 39.]
 
Now in view of all this that I have culled from the scriptures, I cannot understand how any one has authority to say that in these days we have no need for inspired Prophets, and for those wonderful gifts of the Spirit, without which, we are told by the New Testament writers, we cannot reach to the perfected man, and to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.
 
It appears therefore quite evident to me that if I in all humility and sincerity accept the teachings of God, as made clear in the Bible, it becomes impossible for me to admit, or to flatter myself as a member of the Church of England, that any church of professing Christians on the earth, which denies the urgent need of inspired prophets and apostles, and the glorious and miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, can be the {464} church which Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles built up in the first days of Christianity. In fact it seems to me that where there is not sufficient faith to obtain new revelation and the ministry of angels, all of which are promised under the true Gospel, there cannot possibly be the true church of Christ. The scripture also, which is given for our instruction, tells us "Where there is no vision the people perish."[A]
 
[Footnote A: Prov. 29: 18.]
 
It is also logical to suppose that a church which denies the need of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit cannot well have that Spirit guiding it, for the whole history of the primitive church shows us that wherever the Holy Spirit was poured down upon any one and especially on the apostles and prophets and the other ministers of Christ, He manifested Himself in prophesyings, healings, tongues and other ways. God no doubt speaks to all His children throughout the world in some measure by His Spirit, the still small voice of conscience, but the Holy Spirit in His full and wonderful manifestations, that spirit of knowledge, and wisdom, and of revelation, is only to be found where there is the true church of Christ. Again, Jesus Himself tells us that "When that spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come."[B] This is the gift of prophecy. Do we see anything of this kind in the Church of England, or in the church of Rome, or in any of the numerous denominations of Christians anywhere—church and denominations which by their dissensions and different teachings go far to distract mankind and confound the earnest seekers after truth? It is when this spirit of prophecy, of healings, and of tongues is wanting that people are led by the teachings of men, darkness overspreads the world, errors begin to multiply, heresies to spring up, and nothing but a form of godliness remains while its powers are denied.
 
[Footnote B: John 16: 13.]
 
Again, where the Holy Spirit manifests Himself there must of necessity be unity and peace, for He is a Spirit of Unity, and Jesus Himself prayed that all His children might be one, even as He and His Father in Heaven were one.[C]
 
[Footnote C: John 17: 11, 20 to 23.]
 
Peter Young, an English writer, records the following comment on this prayer: "Our Lord seems to have a vision, if we may venture so to speak, of His church as one body, penetrated with the Divine Spirit, radiant with the brightness of His presence, its members living together in faith and love, the {465} kingdom of heaven upon earth, exhibiting such a spectacle of love and holiness, that the world might be led to acknowledge that they were the special objects of the Father's love." We can thus see what it is that Jesus earnestly desired and prayed for. There were no divisions and dissensions, but all were to be of one faith and doctrines as taught by Him, and one in all love and holiness of life; and a perusal of a part of the 16th chapter of St. John's Gospel will show that, just previous to His uttering this desire of His heart, Christ had promised His disciples to send them the Comforter to guide them into all truth, for, said He, "He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you."[A] Now does it seem possible to suppose that this Spirit of Unity, this Comforter, whom Jesus Christ was to send in order to show His followers how to grow like Him, and to to guide them into all truth, can be guiding the numerous contending discordant churches of Christendom, who exhibit toward each other bitterness and hatred, which not so many years ago culminated even in the shedding of human blood! The Church of England, with which I am at present concerned, is split up into Ritualistic, High, Broad, and Low Church, all at variance more or less in their ceremonies and ordinances, and in their very teachings. Surely it would rather seem as if the church were moved upon by a spirit of discord, confusion, and evil passions than a spirit of unity, peace, and love; for if this glorious Spirit whom Jesus sent down after His ascension into heaven, were really permeating the church, we could not but clearly discern His presence in His wonderful manifestations as of old, and in the unity of faith, that the word of God leads us to expect would always prevail till the end of time, when we all should reach perfection, even to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,[B] and so long, too, as there remained any on earth whom the Lord our God should call.[C] Why then has the Spirit now ceased to manifest His presence? Well, it appears to me that the reason may be found in the fact that both teachers and people have drifted into error, and have set up ordinances and doctrines which do not resemble those of Christ's primitive church, or have rejected some of those formerly practiced and taught by that church. What! some ask, do you mean to say that the Church of England is practicing and teaching erroneous doctrines and ordinances? If so we should like to know wherein the errors lie. Yes, I reply, such seems to be the case, and I shall now proceed to point out the errors.
 
