salvation: a dialogue between elder brownson and mr. whitby.

by john jaques,

elder in the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints.

elder brownson. good morning sir. would it be agreeable to you to read a tract?

mr. whitby. o yes! thank you, sir. i take in many tracts, and read through most of them. what tracts do you distribute?

elder b. they are upon the principles taught by the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints.

mr. w. the latter-day saints! well, i cannot say that i exactly understand what their religion is. it is true, i hear a great deal about them, yet many things that i hear of them are so contradictory that i find it impossible to believe all. but if one fourth part of what is told me, is true, i must say that i cannot entertain a very high opinion of your religion. however, i think that every person ought to be at liberty to enjoy his own opinion, and i deem it especially wrong to condemn any party unheard. i make no profession of religion myself. my wife's sister, and her husband, are very staunch wesleyans, and they tell me some extraordinary things of your people. but i always take a certain discount off what one religious person says of another's religion. consequently i cannot believe all that mrs. whitby's sister and her husband tell me of your religion. and i think they are a little bigoted, for they sometimes say hard things of the baptist and church people, as well as of your people. but i have long wished to meet with one of the latter-day saint preachers, so that i might hear their own story, and i shall really consider it a favour if you will be pleased to give me a brief outline of your belief, that i may not judge your people wrongfully. i have a few leisure minutes just now.

elder b. i shall only be happy to impart any information that may be beneficial to you, concerning our principles. i am aware that much misunderstanding prevails respecting the latter-day {40} saints, and it is ever a pleasure to me to dispel that misunderstanding, and enlighten those who are willing to learn.

mr. w. thank you. but we won't stand at the door. would you walk in and sit down?

elder b. i will, with pleasure.

mr. w. allow me to put your hat away.

elder b. thank you.

mr. w. [to his daughter] mary, hand the gentleman a chair, and hang his hat up in the passage. [to elder b.] now, sir, if you will be good enough to enlighten my mind concerning your principles, i will listen attentively, and, whether i approve of them or not, i shall certainly consider myself under obligations to you.

elder b. i will gladly comply with your request.

mr. w. but you will not consider me wearisome if i interrupt you, in the course of your relation, with an occasional question or remark, which i may be prompted to offer for my own satisfaction?

elder b. don't name it, sir. it will be pleasing to me to answer your questions, to the best of the ability that god may give me, or to listen to any remark which you may feel disposed to make. but to proceed. i will give you a brief view of the first principles of the doctrine of jesus christ, and will refer you to a few passages of scripture in support of them.

mr. w. thank you. i am sure i shall be much gratified.

elder b. in the first place, we believe that there is a god in the heavens, who is the creator and preserver of this world and of men. god, having the right, has, in times past, manifested himself to men, and revealed laws whereby they might be governed. our first parents, adam and eve, who were created immortal—not subject to death, disobeyed the law of god. death, and all the evils that induce it, were the penalty to which adam, and eve, and all their posterity were then subjected. and men cannot, of themselves, overcome this penalty, and obtain immortality.—gen. i. ii. iii. rom. v. 12. 1 cor. xv. 21, 22. but god did not leave men to perish without hope. he sent his son jesus christ into the world, to take human nature upon him, and to satisfy the broken law by being put to death, thereby delivering men from the power of death.—john iii. 16. rom. v. 8. 1 john iv. 9. as all men, through adam's sin, without any agency of their own, were subjected to death, so will all men be redeemed there from, and placed before the throne of god, free from any condemnation for adam's sin, for {41} christ's atonement extends so far to men, unconditionally on their part, because they had no hand in adam's sin.—1 cor. xv. 22. but although men are thus, without conditions on their part, made free from the effects of adam's sin, yet, as every man must, after this, answer for the deeds done in his body (matt. xvi. 27. 2 cor. v. 10. rev. xx. 13), and as every man, in some thing or other, disobeys the law of god, it naturally follows that every man will need an atonement for his individual sins, as well as one from the sin of adam. and in order that every man may escape the penalty for his individual sins, certain conditions must be complied with. i said that all men would be redeemed, unconditionally on their part, from the penalty of adam's sin. i have referred you to a passage or two of scripture upon the subject. i will refer you to another, rom. v. 18, "therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." thus, you see, a man answers for his own sins only.

