menu icon in the top, right corner of the screen.
icon above to close this box.
icon at the bottom of the screen below the browser—if you don't see it, swipe up to unhide it.
The Congregationalist Treasury
- 1845 January, p. 24—The Mormons—paragraph about successor to JS
- 1846 August, wrapper, p. 2—Editor refused to publish letter from D. Jones—re “Profession of F”
- 1846 December, p. 354—Mormonism spreads its wings over the ignorant and foolish
- 1847 February, pp. 47–48—Press Review—a review of the pamphlet by Blind Daniel
- 1847 August, p. 234—Latter-day Saint prophecy that Abergavenny would sink
- 1847 November, p. 342—should a minister (J. Jones) print bad books?
- 1848 January, pp. 31–32—phosphorus miracle
- 1848 February, pp. 37–38—three murderers at large—Mormon Miracle by W. R. Davies
- 1848 March, pp. 76–78—Dowlais Reverend and the Satanists, by “Observer” (probably D Jones)
- 1848 June, pp. 168–70—Mormonism—response of W. R. Davies to the Observer
- 1848 October, p. 306—a request for “Caerwysion” to share lecture on fall of Mormonism
- 1848 November, p. 350—a Mormon priest is put in jail for debt—needs a miracle
- 1848 December, p. 367—are the miraculous gifts imparted now, as the Mormons claim?
- 1849 February, p. 54—brief mention of Mormons and the gold rush
- 1849 March, p. 94—Departure of the Mormons
- 1849 June, p. 181—Farewell to the Saints—a poem by T. ab Ieuan
- 1849 October, p. 319—The Deceit of the Mormons—woman deceived by Daniel the pigman
- 1849 November, p. 340—Verses to Mormonism
- 1849 November, p. 351—Mormonism in Llangadog—about a preacher no one would listen to
- 1849 November, p. 352—Haverfordwest—G. Thomas was baptized but was not cured of cholera
- 1849 December, p. 376—The Saints—quote from the N York Tribune—cholera has been cured
- 1850 June, p. 187—California—a very brief article—nasty
- 1850 July, pp. 212–14—Similarity of Baptists and the Saints—response in Oct 1850, p. 298–300
- 1850 August, p. 250—brief mention of destruction of Nauvoo Temple
- 1850 September, pp. 272–75—The Bungling “Saint” by Mathetes—also in Seren Gomer
- 1850 September, pp. 275–76—The Saints and Their Tricks again—by A Hater of Deceit
- 1850 Oct, pp. 281–88—Mormoniaeth—origin, history, doctrines—conclusion to be in Nov—not so
- 1850 October, pp. 298–300—“Mormon Lies”—T. Williams responds to similarities
- 1850 December, pp. 392–94—“Similarity of Baptists and the Saints Again”—by “Saint”.
- 1851 January, pp. 21–25—“The Saint Weighed and Found Wanting”
- 1851 February, pp. 51–55—“The Saint Weighed and Found W”—continued from p. 25 in the Jan issue
- 1851 March, pp. 73–76—final installment of the debate by “Saint”
Congregationalist Treasury, 1845—January, p. 24
https://
The Mormons
A disagreement has taken place among this people in America, about the successor to the dead prophet, Joe Smith. Some claimed that one Rigdon should be his successor, but the others opposed this. It is said that the widow of Joe Smith intends to leave “the saintly city,” inasmuch as her confidence in the Mormon faith is dwindling. It is estimated that the Mormon war lately has cost, all total, the State of Illinois, close to 50,000 dollars.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1846—August, wrapper, p. 2
https://
To Our Distributors and our Subscribers
We have received correspondence from one D. Jones, about that profession of faith by the Mormons, alias the Latter-day Saints, which appeared in our June issue. Let it be known by that D. Jones, that it is contrary to the principles of the TREASURY to publish anything that may be personal and discourteous even from the Saints. His article contains blasphemy.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1846—December, p. 354
https://
“It is true that there are many things in our kingdom at present which tend to create panic in the fear. The Papist streams originate from one of the main fountains of instruction of our kingdom, and many drink from these polluted streams—Mormonism spreads its wings over the ignorant and the foolish.”
[This comes from an article entitled “Psalm 72:17—“His name shall endure forever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.” In a section that focuses on “His name shall endure forever” the author laments that “there are many things in our kingdom at present which tend to create panic.”]
Congregationalist Treasury, 1847—February, pp. 47–48
https://
Press Review
The Correct Image, wherein one can perceive clearly The Deceit of the Mormons, or the “Latter-day Saints,” in the form of Questions and Answers, between Daniel and his Friend, by Daniel Jones, Penygraig, or (Daniel the Blind). Printed by J. T. Jones, Carmarthen. Price twopence. What is answered by Daniel has happened literally as it is written.
It was impossible for DANIEL to better serve his nation than by revealing the treachery of these deceitful atheists; we would advise everyone to buy it, so that they may find in the IMAGE, an accurate portrayal of such a pack of rapacious wolves, who scatter their destructive heresies the length and breadth of Wales in general, until they charm some of the superstitious and weak-headed in our country into believing such false doctrines as are published by the Mormons. For instance, we give the following, selected from the IMAGE, page 5:-
DANIEL. Very well. After I heard these strange things from them, I began to think and meditate about the things they said; and soon I began to consult and talk with them, when they told of the strange blessings they received from the Spirit of the Lord, and the clear testimonies they had had that they were in the true Church, and the certainty they had that they were children of their heavenly Father, which things, they said, every man had to have before being saved; and that I too would possess them if I would believe the Scripture as they understood it, and undertake to implement it as they wished; and they added too, that there was no need for me to be without my valuable sight, that the wise God had provided the salvation of the body as well as the salvation of the soul of all the saints and his dear children on earth; and they persuaded me not to be so foolish as to sell my comforts in this life, and my eternal salvation, by being prejudiced against the truths they spoke. And I, after serious consideration, saw that I was becoming less than a reasonable being if I did not comply with what they wanted! Then, in a meeting they were holding one evening, I decided to join them; and I made clear to them that I believed them completely, and that I wanted to be baptized by them; after considering which, we came to the conclusion that I could receive the sacrament they called baptism the following afternoon. And now, as you can understand, the news went swiftly through the community that the Saints were going to give eyes to the blind that afternoon; and by the appointed hour, before the Saints and I had reached the place of baptism, a numerous crowd had gathered to the place in order to see the promised miracle. Then Capt. D. Jones, (one of the main leaders of the Saints,) addressed the crowd at the beginning, declaring the things that were believed in their midst, and condemning those who differed as heretics; and another who was authorized by them went on with the work of immersing me, and by the time he had lifted me up above the water, the eyes of everyone were looking carefully at me to find out if the blind man had had eyes or not; and I often heard this question asked, “Can he see?” And great was the disappointment of many when they realized that Blind Daniel was still only blind! So that some were ready to say, From such deceivers, preserve me, good Lord; for many like myself had been charmed to believe such deceit.
C. What were your feelings by now, when you realized that you could not see?
D. I was still strong in the faith, because I was not much expecting such a thing at that time, for they had told me previously, It might be afterwards, through the laying on of hands, and anointing with oil that I would be healed.
C. When was that done to you, and in what manner
D. In the evening, when I went to a nearby farmhouse, where they most often held their worship, and on that evening they had a service there, when I was to be, through their ordinances, received as a member of their Church; and the method and the arrangement they had with regard to me was as follows:- Captain D. Jones placed his hands on my head, pressing it hard, then pouring some sort of oil on my head, until it wet all my hair, and dripped over my clothes; he also, at times, rubbed my head with his hands, praying fervently, I presumed, for a cure for me; then he said I was a man who had received full forgiveness for all my sins, that he had received evidence of that from above; then another there, who was called a prophet by them, (and his real name was Abel Evans,) made a contribution, and prophesied that I was sure to get my sight. Then Captain D. Jones asked him how he knew. To which he answered, that he had seen remarkable visions assuring that; seeing the heavens opening, and two bright start appearing there, and being thrown down to the earth, and that they demonstrated that this blind man was to have his eyes, (that is me;) and also, he added, saying that not only that vision assured him of it, but the custom of his heavenly Father to everyone in his Church, and that what he himself had felt also proved this to him, namely getting a direct miraculous cure through himself from a strong fever the like of which he had previously been in for three months and a week, and many other things also, too long to relate now.
A WELSHMAN
Congregationalist Treasury, 1847—August, p. 234
https://
It is claimed by the delusional and arrogant people who call themselves Latter-day Saints, that they now receive the Spirit in its miraculous gifts, but there is as much truth in that as there is in that prophecy of theirs that the town of Abergavenny would sink on a day appointed by them, the day came and went, and the town still remains unshaken to this day.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1847—November, p. 342
https://
Answer to the Question of Shon o Went, page 310.
Shon o Went wishes to know, “Is it in harmony with the principles of Christianity for a Minister of the Gospel who is a printer, to print bad Books, etc.”
I think it unnecessary for Mr. S. to ask such a Question, but since not everyone has the same views about what is harmful, therefore, I shall take the following rule to answer the Question.—There is no place to fault some Minister who is also a printer, about printing any religious books, whose Authors who strive to prove the truthfulness of the Bible. Religious Freedom together with our obligations to give the right to every man to judge for himself, in light of the divine revelation, obligates us to do so. But as for those who publish any books, or prints them, who try to uproot the religion of the mild Immanuel, such as books on atheism, the Muslim Koran, and the trash of the Book of Mormon, as divine truth, when there is no difference between them and Atheism, or Mohammedism. Let us be consistent with the pattern of the blessed God to classify the infidels, Muslims, or the followers of the mad Joe Smith, as those who bear the sign of the beast, and therefore, are enemies of the divine truth. I trust that this will satisfy S. from Went; let him read the treatise on “The Freedom of the Press,” in the Treasury for August, 1846.
Yours,
Efrog Gadarn
Rhydybont
[Editor’s note] There is no mention made about the Mormons in the Treasury, and for that we have allowed the observation of our Correspondent out in their circle.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—January, pp. 31–32
https://
Mormons
There is no more pitiful view on human nature in its present condition than to see it lowered to be beguiled by this shameful and blasphemous deceit. The following account appeared in the Ottoway Free Trader, which is most certainly true: “It appears that the prophet Strang needs a new house, and he determined that he would need his followers to build it for him. He called them together and told them that the Lord had decided to endow them with extraordinary gifts if they built the house for their ‘prophet.’ They began the task without delay; they built the house within a short time, and then they went to the prophet to obtain the gift. All the saints gathered together in the same place; the prophet and they went through a great many rites, such as head anointing, feet washing, etc., and he concluded everything by anointing their heads with some mixture with a strange odor to it. After that, the prophet led them to another room where they were to receive the gift, and to be from then on completely safe from the darts of Satan. That room was completely dark. In this dark room their heads radiated like the shining of the sun, and great was the rejoicing of the saints! But unfortunately, it so happened that someone doubted the whole miracle, and he took some of the mixture with which their heads had been anointed, and upon examining it he discovered the whole deceit. It was nothing but a mixture of oil and phosphorus, and thus it was not the ‘supernatural light,’ but instead it was the most bold-faced of lies. The blasphemies of the prophet Strang, in defense of himself, are too ghastly for us to report. Stupidity, impudence, and blasphemy are the characteristics of this wicked deceiver.”