[Footnote A: John 16: 7-14.]
 
[Footnote B: Eph. 4: 13.]
 
[Footnote C: Acts 2: 39.]
 
{466} In the primitive church existed the ordinance of anointing the sick with oil and praying over them with mighty faith. Is this practiced now in the Church of England, and if not, why not? If the faith of the early Christians (and very strong faith, such as honors God, was required) existed in these days, would not the church continue to use this same wonderful power for good as of old? It is however cried down now, and this ordinance is altogether rejected and considered too ridiculous for these enlightened days, though perhaps good enough for those poor creatures who lived in the benighted past. Where also is the ordinance of laying on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost with all His gracious gifts? This was evidently a most important and necessary ordinance in the teachings of the Apostles of the primitive church, and invariably followed that of baptism. And the New Testament is replete with instances of the wonderful way in which the Holy Spirit used to manifest Himself among those converts, who had obeyed the teachings of the Apostles, and had humbly and faithfully submitted themselves to both these ordinances. He still manifests Himself in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as very many can testify; but such manifestations are not taught or looked for in the Church of England, even in the ordinance of confirmation, and therefore they could not occur for want of faith if for no other reason.
 
Next I will take the ordinance of baptism. Is there any similarity between that practiced in the early church of the days of the Apostles and that practiced in the Church of England at the present day? None that I can see. In the first place, the form of baptism is not the same. Baptism by immersion is that to which the Lord Jesus submitted Himself in order to fulfill all righteousness,[A] and to become obedient in all things, and thus it behooves us to become obedient also. He was baptized by immersion as an example to us, and this is the baptism taught and practiced by His Apostles and servants.[B] It was not until the third century, after very many and gross errors had crept into the church, as I shall presently try to show, that the form of baptism was altered, the first case being that of a man named Novatian, who, being very ill, was baptized in bed by infusion or pouring of water.[C] Schaff says that even down to the close of the thirteenth century baptism {467} by immersion was the rule, and sprinkling or pouring the exception.[D] There are many other respectable authorities who show clearly that baptism in the early church was by immersing the whole body in water, and I name some in the note below.[E] Baptism is a word derived from the Greek "bapto," meaning to immerse, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the meaning intended wherever the word is used in the New Testament. Calvin says, "The word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church," while John Wesley says, "Buried with him—alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." Jeremy Taylor writes, "The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Savior." We are taught that baptism is meant to symbolize a death, a burial, and a resurrection,[F] and also a birth.[G] Immersion does this, but sprinkling does not, therefore baptism by sprinkling is erroneous. Then again, the Bible teaches us that baptism had for its object the remission of sins, and that that ordinance invariably followed upon faith and repentance. But the Church of England does not appear to baptize for the remission of sins at all, the ordinance being considered as only an outward sign of an inward grace, something which appears to me to be altogether different from the idea of baptism as taught and practiced in the primitive church of Christ.[H] That church laid down that when a person had faith (and we are told that faith comes by hearing), and had fully and truly repented of his sins, he was to undergo the ordinance of baptism for the remission of those sins,[I] and that then he would receive the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands by authorized men.[J] The Church of England, which claims to be led in her doctrines by the very same Spirit that guided the primitive church in the days of the Apostles, teaches quite another law of baptism, and even demands the baptism of innocent little infants in arms, who can exercise no faith or repentance, and who have no individual sins to repent of. Is not this a transgression of the law in this respect? The primitive church and the Church of England cannot both be right, and therefore the same Spirit cannot have permeated {468} both, for, unless we admit this, we must admit that the same Spirit dictates two distinctly opposite laws of baptism unto salvation.
 
[Footnote A: Matt. 3: 15.]
 