mr. w. just so. that seems reasonable.

elder b. now i will lay before you the conditions. but first, i will remark, that god has but one method of saving men. the scheme of salvation is an unchangeable scheme, both as respects the atonement of christ, and the conditions required of men. jesus christ is the only name under heaven whereby men can be saved.—acts iv. 12. 1 tim. ii. 5. and although many men have preached divers kinds of contradictory doctrines, and have professed that they were all the doctrines of christ, yet it is a fact that god does not send men to contradict each other. you cannot find, in the whole bible, an instance of god's sending his servants to preach conflicting doctrines to a people, for that would conduce to endless discord, confusion, and strife, and it is written that "god is not the author of confusion, but of peace."—1 cor. xiv. 33. and paul the apostle said that he or an angel from heaven, if found preaching any other gospel than what he and his brethren had preached, should be accursed.—gal. i. 9, 10. depend upon it, sir, that two preachers, or two religious societies, who hold forth contrary doctrines, cannot both, in their teachings, be recognized of god. these inconsistencies cause many men to reject the bible, and turn infidels.

mr. w. why that's just my argument. i say nothing against the bible. i find no fault with that. but this is what puzzles me—how it is that two preachers, both believing one book, one revelation from god, one code of laws, should {42} preach contradictory doctrines, and form two religious societies, always opposing and differing from each other! i cannot fathom the matter. there are mrs. whitby's sister, and her husband, wesleyans, as i told you, and his brother is a baptist—all very strong in their faith. we have them all here together occasionally, and we get up quite lively discussions. mrs. whitby's sister's husband and his brother cannot agree at all with each other upon religious topics, especially baptism, and then i disagree with them both, and tell them that i am very well assured that either one is wrong, or both of them are, and, consequently, i cannot join either's society until a satisfactory decision is come to. i assure you we have matters rather warm at times. we all wax quite earnest.

elder b. i have not the least doubt of it. nothing is plainer than that god is not the author of both their systems of religion. but, as i was saying, the plan of salvation is unchangeable. so if we can find out what it was in the time of jesus and the apostles, we can decide what it is now.

mr. w. true.

elder b. i have shown, by the scriptures, the doctrine of the atonement of christ, and that certain conditions are required of every man to ensure the benefits of that atonement for his individual sins. i will now speak of the conditions. the first condition required of men is to believe that there is a god, and that they have done things that are displeasing in his sight, and that jesus christ has provided a way of escape through his atonement. i question whether any person exists who does not, at heart, believe that there is a god. and it appears to me that all men must acknowledge that they have, in their life time, done things that have not been right. but a faith in christ's atonement is the result of a teachable spirit's hearing a message from god, to that effect. now faith is required of all men, for "without faith it is impossible to please god."—heb. xi. 6. and jesus says—"he that believeth not shall be damned."—mark xvi. 16. some preachers say that faith is all that is necessary to salvation. but this is incorrect, for the apostle says, that faith without works is dead, being alone.—james ii. if faith had been sufficient for salvation, jesus christ would never have made any other conditions known. the devils believe and tremble, but we are not informed that they will be saved. faith is only valued by the works it leads to. without works we have no evidence that a man has faith.

mr. w. i see that clearly.