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—February, pp. 37–38
https://
The Mormons
Mr. Editor.—Be good enough to give a corner of your Treasury to the following things. As for the notice, I judge that it is best to print it as it is, for the everlasting shame of the memory and name of the scoundrel Joe Smith, and for the everlasting shame of his mad and foolish followers-“Three murderers at large.—Governor Reynolds has offered a reward of six hundred dollars for the apprehension of O. P. Rockwell, the Mormon assassin of Governor Boggs, and Joseph Smith as an accessory; or three hundred dollars for each of them. Also a reward of one hundred and fifty dollars for James Bratton, charged with the murder of William Claybrook; and one hundred and fifty dollars for John Taylor, charged with the murder of L. D. Bowen.—New York American, Oct. 10, 1842.” Dear Welshmen, here are the founders of the pure religion for you! Here’s a shining man for the eternal God to choose to set up his kingdom on earth!! A man, because he helped to kill an American governor, fleeing like Cain long ago, and the government printing Handbills, and offering rewards for his capture! May hell be surprised! That one Welshman could sink so low, and lend an ear to listen to the followers of such a crowd! Note further this evil man’s way of continuing while he could with his worldly treatment. It once happened that food was rather scarce in Nauvoo, but in order to keep the disciples together Joe smith found quite an easy way of fulfilling their need; he took this verse, “For the cattle upon a thousand hills are mine.” Next, he appointed and set up an official to whom he gave the honorable title of “The Lord’s butcher.” His job was to search for and choose the best animals available and kill them, then to send them into Nauvoo to feed Joe’s starving disciples. And to make everything safe plenty of men just as unprincipled as Joe and his butcher were put under the authority of this Satan. Well, the question is, where did they get the animals to butcher? They were stolen from the settlers in every place for many miles round and about; and the saints were fed with these stolen animals. It is impossible to deny the above facts, see The Christian Messenger, pages 360, 361.
Mormon Miracle
They talk a lot about their miracles, “the thousands that have been seen,” etc., and here is one they do not talk about: A newspaper by the name of “The Ottawa Free Trader,” mentions a miracle which is worth writing down, translating, and publishing for the monoglot Welsh. A famous prophet by the name of Strange, needed a house to live in, and he decided to get one at the expense of the deluded foolishness of his stupid and foolish followers. He called the Satanists together, and announced that if they would build his house that the Lord had authorized him to declare to them that they would be paid with a gift, or a supernatural endowment. The building was soon finished. Consequently, they all went to the prophet to request and receive the heavenly and miraculous blessing. The prophet Strang continued in his promise, and commanded them to gather together in the Church, so they could all participate together in receiving the heavenly gift. They all came together, and the prophet took them through several ceremonies, namely the washing of feet, and of their heads, etc., etc., and last of all, he anointed all their heads with some composition which had a very unusual and strange odor. Then he commanded them to go to another room, which was as dark as the darkness of Egypt many years before, convincing them that in that room they would be made partakers of the miraculous Gift, which would be in a remarkable manner and method, and a visible revelation from the Holy Spirit, which would make them from then on eternally safe from all schemes, deceptions, and temptations of Satan, etc. After they went to the dark room, sure enough, every head radiated like the shining of the sun, and great was the happiness and rejoicing of the Saints in the power of such a miracle, each one with his skull like the light. But another prophet by the name of William, destroyed all the glory, even though his own head was full of light; despite that, he suspected deceit in all this, and what did the villain do but take some of the oil away by stealing it, for the purpose of testing it through some research; and it was discovered that it was a kind of composition of oil and phosphorus, and that it was all satanic and devilish deception. Like an honest man, the prophet William seized the fact, and divulged the secret of the prophet Strange before the entire congregation. The prophet, despite all his devilishness, failed to deny it and defended the deception; but slowly and shamelessly he admitted the whole matter: and consequently, he delivered a sermon to justify his deed, through which he endeavored to prove that it was by natural means similar to those he used that Moses and Christ worked their miraculous deeds; but all his deceit did not accomplish the purpose of keeping William with them; he left the Deists forever, as any man with common sense would do. If any Saint or Satan doubts the veracity of the above fact, let him read the Weekly Dispatch for October 31, 1847.
W. R. Davies
Dowlais
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—March, pp. 76–78
https://
Dowlais Reverend and the “Satanists”
To the editor of the Treasury
Sir, — Since your publication is free to oppose the ‘Satanists’, it is reasonable to expect it to be free also to put out a word on their side; and because of that I am going to say a little at present. I had previously heard that the Rev. W. R. Davies, Dowlais, had got hold of something strange against the ‘Satanists’, as he calls the Saints, and has published it in the True Baptist, but Mr. Davies’ loyalty towards his country was not demonstrated sufficiently through the Baptist rather the Treasury had to be set to the task too. It is strange how a man is disappointed; I thought that our fellow-countrymen would never again have Mr. Davies’s service in opposing the ‘Saints,’ when I saw the following from him in the Star of Gomer for December, 1847: — “Let me be allowed ONCE and for all, to note the following” (page 375). “And following my thoughts now, I shall not pay any attention to them ever again, but let them alone in peace to die in their filth” (page 376). But this servant of God must have considered that it would be better for him to slander the ‘Satanists’ a second time, even if he told a few lies by doing that, so that he could excel over his fellow-servant, the archangel Michael, who ‘durst not bring against Satan a railing accusation,’ when disputing about the body of Moses. [Jude 1:9] Michael left the Lord to rebuke Satan; but Mr. Davies thinks it is better for him to rebuke the ‘Satanists’. The world has turned upside down, I should think; accusing and saying bad things was formerly Satan’s work, but now it is the work of one of God’s servants. Mr. Davies has an announcement about the ‘scoundrel Joe Smith’, which is that a large sum of money had been promised for catching Joseph Smith, who was an accessory to the murder of some people in 1842, as well as several other things, and which is to be seen in the latest Treasury; and Mr. Davies says at the end—’To deny the above facts is impossible. See the Christian Messenger, pages 360 and 361.’ Well, then, I shall make no attempt at that; but I can say something else, which is that I heard that the ‘scoundrel Joe Smith’ had been imprisoned and killed, but that I never heard that he was proved to have killed anyone himself. Also, I would like to know if the Christian Messenger is as truthful as the Bible, and if one can depend on its testimony as infallible?
Not only has Dowlais’s godly and respectable minister found the aforementioned things against the ‘Satanists’, but he was so successful as to see in the Treasury for January the ‘Mormon Miracle’ which the prophet Strang performed, somewhere far, far away from Dowlais, which ‘Miracle’ also appeared in the Revivalist the month before that, with some of the facts different, if I remember rightly. But in any case, before the country could swallow something like that, it was necessary for the Rev. Mr. Davies, Dowlais, to recompose it, and seal it as truth with his three names. ‘If any Saint or Satan,’ says the servant of God, ‘doubts the truth of the above fact, let him read the Weekly Dispatch for Oct. 31, 1847,’ What is this publication, is it an inspired one, I wonder? Since the above story is fact, it would be vain to assert to the contrary; but something else can be said, as before, which is that the prophet Strang sent a defense of himself (if the Treasury is believed) to the Ottowa Freetrader, but they refused to publish it, which was fair, of course. Also, the ‘Satanists’ are now in Wales, that is the followers of the ‘scoundrel Joe Smith’, and something can be known about their rites, and what they believe. Neither Joe nor Paul has given an order to take Saints or Satan to a dark room, nor to anoint anyone with oil except those who were sick. Nothing agrees with Joseph Smith’s promises in Mr. Davies’ letter, any more than in the letter of brother Job Pantteg from America (see January Revivalist), who says that a dove the size of a horse was beating its wings on the water when Joe Smith’s disciples were being baptized there, and that some (clever) people found out that it was Joe who had dressed as a dove, to imitate the Holy Ghost!!! The scripture to prove that was to send for the original copy which is in the possession of Job from Pantteg, which could be had by paying for the postage! I commend the Rev. D. Rees, Llanelli, for publishing it, in order to revive the nineteenth century.
The Dowlais Reverend has recently put all his energy into the Lord’s work of destroying the ‘Satanists’, and that before their ‘time’; and it was he who was chiefly instrumental in employing the Rev. E. Roberts, Rhymni, (one of Wales’ ablest orators, and a man who can compose verses ‘at break-neck speed’), to give the Satanists the ‘home stroke’. This excellent orator would make even Joe Smith’s big hands prove him a devilish trickster! The last ‘stroke’ has been given, although the Satanists are increasing by the score for a while; and Mr. Davies’s prophecy (see the Star of Gomer, Dec. 1847) is yet to be fulfilled, although that Capt. Jones claims that Mr. Davies repudiates prophecy in this age. His prophecy is as follows:—‘The “SATANISTS” will very soon be finished; in the aftermath, some will be seen here and there coming back to ask for their places in our Churches,’ (page 368). Mr. Davies can foresee all right, but he does not know how to act afterwards; consequently, he needs a revelation, and instead of praying to God for it, he thinks it better to call upon the Rev. Daniel Jones, Felinfoel, who is an ‘experienced old Minister’. According to the above prophecy, the Satanists are soon to come to seek membership with the Baptists, after the ‘home stroke’ has reached its end; and Mr. Davies wants to know from the Minister of Felinfoel if they can be accepted for communion. Why the Satanists should choose the Baptists before any other sect, is a matter to be explained. Can it be supposed that the Baptists are more suitable creatures to associate with Satanists than any other party? Dear me! Whatever the case, Mr. Jones answers his ‘beloved brother’ from Dowlais, in the January Star, saying, ‘I think we should be very circumspect; that is what I will be until the next Star, and I hope that I will satisfy you then.’ He did not announce anything in the next Star: I hope, for the sake of Mr. Davies, that no accident has befallen him, or how will the fate of the poor Satanists be decided? Mr. Jones, in his long-winded answer, sounds as though he tends to be unfavorable to the Satanists, as far as he has expressed his thoughts. Perhaps, indeed, it would be better for the Baptists to accept them: they could put them to sit, if need be, in some corner of the Chapel; and if they do not pull long faces well, maybe they can increase the show in the collections. But the question is, does Mr. Davies know whether the Satanists are sure to come to the Baptists, or not? They must have some sham of a Holy Ghost somewhere; and if the Baptists do not believe that that is available now, there is room to suspect that they will go to some other denomination. Mr. Jones, Felinfoel, in the aforementioned answer, says of the Satanists that they speak of ‘being filled with the Holy Ghost in a very light and carnal way, without understanding anything about the nature or the work of the blessed personage. Were they to consider the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, they would not presume to think that it is given at present, after the establishment of the kingdom.’ It is quite likely, if the Satanists see that statement, that they will keep away from the Baptists, in any case. If the Baptists want to keep away from them, they had better not change their opinion.
Now, I am concluding by giving one piece of advice. If the word of the prophetic Reverend from Dowlais comes to pass, and ‘Satanism’ expires, as the Rev. D. Rees, Llanelli, believes, and that suddenly, it would be better to send to Iorwerth Glan Aled to compose an Elegy, which he can do ‘at great speed’; or if it expires gradually, no one will be better than the Minister of Felinfoel, for he is ‘quite circumspect’, and can treat the Satanists as dearly as anyone.