[Footnote B: Romans 6: 3, 4, 5.]
 
[Footnote C: Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Book vi: Ch. 43. See also Cyprian's Epistles, Letter 76.]
 
[Footnote D: Schaff, an eminent Swiss theologian.]
 
[Footnote E: Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., vol. I, page 120. Bossuet, a celebrated French Bishop. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. Robinson, the great Biblical scholar and philologist. Calvin. John Wesley.]
 
[Footnote F: Romans 6: 3, 4, 5.]
 
[Footnote G: John 3: 5.]
 
[Footnote H: Mosheim's Church History, 3rd Ed., vol. I, pp. 87 and 137.]
 
[Footnote I: Mark 1: 4. Luke 3: 3. Acts 12: 16.]
 
[Footnote J: Acts 2: 38.]
 
This leads me to the question of infant baptism. Dr. Neander, a great German scholar, tells us that Christ did not ordain infant baptism, and that not till so late a period as Irenaeus does any trace of infant baptism appear. This was in the third century. Curcellaeus writes that baptism of infants in the first two centuries after Christ was altogether unknown. Bishop Jeremy Taylor says, "Christ blessed infants and so dismissed them, but baptized them not, therefore infants are not to be baptized." Martin Luther says, "It cannot be proved by the sacred scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles." Tertullian, one of the Latin Fathers, wrote, "Let them therefore come when they are grown up, when they can understand, when they are taught whither they are to come. Let them become Christians when they can know Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? * * * * If persons understood the importance of baptism they will rather fear the consequent obligation than the delay."
 
The Church of England, of which I was a member, baptizes infants in arms, who, as I have already said, cannot have faith, nor can they repent, and indeed they have no sins to repent of. I have been told that there is the taint within them of the original sin of Adam, but it seems to me that an infant is perfect in Jesus Christ. No one but Adam committed the original sin for which, in God's righteous justice, the sentence was death, and this death passed upon all Adam's descendants. But God, whose very attributes are justice and mercy, made a way for Adam's posterity to escape from the consequences of a sin that not one of them was guilty of. So, in order that His justice should not be cruel, our good Father in Heaven sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ to the earth to atone for all sins, not only for our own individual sins, but for the sins of our common father Adam. Thus the world was relieved of the curse passed upon Adam; for "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."[A] The salvation is just as universal as the punishment; and we have nothing to do ourselves to obtain this salvation from the consequences of Adam's transgression, for which we were in no way responsible. Christ's atonement fully met God's righteous justice, and justice having been satisfied, {469} mercy was able to step in between it and ourselves and to claim her own. For our own individual sins we are of course responsible. We shall reap as we sow, and we shall be judged according to our works, whether they be good or bad, but we shall not be judged for Adam's sin. This is, I think, evident from the scriptures quoted in the foot note.[B]
 
[Footnote A: Read carefully Rom. 5: 12-19.]
 
[Footnote B: II Cor. 5: 10. Rom. 2: 6. Gal. 6: 7. Eph. 6: 8. Col. 3: 24, 25. Rev. 22: 12. Matt. 16: 27.]
 
Children, then, up to the age at which they can clearly distinguish between right and wrong, and can receive the commandments and laws of God, are without sin, for sin is the transgression of the law, known to be God's law. Thus little children have no sins to be repented of and to be remitted, and therefore do not need baptism. Baptism is an ordinance by which we witness to God, that we have repented of our past misdeeds and have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ; that we intend, by being buried with Him in the waters of baptism, and by rising again from that watery grave, to die unto sin, and to rise again to a new life of holiness and good works, in thankful remembrance of Christ's great love in saving us from the dreadful consequences of our own wicked acts. Baptism cannot therefore be necessary until we raise our wills against God and disobey what we clearly know to be His righteous commandments. To say that an infant requires baptism appears to be not only unscriptural but equivalent to denying the tender mercies of Christ. Little children are perfect in Him, and thus He was able to say, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God."[C]
 
[Footnote C: Matt. 19: 14. Mark 10: 14. Luke 18: 16.]
 