{43}elder b. the next condition required is repentance. as all men have sinned, all men are required to repent of their sins. says jesus—"except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."—luke xiii. 3. see also luke xxiv. 47. acts xvii. 30. now to repent, is not to mourn, and grieve, and hang down one's head like a bulrush, but to forsake everything that is evil, and to make a firm resolution, like a man, to follow those things no more. in short, to repent is to cease to do evil, and resolve to do well. this is what is required of all men.

mr. w. that appears right enough.

elder b. the third condition required is for men to be baptized in water, for the remission of their sins. this is a condition quite as important as any other, yet it is one which is little thought of by many persons, and much misunderstood by others.

mr. w. that is a subject upon which i have thought much, when i have heard my friends argue the matter.

elder b. it is a subject concerning which much diversity of opinion prevails amongst the religious world. some persons believe baptism to be altogether unnecessary, and they sing—

"were i baptized a thousand times,

it would be all in vain."

others believe baptism to be an ordinance that can be attended to, or dispensed with, at the discretion of the believer. now we do not agree with either of these kinds of persons. we believe that baptism is one of the essential conditions of salvation. we deem it absolutely necessary that all persons who believe and repent, should also be baptized. if we consider what baptism is for, we shall see at once its necessity. baptism is for the remission of sins.

mr. w. but does not jesus say that his blood was to be shed for the remission of sins? and does not st. john say that the blood of jesus christ cleanseth us from all sin?

elder b. if you read the preceding part of the verse in which the last passage you have quoted occurs, you will find these words—"but if we walk in the light." now to walk in the light, is to walk in obedience to the law of god, and, as baptism is a part of the law of god, we must attend to that ordinance, or the blood of jesus christ will not cleanse us from all sin. as to the other passage, i said, previously, that the atonement of jesus christ extended to the sins of all the human family, but to individual sins on conditions only. three conditions i have named. the full benefit of the atoning blood {44} of jesus christ cannot be claimed, by any man, for his individual sins, until he is baptized. baptism is nothing of itself, and cannot wash away our sins. but god has ordained that the blood of christ for the remission of individual sins shall be available to no man till he has been baptized. no man is entitled to a pardon for his sins, until he obey that ordinance. so far, baptism is for the remission of sins; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer—the return, of a good conscience towards god.

mr. w. i think i understand you. in the winter, coals are given away to the poor of this town. the gift is free to the poor, but every one who receives it must produce a ticket signed by one of the committee. without the ticket, the coals cannot be had. baptism is of similar importance to salvation as the ticket is to the coals, i suppose.

elder b. yes. naaman, the syrian general, to cure his leprosy, was told to wash seven times in the river jordan. the gift of cure was free to naaman, but he could not have realized it independent of the seven washings. the mere washings would have availed nothing, but in their being the ordinance of the lord consisted their efficacy. so with baptism for the remission of sins. that baptism is for the remission of sins, see mark i. 4. luke iii. 3. acts ii. 38. xxii. 16. 1 peter iii. 21. by this you will see that baptism is anything but nonessential to salvation.

mr. w. why, yes, i do.

elder b. that baptism is an essential part of the righteous law of god is evident from the answer of jesus, when john demurred to baptizing him—"suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."—matt. iii. 15. jesus also says that baptism is a part of the counsel of god to men—"and all the people that heard him [john], and the publicans, justified god, being baptized with the baptism of john. but the pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of god against themselves, being not baptized of him."—luke vii. 29, 30. baptism may also be considered the door of the kingdom of god, or the law that adopts us into the family of god. immediately after jesus was baptized, the heavens opened over him, and god owned his son. jesus says, "he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. but he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep. to him the porter openeth."—john x. 1-3. the sheepfold was the kingdom of god, the door was baptism, the porter was john. upon those {45} who attempt to enter any other way, will rest the imputation of dishonesty.

mr. w. not a very desirable imputation, certainly.

elder b. no. but you see, by the illustration, the necessity of baptism.

mr. w. i must confess i do.

elder b. baptism does not mean infant sprinkling or pouring. the true mode of baptism is by immersion.

mr. w. that is my opinion of the matter. when my friends have been discussing the subject, it has always appeared to me that immersion was the proper form of baptism.