Yours earnestly,
AN OBSERVER
Feb. 2, 1848
We hope that none of those who receive the Treasury will take offense for our having published this one time an article of the foregoing nature, although it is not entirely in keeping with the principles of our publication.—Editor.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—June, pp. 168–70
https://
Mormonism
Mr. Editor—I sent a few notes to your TREASURY, which appeared in last February’s (issue), and it seems that they had a good effect in the satanists’ camp, so that someone who calls himself by the pseudonym of “Observer” became agitated in the March DRYSORFA, but he did not dare to deny one of the facts noted in mine of February; but left them as they were. It is hard to struggle against truths as bright as the sun; yet it is clear that the “Observer” has not observed many things; else he would know of the Christian Messenger, and the Weekly Dispatch, among the most well known newspapers in the kingdom, etc. But I can do nothing concerning this failing, but give fair play to the “Observer” for not setting about denying the truth and asserting lies, by endeavoring to preserve Jo Smith and his murderous and thieving American followers. But he freely admits like an honest man, saying, “Well, I shall not attempt that, (endeavoring to justify them), “but I can say something else.” No doubt plenty can be said, but it is difficult to justify evil men. Fair play once again to Mr. “O.” He does not endeavor either to defend the prophet Strang and his phosphoric miracle, (see the TREASURY for last February). But only that my friend did not take careful enough notice, although his name is “Observer”, of the story in the TREASURY; he says “I can say something else, as before, which is that the prophet Strang sent a defense of himself to the Ottawa Free Trader, (if the TREASURY is believed).” Where in the TREASURY did he see that? No, he could not be barefaced enough to attempt such a thing, and consequently, it will be foolish of anyone else to endeavor to defend him, when he could not have done so for himself, etc. Mr. “O” half complains because I wrote to the TREASURY, when I had previously promised in the STAR “that I would make no more comment on them, but would leave them alone to die in their stench”; it is quite likely that he did not know that the article he notes was written before the STAR one; but you, Mr. Ed., are well aware of that. A great deal of talent shines forth again in this piece by Mr. “O” with regard to my question to the Rev. Daniel Jones, Felinfoel, “How to behave toward them, when some come back, etc.” To this “O” asks, “Why the Satanists should choose the Baptists before any other sect is a matter to be explained. Can the Baptists be presumed more suitable creatures to associate with Satanists than any other party?” It is strange how dull the “Observer” is here again; does he not know that it is with the Baptists that I am involved, and that I have no authority to accept, or reject, in any other denomination, etc. I see nothing else worth my notice in the work of Mr. “O”, let us leave it at that. I have not seen any of the foolish and untruthful books that are published by them under the title “Star of the Saints”, for months, except the one for last March, I had quite a bother before I got hold of that, and the only reason for me to seek it was hearing that some satan said in it, that a big man with me had joined the Satanists, which I would never have believed if I had not read it. We shall come across this again before we finish. This pamphlet is remarkably comprehensive. The lengthiest piece it contains is what it calls, “A pagan proves two of the sectarian Rabbis to be liars”. In the beginning we have the following story—“Some time ago one of the persecuting Rabbis of Independia came arm in arm with one of the haughty students of Trefecca, into the house of one of the saints, who had been a sectarian preacher like them, and great gifts were demonstrated there by the saints, until the two preachers, if they are believed, were rendered as stupid as two bullocks. It was a pagan who convinced them. Good heavens, the saints calling their own brother a PAGAN, what a surprise!—Some black man begging, etc., around the place has been proselytized by them, and it is he they say who can tell if the strange tongues are correct in the church. Well done, Hindu, no doubt he takes delight in living off the backs of a swarm of hotheads. But, who is the preacher in whose house all these great things happened? Oh, a man who went to pray he says, as he was going to bed one night, leaning on some old “big, empty hamper, and by the time he got up the next morning, it was full of shoes, the most beautiful Jane Boots the man ever saw.” (See the last STAR OF GOMER, page 113.) Well, we shall leave the whole story to rest in the hamper. Next, “Return of the prodigals”. Among them some Herbert Walters, from Dowlais is mentioned, that is the one that Mr. Davies called two of the main leaders of the Mormons, etc. It seems strange to me to refer to one as two. Is the writer in his right mind? I do not know the man, and I am not aware of having seen him or heard of his name before. Let us proceed. The next foolish folly we have is the old Editor method, that is a comment similar to John the Soup on the Reformer, Star of Gomer, Apostolic Witness, Baptist, etc., but they are not worth noticing. Bless them for the satanists, they are just as spiritual as the Mormon Bible. He notes some Baptist preacher, next, who was exiled to Botany Bay, for stealing. He was given his just deserts, if he stole; but that was not so strange, for he was not filled with the Holy Ghost, nor in possession of the gift of miracles, nor had he the certainty that he was a child of God, etc. To see a person like this stealing is very surprising; yes, a man who can “speak with tongues, and who is called and endowed directly and infallibly”, yet he steals a dictionary. What a surprise! “The excommunication of Philip Seix, Monmouthshire, from the church.” This is a piece with talents; they announce “that this person had yielded to such an extent to the influences of the devil; that they failed to discipline him, that they cast him out of the church, and that he is, poor thing, in the Lunatic Asylum. Well, well, what a state of affairs, the devil has defeated the saints. Oh fie, for shame, they say they fought with him time after time, according to the commandment of Jesus Christ, in Mark 16:18. Brothers W. Phillips and A. Evans, fighting hard with the devil, casting him out, and he coming back time after time, and in the end it was old Nick who carried the day. The demon of Nantyglo is a terrible demon. Notice, Mr. Editor, that it was the devil of Nantyglo that prevented them from giving Blind Daniel eyes, and that still prevents them from giving Little Maggie in Merthyr a hip. He’s an old wag of a devil, this one; I heard them say that they were casting them out in hosts in Dowlais; but here they themselves have to yield to the devil of Nantyglo. Oh Lord, what shall we do in case the nasty old satan of Nantyglo should come here to Dowlais? We were fairly confident before, and if happened that we saw some man more accursed that the next, we always decide to send him to the saints to be cast out; but here all our hope is at an end, lest it be the Nantyglo demon that is in the man; and after the saints failed the state officials of the Lunatic Asylum were able to handle the old saint and the devil; it is surprising that any man in his senses believes such folly. The talented piece in question ended by threatening the law dreadfully on whoever says that WE or W. Phillips, robbed the above Phillip Seix of his money, or of a penny’s worth either. Saints punishing their enemies, it is? Worse still, see Matthew ——. Poo! What use is speaking of Matthew or Mark to satanists. There is an old proverb among the Welsh –“If you do not punish a thief, a thief will punish you.” The best punishment they should inflict is to try to defeat the Nantyglo devil, and until then it is foolish to threaten to punish his children. There is no time for me to defend myself and your readers, on the basis of folly, and hag-like tales, which fill the silly pamphlet in question. Only one more word about Dowlais. They say their increase is remarkable in listeners, etc., here; “that the room the saints had become too confined”. We in Dowlais know the truth better. As soon as Mr. E. Davies at the inn where they were at that time took them in, he sent them away from there without delay, and the reason for that was, he says, “That no responsible men would come to the house; yes, even his best friends, because such a characterless, low, and base, in every sense of the word, crowd gathered there,” after they realized that they had been shown the door, they went to look for a room in the next tavern; and that inn-keeper said (to his credit) that there was no sum of money that would induce him to let such characterless scoundrels under his roof, etc. and if anyone doubts this fact, let them inquire of Mr. Evan Davies, Dowlais Inn. Yet, nine have been baptized there (Dowlais) since the beginning of January, one of whom was a right hand man to the Rev. W. R. Davies, he was a secretary in his meeting house, and one of the trustees, etc. I fear the devil of Nantyglo has taken possession of the man who wrote this brilliant story. The old satan, father of all the satans, could not have uttered more hellish lies. Remember that. It is certain that we expelled a man some time ago, and he went to them; and he received the Holy Ghost in a miraculous way, I say, while under the laying on of hands of the Elders, but in what part of his body would you think, Mr. Editor? In the bottom of his belly, and it was there for a time as a fever; but it has moved some weeks ago from his belly to under his armpit. I am of the opinion that he was the trustee, etc., but my view is that he is as suited to filling an Archbishop’s chair as he is to keeping any kind of accounts; to be an official, or trustee. They could just as well claim that he is the owner of the whole Dowlais works. This is enough about this too. Two others of Mr. Davies’s members were baptized after him, and several before that, although Mr. Davies asserts that only one old woman went from him to the saints. Poo, Poo, why was it not said that there were hundreds; that would be just as accurate; I say that one old woman went from Caersalem, and one woman from Elim, the wife of the man who has the Holy Ghost under his armpit; and I could name women in Dowlais who are now covered in wounds and bruises that they got from their husbands, if it were fitting to call them that, who are really and truly satanists; and please note, making up “the noble congregation”; and all these wounds, because they refuse to join the saints; it would be easy to name them, but to what end? Now, Mr. Editor, I request that you give space to the above things in the TREASURY, so that the public may see such obvious and unveiled lies as make up all their stories. Who in his right mind will believe a word from their lips, while they are under the authority of the devil of Nantyglo? There is not so much as one man of substance and influence as a MAN in their midst; NOT ONE in Dowlais, anyway, and they are only the objects of scorn with the irreligious; and objects of pity with every man who fears God. But the greatest surprise of all is, that the respectable priests of the Nonconformists and of their fellow-countrymen did not lead the spies, when they came this way, to the fools in question, this is where they found honey, fat, and cream, to slander the Welsh. To hear one claiming that the Holy Ghost is in his belly, another with it under his armpit, the next having seen and spoken to Christ personally, etc.; others casting out devils the way they walk, all but the devil of Nantyglo. Here are wonderful things to fill the blue books, etc.
I am your compatriot and well-wisher,
W. R. DAVIES.
Dowlais
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—October, p. 306
https://
Edmund Jones, Graigarw, sends a question to “Caerwysion”—Sir, Your excellent Lectures in the on Atheism, have silenced atheism in this area. Together with others, I wish for you to be so kind as to give to us through means of the Treasury the Lecture delivered by you lately in Glamorgan, on the beginning of the fall of Mormonism. By doing so you will do me a favor as well as the public in general.
Edmund Jones
Graigarw
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—November, p. 350
https://
Jail
We understand that one of the Mormon priests has been put in the jail in Carmarthen for debt, by the authorities of the Lower Court; the Saints say, justifiably so, that the reason for their inability to perform miracles is the lack of faith of men. Why do they not work a miracle for this believer, by causing the doors of the prison to open and allow him to go free? Or why did Thomas the Blacksmith, their authorized prophet, not tell him that such a thing could happen to him? We hope that this lesson will teach this creature, when he comes out, to think more about his calling, and not allow himself to be hoodwinked any more by the Mormon sorcery and their crazy followers.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1848—December, p. 367
https://
You ask, “Are the miraculous gifts imparted in the present day, as the Mormons claim?
No, they are not.
- Because there is no example of such gifts with any group of believers at the present time, neither with the Mormons, except for deceit and lies for such gifts. If it were useful, we could note many of their tricks in this regard.