Thus I have tried to show how, in my opinion, the Church of England has turned aside from the early church teachings, and has transgressed this law of baptism, which the Bible instructs us has for its object the remission of sins;[D] has changed the ordinance by substituting sprinkling for immersion, and has broken the everlasting covenant by practically denying the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement, in holding that an innocent infant cannot belong to Christ's fold unless it is baptized into it; forgetting that it is only after we have arrived at years of discretion and understanding that we wander away from Christ's fold, and that we are required to pass through the waters of baptism in order to get our sins washed away, and to re-enter that fold. The prophecy of Isaiah, which I have already quoted,[E] thus seems to be applicable to the Church of {470} England in respect to this subject of baptism, if in respect to no other ordinance.
 
[Footnote D: Mark 1: 4. Luke 3: 3. Acts 2: 38. Acts 22: 16.]
 
[Footnote E: Isaiah 24: 5.]
 
The next ordinance that I would draw attention to is that of baptism for the dead. This has been altogether done away in the Church of England, though it was extensively practiced in the primitive Church. St. Paul in writing to the Corinthians says: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" [A] This baptism for the dead is one of the most glorious subjects belonging to the everlasting Gospel, because, in order to prove good our title to the kingdom of heaven, we who have sinned are told that we must have the three great witnesses to adoption: namely, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.[B] We know by scripture that the Gospel is preached to the dead,[C] and the reason is that the dead are to be judged as men in the flesh, and live according to God in the spirit.[D] Hence the necessity of baptism for those of them who had not during this life been baptized by immersion for the remission of their sins. The dead rely upon us who are living for the performance on their behalf of this ordinance. This is the work that children must do for their progenitors, and on learning this, the hearts of the children are turned to their fathers, and the fathers in the spirit world, learning that they are dependent upon the action of their posterity for the performance of this ordinance of salvation, turn their hearts to their children, or in other words look to them for the necessary performance. This was the work predicted in the scripture by the Prophet Malachi, "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."[E]
 
[Footnote A: I Cor. 15: 29.]
 
[Footnote B: John 5: 8.]
 
[Footnote C: I Peter 3: 19, 20, 21.]
 
[Footnote D: I Peter 4: 6.]
 
[Footnote E: Mal. 4: 5, 6.]
 
This baptism for the dead was an old doctrine taught in the primitive church, and it is evident that St. Paul spoke of a baptism which a living person receives in place of a dead one.[F] This vicarious baptism for the dead was practiced among the early Christians for some two or three centuries after Christ, and Epiphanius, a writer of the fourth century, speaks of this ordinance when referring to the Marcionites, a sect of Christians to whom he was opposed.[G] The view that St. Paul spoke of a baptism that a living man receives {471} in place of a dead one, is upheld by many respectable authorities, among them Erasmus, Scaliger, Grotius, Calixtus, Meyer, and De Wette.[A] Then again if we look at the proceeding of the Council of Carthage held A. D. 379, it will be seen that baptism for the dead was being practiced among some at least of the Christians as late as that year, for the council's sixth canon forbids any longer the administration of baptism and holy communion for the dead.[B]
 
[Footnote F: Biblical Literature (Kitto).]
 
[Footnote G: Heresies 23: 7.]
 
[Footnote A: Roberts' Outlines of Eccle. Hist. Note 3 to sec. 10 of part 4.]
 
[Footnote B: Roberts' Gospel (1893) p. 290.]
 
The beauty of this doctrine is that it very clearly indicates that there cannot be a never-ending punishment for those who die unconverted, as taught in the churches of Christendom. On the contrary, after they have been judged according to their works in the body, and have undergone such punishment as the perfectly righteous God adjudges, there will be a salvation for all, except the sons of perdition; and eventually Jesus Christ will present to His Father His completed work of redemption. Else what are the meanings of such texts as the following? "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is when the dead shall hear the voice of God: and they that hear shall live."[C] "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house."[D] Isaiah also, after he had described the judgments that would attend the coming in glory of Jesus Christ, and the punishments that should overtake the ungodly, wrote as follows: "And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited."[E]
 
[Footnote C: John 5: 25.]
 
[Footnote D: Isaiah 42: 6, 7.]
 
[Footnote E: Isaiah 24: 21, 22............