elder b. true. this is plainly evident from the scriptures. john the baptist baptized in the river jordan. if sprinkling or pouring were the mode, there would have been no necessity for his going into the river. it is true, i have seen representations of jesus and john standing in the water, while john poured the water upon jesus, but such a representation carries improbability upon its very face. if pouring would do, why go into the water? and we know that jesus did go into the water, for he "went up straightway out of the water," after he was baptized, says the evangelist.—matt. iii. 16. "and the multitudes who went to john were baptized of him in jordan."—matt. iii. 6. again, john baptized at aenon, near to salim, because there "was much water there."—john iii. 23. of what advantage would much water have been, if sprinkling or pouring were the mode? a bucketful of water would sprinkle a thousand people. a very insignificant brook would suffice to baptize a nation, if pouring were the mode. if either of these were the mode, there was no necessity to choose a place of "much water." unless immersion were the mode, we cannot see any sense in john's baptizing at aenon because of the abundance of water there.

mr. w-. certainly not. but mrs. whitby's sister's husband, that is, mr. clarke, stands much upon this point—that it is declared that john baptized with water.

elder b. i am aware that it is so written. and i am sure that i never entertained the idea that any one could administer baptism for the remission of sins, without water. john is spoken of as baptizing with water, distinguishing his baptism from the baptism of the holy ghost and of fire, which jesus was to introduce.

mr. w. i understand.

elder b. philip and the eunuch both went down into the {46} water.—acts viii. 38. jesus likens baptism to a birth.—john iii. 5. now a birth argues a concealment, which immersion certainly is. st. paul says we are buried with christ by baptism, "that like as christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—rom. vi. 4. this is plain enough. but he goes on to say, "for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." what could be a more beautiful illustration of baptism by immersion than is here presented. immersion is a burial. immersion is a planting in the likeness of christ's death. sprinkling or pouring answer neither one figure nor the other. if we are buried with christ by baptism, we thenceforth walk in newness of life. if we are planted in the likeness of christ's death, it is an earnest of our being one day fashioned in the likeness of his resurrection.

mr. w. that is certainly a striking and appropriate figure. your ideas agree with mine very much.

elder b. having settled the mode of baptism, i will now say a little on the candidates for that ordinance. baptism being for the remission of sins, and no one, who is not old enough to discern right from wrong, being accounted a sinner in the sight of god, you will perceive that baptism is only necessary for those who have arrived at years of accountability. and faith and repentance invariably precede baptism. if you search the bible through, you will find that the people were always taught before they were baptized. john taught the people to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, before baptism. jesus commanded his disciples to go and teach all nations, and then baptize them. the apostles ever taught the people to believe and repent, before they were baptized. little children, being incapable of understanding the law of god, are not deemed responsible for non-observance of it, and, consequently, are not required to believe, repent, or be baptized. not being subject to the law, little children are wholly subjects of the free grace of jesus christ, and his atoning blood redeems them without any conditions on their part. it is solemn mockery before god, to baptize little children, or to preach that they will not be saved without baptism. when they can readily distinguish between right and wrong, then commences their responsibility.

mr. w. i perfectly agree with what you say. but mr. clarke holds that baptism is in lieu of circumcision, and we know that abraham and his seed were commanded to observe circumcision when the child was eight days old.