- The emphatic witness of Paul is that they would fail, 1 Cor. 13:8. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. All these things which are to vanish are spiritual gifts, namely those parts of the spiritual gift which the Spirit activated at that time, imparting each one individually as desired. It is better to believe Paul than to give credence to the deceitful assertions of the followers of Joseph Smith.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—February, pp. 53–54
https://
The discovery of such an abundance of gold has had a remarkable effect on the inhabitants of the surrounding areas. Men who were previously taking pieces of land and raising sheep, cattle, horses, etc., have left their homes and have gone to the mines. Laborers are leaving their jobs, merchants their shops, sailors their ships, and all are looking toward the gold fields to make their fortune. The surrounding land is as if it had been depopulated. It is said that the Mormons have gotten hold of an abundance of gold near the Salt Lake. All the Mormons are leaving California to search for gold on the shores of the Salt Lake. It is said that by the 1st of March in New York they will have received about three million dollars, and from then on they will receive one million each month. Such an abundance of gold is certain to lower the worth of gold throughout the world. What effect will this have on the financial situation of England? That is what is being asked by everyone in American these days. It is said that the moral condition of the gatherers of gold is frightful; the wickedness of their most dreadful behavior is growing continually. The sailors work for a short time, and then they spend their gains. They pay from seven to eight dollars for a bottle of liquor, and having spent it all, they start over again. Sickness and death are increasing greatly there, and when one after the other dies, they are thrown aside with the greatest indifference, without so much as a handful of earth to cover them.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—March, p. 94
https://
Departure of the Mormons
The inhabitants of Swansea were thrown into a state of astonishment and uncommon agitation on Tuesday, the 13th of February, on seeing so many wagon and carts coming into the town, with about three hundred people after them, with the intention of leaving on the steamship Troubadour, for Liverpool, and thence towards the Salt Lake, in California. They say they do not mean to go in search of the gold ore, but that their intention is to pioneer and till the land. The whole town revealed a feeling of pity for them; and I would say too, what a shame that they are so foolish and ignorant as to be charmed and deceived into risking their property to the hand of men of the worst character in the world, who do not intend to do them any good; but their purpose is to do business with the product of the work of the people who are charmed by them, and that for the benefit of the leaders. Even though the fools promise themselves heavenly bliss in California, yet we think, in all conscience, that it would be nearly as well for them to go straight to hell. Many of them were responsible farmers, who had sold all they possessed, and it was said that one or two of them were quite rich, and these help the “poor saints” to go across, we heard that one woman from Carmarthen was paying the transport costs of forty of them. They say they expect many of their brothers from the North to meet them in Liverpool. Some spirit impels us to say, “Thank goodness, to be rid of so many fools from Wales.” But at the same time, we feel sad because so many of our compatriots are being enticed to destruction by these cheats. Several score if not a few hundred have left from Merthyr Tydfil, and we are told that several widows who had buried their husbands in Merthyr, had taken their husbands’ clothes with them, confidently expecting that they would meet them again alive and well in California. This is enough to make us believe that it is not in the nineteenth century that we are living!!
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—June, p. 181
https://
Farewell to the Saints
Farewell to the Smithites, or the Saints,
Ones great in gifts, and learning, and honor;
May you have success and clear weather,
Until you reach the land of California.
You were useful in our country,
To spread your ideas freely;
In Wales you dealt with the matters of the Word,
But your minds turned to the gold.
Before leaving the soil of your country,
It was gold you thought about undeniably;
And when asleep you would think that now
You were inside the big mine.
It was the gold fever that charmed you,
To leave Wales of great renown;
And a band of men of no grace,
That you would call cruel cheats.
But of what value are dear souls,
That are in this section of the world?
“Let them go to misery,” says your word,
“It will not be good for us to lose the gold.”
Farewell to your dreadful deceit,
Your people have gone over the sea,
According to your wish; your desire is great,
To collect poor earthly wealth.
T. ab Ieuan
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—October, p. 319
https://
Penygyrnos
The Deceit of the Mormons
There was an old woman living in Penygyrnos called Elinor Rees, who was 82 years old. Because of her great age she had recently lost her sight, and was very childish. Some weeks back, those lying cheats who are known as the ‘Saints were frequently calling on her son, with whom she was staying. They used to tell her that the only way to life was by obeying them, and that all the others were merely cheats. And if she were to come to them, not only would they assure her eternal life, but they would restore to her the use of her eyes, and she would be restored to health, and she would not have to fear the cholera. Under the influence of the above great promises, the old woman was enticed into being baptized a fortnight last Tuesday evening, at night. According to the Saints’ promises, she was now on safe ground, and with nothing to fear. But woe to the deceitful liars, it was quite different –having been baptized on Tuesday evening, by the unfeeling wretch Daniel Williams (alias Dl. The Pigman,) she was taken by the cholera on Thursday morning, and she died on Friday. It is obvious that increasing their number is the Mormons’ only endeavor, and they do not care what deceit or what lies are told by them in order to achieve their end and they care not what characters, be they thieves, or whores, or drunkards, and completely unconverted and unrepentant ones at that, they get into their communion. The said Daniel Williams baptized one last Monday evening completely drunk. Therefore, dear Welsh people, keep away from these cheats as from poisonous snakes. They are as Paul says: that God sent them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—November, p. 340
https://
Verses to Mormonism
Composed by the late J. W. Hughes, (Edeyrn of Anglesey)
Of all people, and of all pains,—I never saw
A worse one than Saintism;
Mormonism is a wall of peat,
Dung of the age, it has gone to nothing.
Remarkable speakers and claim-makers,—that they can
Speak an unknown tongue;
Oh! Joe Smith, it is a curse that
One county bears your dross.
Oh disgrace, we do not believe,—his funny
Religion we do not want;
False doctrine; its worse I know
Will never be brought out of hell!
They claim they can without fail,—wondrously,
Perform miracles without number;
And the Saint can, they tell me,
Do what you want on the spot!
Let him give if he can, to the blindman on his way,—his sight,
That he may see perfectly;
Let him give speech to a dumb person,
And then indeed his work will be very fine.
Or if he can, with no tinge of loss,—bring from the grave
A man to the world—they will rise
Up, to rightful enjoyment,
Then, Sir, I will become a Saint too.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—November, p. 351
https://
Mormonism in Llangadog
These noise makers boast a great deal, and there is no end to the lies they maintain. But despite everything, the following little story proves that the slander and the presumption they proclaim are not to the religious taste of Llangadog. One Sunday morning recently when I happened to be taking a stroll, Ben the Sausage had placed his fat body by the wall, and was shouting out his ungodly chatter, without so much as a man listening to him. It is quite likely that this Saint has bidden goodbye forever to this religious town, because it would not listen to one of the followers of Joe Smith, the murderer. In the next issue a specimen will be given of two sermons preached recently near the Amman iron works, so that the country may discover their presumption and their ungodliness.
A Traveler
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—November, p. 352
https://
Haverfordwest
An inquest was held recently in this place, on the body of G. Thomas, who was baptized the other day by John Thomas, stone mason, of Carmarthen, one of the “Latter-day Saints,” when he was ill with cholera. It appears that the deceased was persuaded in his sickness to be baptized by one of the saints, with the promise that the ordinance would save his life, but he died. The jurors’ verdict was that he had died of cholera, but that his death was hastened by being immersed, at his own request, when he was sick with the disease.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1849—December, p. 376
https://
The Saints
Many of our fellow countrymen will be very surprised to see the following, quoted from the New York Tribunal, (sic) October 17: “Good news from England. The Lord’s work is progressing excellently in England and Wales. From the time Captain Jones left Wales, over 800 have been baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ, and the sick have been healed through the power of faith, and many believe. The Millennial Star says that cholera has been cured, the mute been made to speak, the blind to see, devils are being cast out, fevers and lepers are being cured, and many of them after the doctors have given them up as incurable, but were cured almost immediately through the laying on of hands and the power of faith.” No one this side of the Atlantic had any idea that such wonders as these were to be seen in “the old country.”
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—June, p. 187
https://
California
This country, though the heaven or paradise of the Saints, has lately been extremely tumultuous with many signs in it of arrogance and evil and the corrupted heart of man as any country under the sun. From one end to the other it is full of stories of plundering and murders, and greed for gold has filled the souls of the inhabitants to overflowing. We cannot comprehend how it is that the Saintly fools have got it in their heads that the New Jerusalem is here, and that it is here that Jesus Christ will reign for a thousand years, if they do not think that our Savior possessed the same principle concerning murder and dishonesty as was in their murderous leader, Joe Smith.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—July, pp. 212–14
https://
Similarity of the Baptists and the Saints
Mr. Editor—Would you be so kind as to permit me through means of your Christian Treasury to say a word in favor of that sect which everywhere is spoken against; but there is no cause for us to be discouraged in this, for our dear Lord said, “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me they will also persecute you.” Although we have met with many opponents and much opposition, there has not yet been anyone who has attacked us, as Saints, so arrogantly and in such an unchristian-like manner as the Baptists, from whom we derive, and whose principles we profess and which we develop and pursue to their purest essentials. Truly has my Lord said, “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
But so that the public may judge fairly for themselves, I will endeavor, in the spirit and light of the Gospel, to show the similarity between us—as Baptists and Saints—and the greater consistency on our part regarding the principles professed by us both.
And now I comment firstly on the similarity; and secondly on those things in which the superiority of the Saints when compared with the Baptists, can be seen.
- The Similarity. The Baptists and the Saints hold that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation.
- The Baptists and the Saints believe that only believers should be the recipients of baptism, and that immersion of the whole body in water is the only form in which it should be administered.
- The Baptists and the Saints hold to a belief in miracles.
- The Baptists and the Saints hold that the New Testament, as it was received by our fathers, and as it is received by other Christians, is not the sufficient guide to salvation.
- The Baptists and the Saints assert infallibility and that they are the only successors to the apostles; that popery and errors are to be found in every other denomination.
- The Baptists and the Saints receive people into the church according to the apostolic example—through the laying on of hands.
- The Baptists contend that nobody but the Baptists will be on the earth in the millennium—the Saints contend that nobody but the Saints will be on the earth in the millennium.
Now, gentle reader, behold the principles professed by the Baptists and the Saints laid before you as fairly and as clearly as it is possible for me to do, and by which they and we must stand or fall.
- I said in the first place that the Baptists hold that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation. For who, hearing the Baptists preaching and seeing them baptizing, is not a witness that they contend that this is the way, and the only way to be saved? What is this, reader, in effect, but to say that no one will be saved but those who have been baptized by full immersion? But their contention appears to be groundless, while they deny that forgiveness of sins and the second birth comes through baptism: but we, the Saints contend, and we have a witness of this in ourselves, that second birth and forgiveness of sins comes to us through baptism, and therefore we are consistent with our primary position, namely that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation: and that we are true successors to the apostles, who baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
- That the Baptists and the Saints hold that believers are the sole recipients of baptism. The Baptists say that after a man has obeyed the ordinance of baptism by full immersion once, there is no need for him to be baptized after that, even if he should become a blasphemous unbeliever, and show to the world, over a period of years, through an indecent and ungodly lifestyle, that he was not a believer when he was baptized by them. If, after that, that man should return to the faith, and be brought to believe unshakably in Christ, they accept him a second time without baptizing him. But as for the Saints, they judge that it is not fitting for such a man to be received as a member of the Church for a second time, without being baptized once more, and that his first baptism was no better than that of a baby, as that baptism was not a believer’s baptism. The Baptists say, ‘One faith, one baptism;’ very true; the Saints say the same thing; but it is clear that the man was not in possession of the same faith when he was baptized, and because of that his baptism was of no significance as it was not a believer’s baptism but that of an unbeliever.
- That the Baptists and the Saints hold to a belief in miracles. The Baptists contend that there is no danger to a man or woman in any circumstance, even in the absence of miracles, in being immersed in the freezing element, as everyone foolish, rash and presumptuous in the extreme knows. Some of them go so far as to specify that the water is cool when they are to be baptized. Such a contention is contrary to the gentle nature of the Gospel which says to every man, ‘do thyself no harm,’ and contrary to various facts, because we are witnesses of more than one person who, in weakness, illness and old age has been baptized, not in a figurative sense, but according to the true, literal meaning of the word, to death! Now we see that if baptism by full immersion is ordained by a loving God, then miracles of necessity are inseparably linked to the ordinance. Even as is noted in our lands, not to mention Russia, Greenland and Lapland, whose waters are perpetual ice. Now, if miracles do not accompany baptism by full immersion, it is in some places disadvantageous, and in other places impossible, and in every place dangerous, and often cruel; and, therefore, the general assertion that miracles are more consistent with what we profess, namely baptism by full immersion.
- I said also that the Baptists and the Saints believe that the New Testament as it was received by our fathers, and as it is received by other Christians, is not the sufficient guide to salvation. They greatly criticize the Saints because they have received a revelation through their famous prophet Mormon; but they of all people should not condemn us for this, because in “that which they judge another, they condemn themselves.” Do they not have their new Gospel, and their new Epistles in part? And did they not end up separating from the British and Foreign Bible Society because they refused to adapt and print their Testament? It is not our wish to offer, and may God forbid that we ever offer, a word from the testament of our Lord Jesus Christ; on this Testament we base our religion, through this Testament we defend our religion, and we consider our religion unworthy of our support if we are obliged to change the great and important truths of heaven in order to defend it.
- I said that the Baptists and the Saints assert infallibility, and that they are the only successors to the apostles; and that dreadful popery and errors are to be found with everyone else. This contention again appears strange and unreasonable, unless they are perfect; because before we can claim infallibility, we must possess essential perfection itself, or be under the direction and influence of some perfect being. Now in this again, the reader will see their inconsistency, and our consistency, when we assure everyone that we are under the infallible direction of God’s Spirit
- I said that the Baptists and the Saints accept people into their Churches according to the example of the apostles, through the laying on of hands; this is how they ordain their ministers and deacons and receive people into membership. If they do not profess that they give the Holy Spirit like the apostles, what consistency is there in hypocritically concerning themselves with the outward show of ordination, and yet denying its true aim. But it is we who know that the Holy Spirit is given to us through the hands of the elders.
- I said that the Baptists contend that no one but Baptists will be on the earth in the millennium—and the Saints contend that no one but Saints will be on earth in the millennium. It is clear that this is a contention held by both sides, because if we look at the Baptists, there is no more sign of their overcoming the world now than there was hundreds of years ago, while we see that the Saints have succeeded in overcoming more of the world in a few years than the Baptists did in several centuries. O! brothers, do not oppose us because we break a new path; leave the shadow, lay hold of the truth; come forward, unite with the army and, “The Glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
A Saint
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—August, p. 250
https://
(Under the heading of “America”)
The Nauvoo Temple, which was built by the followers of the wretch Joe Smith, the Latter-day Saints, but which was purchased in March 1849 by the “Icarian Community,” was completely destroyed by a violent wind on the 27th of last May. But a more beautiful and larger edifice is being built in its place.
Congregationalist Treasury, September 1850, pp. 272–75
[This is the exact same article that appeared in the Seren Gomer, September 1850, pp. 261–63. He obviously sent the same article to both Seren Gomer and both editors printed them.]
https://
The Bungling "Saint"
Mr. Editor—I feel very thankful to you for space in the next Number of the TREASURY for the following few notes. You know that someone by the name of “Saint,” (the name should be Satan), claimed to show in the Treasury for last July, that there was great similarity between the Mormon devils and the sect that is known by the name, “Baptists.” There is no need to tell you, nor your observant readers, that the despised people who follow the scoundrel Joe Smith, consider everyone a heretic but themselves; consequently, we (the religious denominations of the world) nor anything pertaining to us in our religious character, cannot be Christians in the opinion of the followers of Satanic Joe: despite that, the Saint under scrutiny calls the Publication which pertains to a group of ungodly deceivers (according to their opinion) the “Scriptural Treasury”!!! A good beginning, at least. If the numerous and respectable denomination of the Independents do not belong to Christ, how can the books of that group be Christian? Explaining this is a considerable task even for elders and apostles. It is feared that the name Saint is but a cat’s paw in the hand of some monkey.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—September, pp. 272–75
https://
The Bungling “Saint”
Mr. Gomer,
I would feel myself most grateful to you for space for the following notes in the next issue of Star of Gomer. You know that someone under the name “Saint” (Satan the name should have been) claimed to show in the Congregationalist Treasury for last July, that there is a similarity between the Mormon fiends, and the sect known by the name Baptists. There is no need to tell you, nor your observant readers, that the despised community which follows the deceitful wretch Joe Smith consider everyone heretics except themselves; as a result, neither we (the religious denominations of the world) nor anything which relates to us in our religious character, can be Christian in the opinion of Joe’s Satanic followers. However, the Saint in question calls a Publication which belongs to a tribe of ungodly deceivers (according to their opinion) a “Christian Treasury”!!! A good start, at least. If the numerous and respectable denomination of the Independents do not belong to Christ, how can the books of that faction be Christian? Explaining this is a considerable task, even for elders and apostles. It is feared that the name Saint is only a cat’s paw in the hand of some monkey. The crow should be most watchful when in apparel or color that do not belong to it, lest it betray itself. A word will be said about this again before the Amen.
The Saint who is now under scrutiny says that Baptists believe that baptism is essential for salvation. The Baptists “maintain” that baptism is to be administered by submersing the body in water—they believe that that is the only way; and the Sprinklers I would think, believe that sprinkling is the proper way. Mr. Rees from Llanelli told the writer recently that he believed this, showing thereby that he is an honest and consistent man, and not some sort of fence sitter. I have belonged to the Baptists for a number of years, and I have not happened to have heard them speaking of how much or how little work is to be done in order for us to go to heaven; but they strive to do everything that He has ordained. They say that Noah’s task was to build according to the description; and that their honor and duty is to follow religion according to the New Testament, leaving the outcome to God. I find it hard to believe that even the “praiseworthy Apostle” can blame them for that. The Saint gives us to understand that everyone who has heard the Baptists, and has seen them baptize, is a witness that they place everyone in hell but themselves. This, if there were nothing else, proves that the scoundrel who wrote like this is closely related to the “father of lies.” It would have been more appropriate for him to call himself Satan than Saint, if he intended his name and character to match each other.
Men of narrow minds and evil principles are very prone to make every deficiency, be it ever so small and insignificant, into something denominational or national, although that deficiency may belong only to a few persons. They and logic do not know each other. It would be the greatest unfairness to say that all the Independents of Wales are fools, because one occasional fool dishonors his audiences. Many of the readers of the Star know that one of the ministers of the Independents has said recently that ten out of every dozen women in Wales are unfaithful; and that minister told the writers of these lines that Ieuan Gwynedd (one of the most important reformers of this age) has stained our character as a nation to a greater extent than any other man, by defending the daughters of Gomer, in the face of the impudent false accusation of their heretics; I think it would be very inhuman to accuse all respectable ministers of the sect in question of devising and writing lies relating to the women of Wales simiply because E. D. has misportrayed them. Would it not be very unfair to call Christ’s Apostles traitors because Judas sold his Lord? If he who calls himself Saint happened to hear someone, or some few, of the Baptists doubt the security of different denominations, does it not betray much unfamiliarity with us as a sect, or much poisonous prejudice against us, by saying that every one of us is guilty of the same thing? What is to be expected from a fool but foolishness? Biting, braying, and kicking are agreeable to a donkey’s taste; and devising and writing lies are delicious tasks for the children of his Satanic majesty. This, briefly, relating to the Saint’s first lie.
He has happened to meet the truth in the second; perhaps no lie was available at the time. He says that both we and they (the Mormons) believe that only believers are the subjects of baptism; this is our belief, as Baptists, at least; and I have heard that the mad followers of Joseph Smith do not play the game of baptism with any person if that person cannot walk on his own. Had Mr. Saint given us proofs in this article that he was a man of thought, in the middle category regarding divinity, a word or two could have been spoken with him concerning the rebaptizing he babbles on about under this heading; but the childishness and clumsiness of his article show that nature has been very sparing in the equipping of his head (if in fact it is a head); and the fact that he has written so many wicked lies in such a short article, makes his godliness considerably doubtful; but since these comments will be read by people who possess brains and principles, a comment or two are offered on this subject.
Some little men say that it does not matter what they think and what they say, that we should have spectacles to see the heart, if only believers are the subjects of baptism; that apostates should be baptized on their return because they did not really believe when they were baptized the first time. The Apostles baptized everyone who professed faith in Jesus Christ; the condition of Apostolic baptism was not true conversion, but the professing of belief in Christ. “If you believe” was the condition for everyone without exception. Seldom did they speak to their listeners of “lawful obedience,” “redemptive faith”, etc. They baptized Simon Magus on the said condition, without using any spectacles to search his heart. Since they did not search the inner secrets of Mr. Magus, it is not likely that the Holy Spirit expects us to search each other’s hearts. It is not because a man did not believe what he professed when he was baptized, and not because he does not believe that now, that he is in the land of apostasy now; but because he does not live up to that profession. A man can profess well, and yet live in a very ungodly way. Peter was disloyal; but not because he did not believe when he took up the cross of Jesus Christ; and there is no account of his being baptized on his reception back. The character which the Saint presupposes under this heading, shows with his ungodly life, apparently, that he did not believe when he was baptized; and in the following sentence, he says, “If this man were to be returned to the faith,” etc. How is a man returned to the faith, when he has never been in it? If he is returned to the faith, his first baptism was not an “unbelieving baptism”, as the Saint says; as a result, there is no need to rebaptize him on the assumption that he did not believe when he was received into Christ’s church. Is it not odd that an infallible Saint, and the leadership of “God’s infallible spirit,” weaves traps to trip himself! We intended to say more on this subject, but we must go on to the next lie; that is,
“That the Baptists and the others (may I be forgiven for not naming them often; I do not like breathing in foul air) support miracles.” He says that baptism in the absence of miracles is dangerous, disadvantageous, and cruel. Well done! This clearly shows that it is God who safeguards the Mormon lunatics from catching cold, etc., in the cold element, and miraculously at that!! If God defends them with his miraculous hand in the water, it is remarkable that he does not safeguard them from drowning each other in that element. Does not Christ ask for self-denial? Why do we complain of the disadvantages of baptism (if it is, in fact, disadvantageous)? We can bring this counterargument to bear against other religious matters. Do we not have accounts of the best of men getting to grips with the greatest disadvantages, with regards to temporal things, by taking up the Cross of Christ? Is it not the way of the cross, to a great extent, that is the way of religion? If baptism through immersion is dangerous and cruel, the only thing that can be said to answer this (although it is most unworthy of an answer) is that the most capable interpreters among different denominations say that it was practiced in the time of the Apostles, however much cruelty and danger is connected with its administering. It appears that it would be very good for Mr. Saint to consult some old woman regarding the physiology of human nature, and make an effort to glean a little common sense, before he can again take upon himself the task of teaching the readers of the Treasury as to what is beneficial and what is harmful to them.
Under the fourth heading, this libelous Saint, poor thing, says that we, the Baptists, do not believe that the New Testament, as we received it from our fathers, is a sufficient rule for salvation, and that we have a new gospel, etc. Perhaps this Saint and his father are aiming to establish their lies that we “change the mighty and important truths of Heaven,” on the fact that the Baptists, and other denominations, cannot agree concerning the translation of some word, or word, perhaps, most especially, in the New Testament. If a new translation means “a new gospel”, then there are many new gospels and epistles in the religious world; and it appears that they are multiplying. If we are talking like this, the gospels which were translated by Campbell are new ones, and the epistles whose translation Macknight has restored, are new ones. The two great men in question have “changed the mighty and important truths of Heaven;” however, the works of both get a welcoming reception from the best of the religious world’s sects. The Unitarians disagree with us regarding the translation of certain words: but the writer of these lines has not been given to understand that, because of that, we and they accuse each other of the wicked sin of “changing the mighty and important truths of Heaven.” One of the ministers of the Independents said recently when sprinkling babies, that the Sosinians and the Baptists have new Bibles; but if his opinion is as maladroit as his character, which is most likely, what he says is not worth attention. It is hoped that the Saint and he are on their own, in the work of reproaching their neighbors for new Bibles.