{47}elder b. circumcision and baptism are two different ordinances, and have no relation to each other. circumcision was a sign of the covenant which god made with abraham and his seed. baptism is for the remission of individual sins. circumcision could only be performed on one sex. baptism is binding on both. circumcision was preceded by no teaching. baptism is invariably preceded by faith and repentance. both circumcision and baptism were observed by the children of israel under moses.—1 cor. x. 2. so you see that circumcision and baptism are two distinct ordinances, widely differing in their nature and application.

mr. w. i see they are.

elder b. after men have been baptized, they are required to have hands laid upon them, that they may receive the gift of the holy ghost. then, according to their faithfulness and diligence in keeping the commandments of god, the various manifestations of the holy ghost are poured out upon men—such as the gift of speaking in foreign tongues, of the interpretation of tongues, prophecy, dreams, visions, the gift of healing, and of working miracles, discernment of spirits, &c.

mr. w. do you believe in having these things now? why one of the principal reasons that i have never joined any religious body is, that i could read in the bible of these great and glorious gifts being enjoyed in ancient times, and i could not find any people who contended for these things now. i have expressed my thoughts on these subjects to mr. clarke, and his wife, and his brother, but they all declare that these blessings were only given for the establishment of christianity, and that they, not being intended to continue upon the earth, are not now given, and, indeed, are not now needed. but i could never see the reason for this. i could see in the bible no reason why men should not obtain these blessings now as anciently. in fact, i think the bible decidedly encourages all men to seek after these things, for paul says, "the manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal." and we are well aware that salvation is just the same thing now as anciently. men have now the same weakness to overcome, the same temptations to resist, the same devil to oppose them, and the same end to obtain as in the days of the apostles. and why should men now not have the same blessings from the hands of the lord to assist them in obtaining salvation, as the primitive christians had to assist them? it is certain that either god has changed, or men have degenerated and become unworthy {48} of such distinguished blessings as the early christians enjoyed. but i am pleased to find that you believe in obtaining these blessings, i shall be happy to listen further to your views of the matter. i am becoming much interested in your doctrines.

elder b. i am aware that the popular cry is that the gifts and blessings of the holy ghost are "done away, and no longer needed." we know they are done away, because men do not seek them, and the ancient saints sought them earnestly. indeed it would be marvellous for the lord to give these blessings to men when they do not care for them, and when they think them unnecessary. he is not so prodigal of the choice gifts of his holy spirit. he does not cast his pearls before swine. his spirit does not always strive with men. when they do not wish to serve him, he gives them up to the imagination of their own hearts, to walk in their own ways. this is the cause of all the divisions in the religious world. but where is the first scripture that says, or even hints, that the gifts and manifestations of the holy spirit were not intended for men until they become perfect? not a single text of this description can be found between the lids of the bible, but the whole tenor of the book teaches to the contrary. jesus christ said that the signs or gifts should follow those who believed.—mark xvi. 17. he also said that the comforter—the holy ghost, should abide with his disciples for ever.—john xiv. 16. jesus also said that his father would give his holy spirit to all them that asked him.—luke xi. 13. peter said that god gave the holy ghost to all that obeyed him.—acts v. 32. on the day of pentecost, peter declared that the promise of the holy ghost was for the people before him, for their children, for all that were afar off, even as many as the lord should call.—acts ii. 39. paul continually exhorted all saints to seek diligently after the gifts of the spirit, for he would not have his brethren ignorant of them, but to covet earnestly the best gifts.—1 cor. xii. xiii. xiv. solomon said, "where there is no vision the people perish."—proverbs xxix. 18. joel prophesied that the spirit of the lord should be poured out most abundantly in the last days, the sons and daughters should prophesy, the old men should dream dreams, and the young men should see visions, and even upon the servants and handmaids, should the spirit be bestowed, indeed the promise is that it should be poured out upon all flesh.—joel ii. 28, 29. that does not look like the gifts being done away and no longer needed. it is true, peter said that the out-pouring on the day of pentecost was in fulfilment of joel's prophecy, but that occasion did not {49} fully fulfil the terms of the prophecy, for very few received the holy spirit then, not all flesh. a more full and complete fulfilment yet awaits the prediction, and the time when will be discovered by reading the whole of the chapter—just about the second advent of the redeemer.

mr. w. but is it necessary to have laid hands upon one, in order to receive the holy ghost?