What does Mr. Saint mean by saying, “May God forbid that we ever offer a word from the Testament of our Lord,” etc.? Perhaps he intended to make his mind known to us in a “foreign tongue.” If so, a translator must be obtained in order to understand his mind in the aforementioned sentence. He blesses the readers of the Treasury with another sentence which is similar to the last in sense and literary beauty, part of which is as follows: “We found our religion on this Testament, with which we defend our religion.” Who can make sense of this? To what word does the feminine relative pronoun “which” refer? The poor Mormon (if in fact he is a Mormon), is just as talented as a writer as he is a reasoner! It is strange that men under the leadership of “God’s unfailing Spirit,” are so full of failings while trying to write their mothers’ language! If it is on “this Testament” that the Mormons “found their religion, with which they defend their religion,” what purpose does the Book of Mormon serve? Hearing Mormons argue for the sufficiency of the Bible as a rule for salvation, and at the same time, arguing so zealously for the appropriateness and necessity of the revelation of Mormon, shows that self-consistency is a subject of considerable import in their credo. Is not the accusation of being dissatisfied with God’s word as a rule for salvation more appropriate for Joe’s numerous and godly sect than for us? The cloven hoof shows itself very clearly in this piece. The common opinion is that the Saint is some weakling of an Independent, or some phantom Methodist, striving (but failing) to hide his literary ugliness, and his moral disgrace, under a pseudonym. I hope for the best; but I fear the worst.
The fifth subject is the infallibility of the Baptists, etc. To what infallibility do we claim the right? Is our opinion concerning Baptism referred to? If that is what is in question, I would say that the Sprinklers claim as much infallibility as do we. Mr. Rees, Llanelli, recently said (as was mentioned) that he firmly believes that sprinkling is the only method of baptism; and he added that he would not give communion to a Baptist on the consideration that he had been baptized; but that he would extend the communion to him on the assumption that he was godly. This is the opinion of one of the most famous and useful men the Independents have in Wales. If it is said that we profess infallibility, we testify, in defense, that the talented editor of the Revivalist professes as much infallibility as we do. If I were to be sentenced into the ditch on account of opinion or behavior, the consideration that Mr. Rees would be in the same ditch would be a great comfort to me in such a situation. If we said that we were more infallible than the Satanists, we would not be going astray very far. Everyone knows that we do not profess to be able to work miracles—our profession is in harmony with our fallibility; but the learned followers of Joey claim to work miracles, although they have never performed any. They constantly fail (however numerous their attempts) to meet any man possessing enough faith to receive a cure. They, of course, possess enough faith; so they should all receive a miraculous cure when ill. And if they, despite all their faith, cannot do anything that the ordinary people cannot, they are no better than we.
If the Mormon lunatics are led by “God’s infallible Spirit,” as the Saint says, why are they so fallible in every way? I ask them seriously whether it is “God’s infallible Spirit,” or a spirit of another “fashion”, which leads men to adulterate, steal books, and drown each other in rivers? What spirit brings the most ignorant riff-raff together to revile and curse everyone but themselves? What spirit teaches them to formulate and spread lies about angels and Jesus Christ? Before finishing with this section, the following passage is placed before the reader, as a specimen of the Saint’s skill as a Welsh Writer: “Because before we can claim infallibility, he must have the essential perfection in himself,” etc. What an excellent grammarian! The fact that scribblers like this are allowed to disfigure the pages of our Monthly Publications, is a disgrace to the character of Welsh Literature.
The laying on of hands comes under his paws next. What he says about this is more similar to the truth than what he spoke of before. It is true that some among the Baptists lay hands on the baptized on their reception into church communion; but it is not a general rule pertaining to the denomination, as being the best way. On the other hand, the practice is losing ground continually, and it is hoped that it will be in the land of oblivion in a little while. Those who practice “the laying on of hands” in our midst are not, after all, like the Mormons; the Baptists do not profess to impart any blessing through the practice; but the Mormon fiends pretend to bestow the Holy Spirit, although they are as incapable of that as of extinguishing the sun. Respect for an old practice influences the Baptists to use this procedure; they are similar to Israel worshipping the snake, its days having been numbered, while the Mormons, like Simon Magus, practice it for ambitious and selfish purposes. It would be very good for the Saint, poor thing, if a “lame Magus” or someone, could put a little something in his skull, either through the laying on of hands, or through some other process.
The last subject of the article in question is the position of the Baptists and the Saints regarding the millennium. This is the first sentence in it: “I said that the Baptists contend that no one but Baptists will be on the earth in the millennium—and the Saints contend that no one but Saints will be on earth in the millennium.” There is so much literary taste and skill in this wonderful sentence, that it should be engraved in stone forever; it is enough to immortalize its author’s name; it lists him amongst the most capable writers of the world! If there is any sense in it, perhaps it is this, that the Baptists believe that they will be chief during the thousand years, and that the Mormons believe that they will wield the scepter in that period. Does not every sect believe that they are to last? Do the Independents believe that they will fall into oblivion? Every consistent religious person maintains that his sect is the best; as a result, he is found to believe that it is to last. Having written like this, he says that this is only a contention on both sides,” which shows that the Saint looks upon us, and the Mormons, as two boastful and mendacious tribes. Here is Dick, showing his nose again, I would think; a crow in disguise does not have enough restraining grace not to caw. If it was in the face of the Baptists alone that he intended to vomit his venomous slime, he ought to have said that that was, and is, an assertion on their side. It is most likely that mental weakness, prejudice against the Baptists, together with trouble trying to hide himself, have led this little Saint into such confusion. It would be the same thing as trying to paint hell black to strive to slow the blackness of what he says about the success of Mormonism and the failure of the Baptists. In the end, he calls us brothers again! Why are ungodly heretics called brothers? “Clearing the way,” apparently, is the work of the Mormon; well done, certainly; the cream and backbone of mankind are the navigators usually. We are urged, in a most godly manner, to leave the shadow, etc.; a shadow of what thing, or things, do the ungodly heretics have? Perhaps it would be best to finish now; taking a long breath of unhealthy air is not a pleasant thing, in hot weather like the present. I end my article in Solomon’s words, “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.”
Mathetes [Greek for “one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice” or in religious contexts such as the Bible, “one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of view.”]
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—September, pp. 275–76
https://
The Saints and Their Tricks Again
Last Easter Monday, some of the people who call themselves the “Latter-day Saints” visited an old woman who lives at Penrhiwgwion, near Carmarthen. They extended the hand of friendship to her several times during the time they were there, and thus won her over to such an extent that she wished to be baptized by them that evening. But she delayed until the following Wednesday evening when she went to meet them; and they took her to one of the ditches near the town to immerse her, and then told her to pray in their manner. And she says that she prayed until her sweat fell to the ground. She sent a message to them on Friday evening, to say that she had received the testimony. They said that that was impossible until they had laid their hands on her head. The following Sunday they did this, and she was told to continue praying; and she did so. On Monday night, at 8 o’clock, she began to scream dreadfully; and God said to her several times, “Keep at it to the end, and I shall crown you.” And he said again, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and I shall wreak vengeance on the opponents of this my old handmaiden!!” He said further, (to the devil, probably,) “Stand back, stand back; do not touch my child.”
Then the old woman said, “Thy handmaiden’s strength is failing.” And her voice was to be heard weakening, because she was running around the house, whistling, shouting, and singing. She continued like that for six hours. She was the same way on Tuesday evening when three of the Saints came there to preach. On Wednesday evening, she did the same, and said that the Holy Ghost had commanded that milk be given to her. And her daughter, who was under the influence of the same fever, said, “The Holy Ghost tells me now to give her milk.” Then the old woman began to speak in a strange tongue, which the Saints translated as, “Hallelujah in glory to God.” She continued to repeat the above words for about ten minutes, and she said it was the Holy Ghost speaking. One of the neighbors said it was the evil spirit speaking. “No,” said she, “the evil spirit is with you; it is the God of heaven who is with me.” The Saintish brethren said that it was a devil that was in her, and they set about the task of casting it out. One of them went to a book, and four others laid their hands on her head; and one opened her eyes and said, “there is a devil in her,” and then he ordered it to come out. And when it was coming, he told them all to pray, lest it go into them. A lot of oil was given to her to drink, and she was told, to comfort her, that poor Dick had had to leave; but one of them said that he had been pulled back on the road as he was going home. The following morning, there were screams as before; and at about nine o’clock, she fell on the road in a faint, and she was taken to the house by some of the neighbors; and after coming round, she told them how the Saints had behaved towards her; but soon she began to speak in a strange tongue as before. Then three of the Saints came in, and they began to cast out the devil, but they failed. Then they sent for I. J., the high priest. And as he was approaching the house, one Saint shouted out, “See how the evil spirit recognizes the footsteps of the high priest.” By this time nearly all the people from the area had come together to see the devil being cast out. Now, one of the Saints put his hands on her head, and said that R. M. was blowing almost strong enough to turn a windmill. Then I. in an authoritative voice said, “I have authority from the Lord God Almighty to ‘command’ you out of this old sister!” “Oh, I will not come,” was the answer. Then I. said again, “I command you in the name of the Lord God Almighty, and his Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth, to come out of this old sister!” Then the devil asked, “Where shall I go? Have you a pig for me?” “No.” “Have you a dog for me?” “No.” “Where shall I go then?” “Go to hell.” “Oh no, I have a thousand years yet to trick men on the earth.” “Where have you been from the beginning of the world until now?” asked I. The devil answered, “I was in the garden of Eden, in Cain, in Saul the son of Cis; and I was in Catw Cardi,” (one of bad characters who lived in this area some years ago) “for eighty years; and I tricked her into stealing, and committing adultery, and she died of venereal disease; and now she is in hell with me.” “Well,” said I., “I command you to come out of this old sister.” “Where shall I go?” was the question again. “Go to Babylon,” said one of them. “What is your name?” asked the high priest. “Ysgraphiel.” “Were you in America in the time of Joe Smith?” “What did you say?” “Were you in America in the time of Joe Smith?” “Oh hush, hush,” answered the devil. “Who are we?” asked the high priest. “My children.” “Who are you?” “I am the Devil, father of lies.” Then I. ordered him again to come out. “No, I will not come out at your request; if Williams, New Church, or Jones, August Street, or Jones, Tabernacle, or one of the ministers of Carmarthen, ordered me to come out, I would have to come out at their request.” Then I. said that it had come out, and they left after laying hands on the head of Shan, the daughter. But before long the old woman was as bad as the first time; and so it was decided to send for Mr. Williams, the doctor, who after understanding her sickness, gave her medicines. And in a little while the old woman was herself. She had been a member of the Established Church for forty-two years, and she is now seeking fervently to regain her place, after undergoing the harsh treatment of Saintism.
If anyone doubts the truth of the preceding story, we hope they will be so kind as to send to the above old woman, who lives at Penrhiwgwion, near Carmarthen, and they will find out that it is all true, and much more than this story contains.
A Hater of Deceit
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—October, pp. 281–88
https://
Mormonism
Mr. Editor—At the request of several friends of the truth, I present the following Lecture to the attention of your numerous readers; in which the beginning, the history, and the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints are investigated.
Yours, etc.
Daleth
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5:21.
These words clearly allow that the Christian, during his religious sojourn, may encounter doctrines and customs, as well as the truthfulness of such, that may initially cause a slight bit of confusion. On such occasions the Apostle offers counsel, and says “Prove all things,” search them carefully and honestly; put them to the test of the Holy Scriptures; and then after proving them, reject that which is misleading, and “hold fast that which is good;” in other words, stand with the truth in all circumstances until the final hour of your life. The great duty contained in the words of the apostle, is, first, inquire, or search; then be unwavering. Scrutinize meticulously in order to ascertain the truth; be totally assiduous in the task of holding fast, or keeping the truth.
The topic of our research on this occasion, in the most specific manner, is extremely important. Over a period of nearly eighteen hundred years, the wise, godly, and good men have been teaching that miracles, revelations from God, and the appearance of angels ceased when the last of the apostles of Jesus died. It is said by the Mormons that now, yes, in our day, they are enjoyed in the true Church. A work, nearly as large as the Old Testament, is offered to us as a divine thing; and we are told that all who refuse to obey and submit to the teaching are sure to sink into everlasting destruction and damnation! The statements we offer are thoroughly researched, in a completely unbiased and methodical manner. From a Treatise called “Remarkable Visions,” written by Orson Pratt, “one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, of the Latter-day Saints,” we have Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, born in Sharon, a town in the United States, on December 23, 1805. When he was about fifteen years old, he was greatly impressed with the importance of being religious; and he began to read the Bible with much earnestness; and on one occasion, while praying in a grove of trees near his father’s house, we are told that he was favored with a most remarkable vision. He perceived in the sky a bright light; and the light gradually descended toward him, and finally, “he perceived two glorious personages.” He was told that his sins were forgiven. Soon after this he received another vision; an angel appeared to him, and told him among other things that he had been chosen to be an instrument in the hand of God to restore the true Gospel to the world; that the American continent in early times, had been inhabited by a remnant, or a part of the tribe of Joseph, who had emigrated from Jerusalem; that inspired men had lived among them who recorded several important accounts and facts, and several revelations pertaining to the Gospel of the kingdom; and that if he were faithful, these revelations would be brought to light through his instrumentality. From time to time further instructions were given to him by the angel; the place where the sacred records were located was shown to him; and on September 22, 1827, they were placed in his hands. He began to translate them; and in 1830, the translated part called the “Book of Mormon” was printed and published. A Church was formed in the state of New York; and to assist Joe in his administration, he was given a variety of revelations on every topic, several of which were published.
To better understand the topic at hand, we shall provide a quote or two. In the “Book of Doctrine and Covenants, selected from the Revelations of God, by Joseph Smith, President”—(Let us pay particular attention to the name)—we read, “Revelation to Joseph Smith, given April 6, 1830. Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ. Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith. Page 197 of the second European printing. Furthermore, in the revelation to Ezra Thayre, and Northrop Sweet, which was given in October 1830, the following statement is seen: “And the Book of Mormon, and the Holy Scriptures, which were given by me, for your guidance.” (Page 208) In the Book of Mormon, the angel is set out as saying to Nephi, “And the words of the Lamb will be revealed as a record of thy seed, as well as the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; so that all may be established as one.” (Page 27.) In the first quote, Joseph Smith is described as “an apostle of Jesus Christ, inspired by the Holy Ghost;” in the two others the Book of Mormon is placed as equal and of the same value as the Holy Bible. The point is obvious as follows: Joseph Smith was an “apostle” or a fraud; he was a worthless figure or a holy prophet. God gave through him in a practical manner the “Revelations” which he claims to have received, or else he was presumptuous and presented them to the world in a blasphemous manner to disguise his own lies as divine commandments.
After looking into these things, we have the right to expect that the character of the person, who proclaimed to have been honored with revelations from God, would be above reproach; that the manner through which they were received, together with all the accompanying circumstances also, would be above reproach; and that there would be the most obvious and undeniable proof, leaving no place for any reasonable doubt, as to whether they came from God or from man. After examining these things according to these criteria, we can do no less than reveal our surprise, upon thinking that there could exist one man so foolish as to maintain that the “Revelations” of Joseph Smith could claim a minute’s consideration. Not only are they evil things, but they are evil things that have been invented in an extremely evil manner. The marks of the fraud are seen in every page. For the benefit of that class whose lack of learning renders them incapable of recognizing the deceit, we shall proceed to present a few obvious reasons, in order to prove that the revelations given to the world by Joseph Smith, are blatant fiction.
I. Notice the character of Joseph Smith. The foremost question in a court of law is always, what character does the witness portray? In the most unimportant things, if the character of the party who is giving testimony can be called into question in any way, an extremely important point will have been won; but it is far more important with regard to the matter we have before us at present! We need not search for a reason to show that God will not give revelations through an evil man; for if men will not believe a prophet when he speaks of worldly things, they cannot believe him when he professes to speak in the name of God. For this reason, the apostle Peter says, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” 2 Peter 1:21, and 3:2. Let us apply this principle to Joseph Smith. What did his neighbors say about him? Frightening facts; all the accounts given set him out as anything but a “holy man of God!” Isaac Hale, whose daughter he married, in that which he said before Charles Dimon, a justice of the peace, is published as follows: “I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr., in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called ‘money-diggers;’ and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure. His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man, not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father. Smith, and his father, with several other ‘money-diggers’ boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards many years since. After these occurrences, young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length asked my consent to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused, and gave my reasons for so doing; some of which were, that he was a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve; he then left the place. Not long after this, he returned, and while I was absent from home, carried off my daughter, into the state of New York, where they were married without my approbation or consent. * * * Joseph Smith resided near me for some time after this, and I had a good opportunity of becoming acquainted with him, and somewhat acquainted with his associates and I conscientiously believe from the facts I have detailed, and from many other circumstances, which I do not deem it necessary to relate, that the whole ‘Book of Mormon’ is a silly fabrication of falsehood and wickedness, got up for speculation, and with a design to dupe the credulous and unwary; and in order that its fabricators may live upon the spoils of those who swallow the deception.”
This was the opinion of Isaac Hale about Joseph Smith, an “apostle of Jesus Christ;” but the reader may ask, can the testimony of friend Isaac be trusted? Listen to what William Thompson and David Dimock, judges of the Court of Common Pleas in the county of Susquehanna say; they testify that “during several years they had been acquainted in a personal way with Isaac Hale, and that he was a man of excellent moral character and unquestionable truthfulness.” What do the neighbors of Smith say about him? Fifty-one persons from different occupations, and from different religious affiliations, and respected citizens of Palmyra, and Manchester, in the state of New York, signed the following public oath:
“Palmyra, N. Y., December 4, 1833. We, the undersigned, having been acquainted with the Smith family for a number of years, while they resided near this place, have no hesitation in saying that we consider them destitute of that moral character which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. * * * Joseph Smith, and his son Joseph, were in particular considered entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits. Martin Harris had acquired a considerable property, but on moral and religious subjects he was perfectly visionary; sometimes advocating one sentiment, sometimes another. In reference to all that have embraced Mormonism from this neighborhood, namely all with whom we are acquainted, we are compelled to say that they were visionary, and most of them destitute of moral character, and without influence in the community. This is the reason why they were permitted to go on with their imposition undisturbed. It was not supposed that any of them were possessed of sufficient character or influence to make anyone believe their book, or their sentiments; and we know not a single individual in this vicinity who puts the least confidence in their pretended revelations.” Here follow the signatures of 51 persons.* [FN—Professor Turner’s Rise, Progress, and Causes of Mormonism.]
We have read several of the Mormon publications, the Sainthood of the Latter Days, and we have observed that the rascal Smith asserts that an angel had appeared to him several times; and that sacred records were given him to translate; that he had been raised up by God to properly organize the church of the Gospel, which would soon attract the entire attention of seekers of the truth; and it is even his father-in-law who publishes his conscientious belief that the Book of Mormon is a “silly fabrication of falsehood and wickedness;” and fifty-one persons sign an affidavit that Joseph Smith was “entirely destitute of moral character, and inclined to perform evil deeds.” Is this not categorizing Sainthood as a questionable thing?
II. Let us have a look at the unlikely circumstances connected with the gold plates. Where did Joseph Smith obtain the Book of Mormon? It is said that he obtained it in a cave, as records engraved on plates, or pages; part of which he translated and published under the name of the “Book of Mormon.”
- Let us take note of the history of the plates. How did they come to be in the cave? “Mormon had made an abridgement from the records of his forefathers upon plates, or pages; and being commanded by God, he hid up in the hill Cumorah, all the sacred records of his forefathers, which were in his possession, except the abridgement called the ‘Book of Mormon,’ which he gave to his son Moroni to finish. He continued the history until the year 420 of the Christian era, when, by the commandment of God, he hid up the records in the hill Cumorah, where they remained concealed until they were discovered to Mr. Smith by the ministry of an angel.’—Remarkable Visions, page 10. Therefore, these plates were hidden in the earth for the space of 1,400 years! Why were they buried? Because a large part of the people called Lamanites were determined to destroy them. These Lamanites were Jews; and the attachment of the Jew to his sacred writings is very well known, but the American Jews were so inclined to destroy their sacred records that it was necessary to hide them in the cave! The history of the dangers that our Bible has been through is sufficient to fill a volume; but it was never necessary to bury it! Because of their idolatry the Jews were enslaved, but their sacred writings were safe; the early Christians were killed by the thousands, but their Scriptures were safe. Why? Because God protected it. He rose up defenders. And if the Book of Mormon had been the Book of God, there would have been no need to bury it.—Buried for 1,400 years! More than two centuries had rolled by since the pilgrim fathers had first landed in New England. They left the land of their fathers to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences; if these records were lying in the cave, as it is said they were, how do we account for the fact that the angel was not sent to one of them? In their midst were men of steadfast godliness; they had left everything to follow Christ; surely, the wondrous fact would have been revealed to them, instead of to Joe Smith, had they been something besides a sham. But no, 200 years rolled by before the fact was revealed! The famous Edwards of a stupendous mind, yet like a child with regard to his humility, devoted his life to clarify and defend the doctrine of the cross. David Brainerd, who wept over the dark situation of the poor Indians, hastened to their camp in the lonely wilderness to tell them about Christ; but it was not to godly Brainerd, or to Edwards with his broad mind and generous grace that the angel was sent, rather to the money digger, the gold hunter, the murderer Joseph Smith! Is this not puzzling?
Let us take note of the size of the plates, or the leaves. “Each plate was not far from seven by eight inches in width and length, being not quite as thick as common tin. They were filled on both sides with engravings in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume. This volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters were beautifully engraved.”—Remarkable Visions, page 6.
It is well known that the Egyptian language fills a great amount of space, yes, much more than does Welsh. “Part” of the volume “was sealed;” the unsealed part, which was the only part that was translated, fills in English 563 pages, printed in very small letters; but as is seen in the notice, 116 of the written pages from the translated portion were lost; and yet the sealed part of the volume, and the unsealed part, containing 563 printed pages, when put together with the 116 written pages, make up a volume only “something near six inches in thickness!” Only a moment’s reflection shows that, if all this matter were engraved in the Egyptian language on the pages of the size portrayed, the volume would be nearly twenty inches thick instead of six inches! Does this not appear puzzling?