elder b. laying on of hands is the ordinance appointed of god for the imparting of the holy ghost.—acts viii. 17-20., xix. 6. heb. vi. 2.

mr. w. did not cornelius receive it without the laying on of hands, and even before he was baptized?

elder b. cornelius was a gentile. the holy ghost was poured out upon him and his household previous to baptism and the laying on of hands, to convince the jews that the gentiles were entitled to the blessings of the gospel. cornelius and his household were then baptized. doubtless the gift of tongues was only imparted to them for the time being, as has been the case with persons in our day, before baptism and the laying on of hands. it is reasonable to believe that, after cornelius and his household were baptized, peter laid his hands upon them, as he did upon other disciples. such a course would be pursued by the latter-day saints now in similar cases.

mr. w. but do the latter-day saints actually obtain these gifts?

elder b. yes, some have the gift of tongues, some of interpretation of tongues, others have dreams, visions, and revelations, whilst many have been miraculously healed by the power of god.

mr. w. well, really my bosom burns to hear it. [looking at his watch.] but i am sorry to say that my time has expired. i have some particular business to attend to just now. would you wait and take dinner with us. i can spare a little more time after dinner.

elder b. i am obliged to you, but i have several places to call at this morning, and it will be inconvenient for me to stay with you to-day. however, i will call upon you this day week, and give you any further information you may wish.

mr. w. well, call when you can stay and have dinner. but i wish to ask you whether you admit persons into your church immediately on application, or do you keep candidates a certain time on probation.

elder b. in ancient times candidates were not required to {50} submit to any probation, previous to entering the church, at least i cannot read so in the bible, neither do the latter-day saints require such a thing. we like men to come up boldly and say they repent of their sins, and wish to be baptized. when men do this, we do not presume to question their sincerity, unless we have very substantial reasons for doing so. we wish to encourage confidence between men, and we do not treat them as suspicious characters, until we have evidence for it. when a man turns from his sins, then is the time that he should be received with open arms by the church, the blessings of full fellowship should not be withheld, for he is but weak in the faith, and he needs all possible encouragement.

mr. w. i have no fault to find with your sentiments on that head. i am sure it is very good of you to spend your time in enlightening the minds of the people, by your tracts and conversation. of course you have a salary from your society to support you.

elder b. i am not an hireling, sir. i do not preach for hire or divine for money. the hireling is not the true shepherd of the flock. an hireling is apt to look a little more to the fleece than to the flock.

mr. w. but you cannot live on the air!

elder b. when jesus christ sent his disciples to preach in ancient times, he told them to go without purse or scrip, and their heavenly father would see that they were provided for. jesus said that those persons who received his servants received him, and those who rejected them rejected him, and whosoever would give only a cup of cold water to one of the least of his disciples should not lose his reward.—matt. x. mark vi. ix. luke ix. this is how i am sent out, this is how all the elders of the latter-day saints are sent out to preach to the world.

mr. w. that's noble, certainly.

elder b. it proves the world, whether they will receive one in the name of the lord; it proves the servants of god, whether they can put their confidence in him; and it proves the lord, whether he will support his servants and open the way for them.

mr. w. i really wish you would stay for dinner.

elder b. i would, with pleasure, if my duties allowed.

mr. w. well, i cannot let you go away empty. i beg you will accept of five shillings, to assist you in your laudable purpose.

{51}elder b. may the lord bless you in your basket and in your store, and restore you an hundred fold.

mr. w. thank you. i have much enjoyed your conversation. i am sure i am greatly indebted to you. but i must now say good day. you will not fail to call next week?

elder b. i will not. good day sir.

liverpool: published by s. w. richards, 15, wilton street, london.

if the lord almighty should give the human family their desire in full, they would not keep the broad road to destruction, but would go cross lots to hell.

—brigham young.

a man cannot deny the truth when the spirit of god is burning in his bosom.

—francis m. lyman.

as man is, god once was. as god is, man may become.

—joseph smith.