- Let us take note of the language. The records were engraved in symbols, or Egyptian characters!” Why were they not written in Hebrew? Each of the writers in the Old Testament wrote in his own language; why did these men not do the same thing? The reverence the Jew feels about the language spoken by his forebears is abundant to the extreme. Even to this day, the sorrow of the Israeli is striking as he walks slowly beneath the sacred wall of the holy city “with the sacred volume in his hand,” singing in the language in which they were written, the Songs of Solomon, and the Psalms of David. Therefore, why, we again ask, was the “Book of Mormon” not written in Hebrew? The exiles left Jerusalem (according to the tale), in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, six hundred years before the birth of Christ; they took with them the “five books of Moses, and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah.” The Book of Mormon, page 10. Undoubtedly, the first writers of these records, (if in fact they wrote them) wrote in the same language as Isaiah the prophet wrote; but no, according to Joe’s saying, they chose “reformed Egyptian.” Doubtless this confused the clever deceiver of the “Book of Mormon,” for we are told solemnly, “if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew.” (Book of Mormon, page 515.) Why, in the name of common sense, were they not made larger? It is about as easy to make plates ten by twelve inches, as it is to make them seven by eight. These inspired fake writers, to be sure, chose instead to write in reformed Egyptian! Now we are told that no scholar could be found to interpret the wondrous engravings! What did Professor Anthon way? Here are his words, “A few of the original characters were accurately transcribed and translated by Mr. Smith, which with the translation* were presented to Mr. Anthon.” [FN—*Remarkable Visions, page 6.] In a letter written by the Professor, we read, “The characters (letters) were disposed in columns, similar to the Chinese manner of writing, and set out in the worst mixture I have ever seen; Greek, Hebrew, and every kind of letters twisted in a way more or less, either because of the difficulty of the meter, or for some determined purpose, they were mixed with a variety of figures of half-moons, stars, and other strange marks, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of the Mexican calendar.” And this was the pattern of the reformed Egyptian! We ask again, why was Hebrew not used? The answer is at hand, through which it could, yes, every scholar could immediately discover the fraud.
- Let us take note of the method of the translation. If no one knew the language, how was Joseph Smith enabled to read the engravings? A blessed man! With the records he received “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones, as clear as crystal, set in the rim of a bow;” and by means of this instrument, in some mysterious way he was enabled to fulfill the work of translating! Mormon writers are very careful not to say much pertaining to this point; see Attachment A. But let us take note, no one besides Joseph was able to translate! On one occasion, Oliver Cowdery, (who was put in service to write while Smith pretended to translate), argued fervently to be permitted to share in the honor of interpreting the sacred records: but a revelation was received, saying that “the prophet” himself was to translate. Oliver was unwilling to be second to Joseph, and therefore he refused to write anything further. What was to be done now? A second revelation came, in which the desired permission was granted. He seized the Urim and Thummim, but he was not able to do anything. It was all in vain, he was not enabled to interpret a word! Smith tried again, and this time with success. A revelation was brought forth, and some flattering promises were given to Oliver, such as: “It is not expedient that you should translate at this present time; behold, the work which you are called to do is to write for my servant Joseph, until thou hast finished this record; and then, behold, I have other records, at which time I shall give unto you power that you may assist in the work of translation.” (Book of Commandments, page 177); and by this clever stratagem, the ambitious scribe once more became an obedient servant! Are not these things very puzzling? An unvirtuous man tells us that he has obtained sacred records which have been buried for 1,400 years; written in a language than no one could understand or read; and which was translated by means of an instrument which no one could use except “my servant Joseph!” Is it not proper for me to say that these records are contemptible fakes? Except I have even stronger proof.
III. We do not have a single, satisfactory proof that such records were engraved on plates.
- No picture or copy of them has ever been presented. “Some kind of notes,” which were sent to some learned men; true, that it is easy enough to fill a sheet of paper with strange notes, which no one on the earth could read; but it is not so easy to fill 560 pages, if there were no records. If such were available, why were transcripts not produced? Scholars would ponder over them day and night until their secrets were discovered. The language of the Chinese, despite its difficulty, has been figured out; the characters on the Egyptian temples have been interpreted to some extent; and if transcripts were produced, English scholars, French scientists, German linguists, together with ruddy Welsh quarrymen, would come to the field, and each one ambitious to be the first to decipher the secret by showing the meaning of the hidden treasures. Why was a transcript not produced? Such a thing was restrained, but what does it show? No transcript, no page.
Only twelve men ever offered to say that they had seen the pages. Who were they? In a kind of foreword to the Book of Mormon, their names are given as follows.
Joseph Smith. We have already said something about his character. What did Henry Harries say about him? that, on one occasion, “American jurors, of which he was one, refused to receive the testimony of the prophet, despite its being given under oath;” and because of his long acquaintance with Smith, the revelator, he himself could not believe him under oath.
Oliver Cowdery. Worthy men who signed in a public oath, “that he was an unprincipled man, and that no one would trust him, or believe him.”
Martin Harris. “A gentleman in Palmyra, who was familiar with the law, and a trustworthy man, and unquestionably honest, said that he had asked Harris in all earnestness, Had he seen the plates? Harris answered, “Yes, I saw them with my own eyes; they were shown to me through the power of God, and not men.” “But did you see them with your natural eyes, your physical eyes, as you see this pencil in my hand? Now, say yes or no.” Harris answered, No, I did not see them as I see that pencil, rather I saw them with the eyes of my faith. I saw them as I see things around me, although they were at the time covered with a cloth.”
Next, to these who were Christian, Jacob, Peter, and John Whitmer, and then Hiram Page. A man is known by his friends. It is sufficient to prove who they are, by their names being connect with such men as Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris. Then follow Joseph Smith, Sr., and his sons Hyrum and Samuel; as for these three, it is sufficient to say that the father (like Harris) confesses that he never saw the plates, with his natural eyes! On the testimony of such witnesses, we believe that the Book of Mormon was “translated through the gift and power of God,” from plates which had the appearance of gold. What became of the witnesses? No fewer than six of them left the Mormon Church; and they prove by their behavior that the golden plates never did exist anywhere, except in the imagination of Joe Smith.
- All attempts for being allowed to see the plates were spurned! Despite the attempts made by his father-in-law and others to be allowed to see the plates, it was all in vain. Joe, poor thing, was very different from Moses.—See Exodus 24:7 and 34:29. There was no mystery there! Why did Joseph Smith not take the plates in his “hand,” and read them in the audience of the people?
- Let us take note of the disappearance of the plates. Where are they now? The angel came and took them away. Moses put the “tables of the covenant” in the tabernacle, Hebrews 9:4. Paul wrote to the Colossians and said, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans,” Hebrews 9:4. Behold Joseph Smith in opposition to Moses and Paul, and no wonder, for they had the truth, and ungodly Joseph Smith tried to put forward his own deceptive lies.
- Part of the Book of Mormon was lost! It is a well-known fact that Harris, the prophet’s scribe, took 116 pages home with him; and since his wife believed that the whole thing was utter nonsense, she gave the manuscript to a friend; and despite all the attempts to retrieve it, it could never again be found. What kind of an outcome was this? If the translator had the plates, and the Urim and Thummim, through which he had interpreted the engravings, nothing was easier than sitting down and translating a second the part that was lost. If Joseph had the plates, as he claimed, he would no doubt have done that. What did he do? Although his wife tried to destroy him, he attempted to say that the heavens had assisted him, by giving him a revelation, in which we read, “Now, behold, I say unto thee, because thou deliveredst up those writings, which were given to thee to translate through the Urim and Thummim, to a wicked man, thou hast lost them. * * Behold, I say unto thee, thou shalt not translate again those words which have gone out of thy hand.” (Book of Commandments, page 178). A child can see through this clumsy stratagem; there are no records to translate, and no matter how bold this deceiver was, he knew perfectly well that he could attempt to relocate the lost manuscript, show it immediately, and thereby put an end to all his ungodly and cunning plot; a revelation was received forbidding the translation. Oh, pride and duplicity. A careful review of the foregoing facts will convince every man who is not bound by prejudice, that no records were ever engraved on plates and that Joseph Smith’s claim that he had received them by the guidance of the angel in a cave in the hill of Cumorah is a repugnant lie, formed to mislead the careless. But we must hasten to note other circumstances which are puzzling.
IV. Let us take note of the character of fictitious revelations. Let us first observe the translated records, which are set before us to believe they were translated by Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon, or the Golden Bible (as it was first called), which claims to contain an account of part of the tribe of Joseph, together with the revelations given to them before and after the birth of Christ. These records were written by successive prophets who were descendants of Joseph. What are their characteristics? Upon reading them carefully, we can only wonder.
- We wonder at the weakness of the phraseology and expression. There is nothing in the entire book to reveal the mind of God; there is not one sentence in it that any literate man could not write. It is verbose to the extreme, yes, the Book of Mormon is something entirely pedestrian and worthless. There is nothing, especially the imitation of the Biblical language, that has ever been done worse.
- The monotony of the phraseology. We are set up to believe that the book was written by different writers before, and some after Christ. The first writer began his work about 600 years before our Lord appeared on the earth, and the last who finished the book 420 years after that happening; and yet we see not a single variation in the dialects, nor any deviation in the sentence structure. The sameness of the imagination, the vocabulary, and the phraseology, entirely and obviously demonstrate that the book under our scrutiny is the product of one mind, namely, that of the ungodly rascal Joe Smith. How different it is from our Bible: there is a unity of views in the Bible, but the style of language differs greatly. The intellectual peculiarity of each one of the writers can be perceived in each book, but not so in the book before us; the sameness of the sentences is its chief characteristic.
- The latter characteristic of its phraseology proves that it is all false and deceptive. Who would expect to have phraseology such as the following in a book written 550 years before the birth of our Redeemer?—“Churches which were built up to become popular in the sight of the world,”—the brethren of the Church,—“the great and abominable Church,”—“Christ, for the angel told me that that would be his name,”—“My older brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.” We could easily fill a page with later phraseology similar to the foregoing. That they are in a book, a large part of which it is claimed to have been written far before the birth of Christ, is sufficient to prove it deceptive and false. In an article in the Aetheneum, it is appropriately said that “every successive prophet foretells the future coming of Christ; the writer has fallen into the lamentable mistake of an erroneous adaptation of a name; the word ‘Christ,’ as every educated man knows, is not a name, but a Greek title for an office, meaning ‘the Anointed.’” Now the use of a Greek word, in an age when the Greek language was yet unformed, and with a people, with whom the Greeks were unlikely to have had any dealings, is an indication of falsity, so obvious and decisive, that it will not be long before revealing the fraud.
The quotations from the New Testament prove that it is false. We shall quote the following things from the Book of Nephi and place them opposite to those in the New Testament. It is said that the Book of Nephi was written 550 years before the birth of Christ:—
THE BOOK OF NEPHI THE NEW TESTAMENT “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.” Page 17. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” John 1:29. “And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Page 52. “And there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” John 10:16. “For as death hath passed upon all men.” Page 72. “And so death passed upon all men.” Romans 5:12. “This corruption could not put on incorruption.” Page 72. “For this corruptible must put on incorruption.” 1 Corinthians 15:53. We have arranged the foregoing into columns; it would have been just as easy to have twenty-four as to have four, but the above suffices to show that the writer of this part of the Book of Mormon was well acquainted with the New Testament; but these sentences were written 600 years before the birth of Christ!
- The quotations from the English Bible prove the fraud. In the earliest part of the Book of Mormon we have several chapters from the Book of the prophet Isaiah. The prophet Nephi translated the Hebrew Isaiah into reformed Egyptian, and then Joe Smith “through the power of God,” translated the Egyptian; but, wonder of wonders, the Smith translation is as close to the authorized translation as it can be!! We believe absolutely that there is no one who possesses any common sense, can be so foolish, after reading the Book of Mormon, as to believe a single line of it. Now let us cast a glance for a moment at the illusory “revelations of God” which were received by “President” Smith. One huge objective he had in mind was,
1. To elevate himself.—Read the Book of Commandments, pages 197, 214: and on page 111, it says “Revelation to Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery, July 1830. “Magnify thine office; and after thou has sowed thy fields and secured them (!) go speedily unto the church which is in Colesville, Fayette, and Manchester, and they shall support thee, and I will bless them temporally; but if they receive thee not, I will send upon them a cursing instead of a blessing.” Is this according to the spirit and behavior of the Savior? O! no, it is not. When the Samaritans did not receive him, he rebuked the angry spirit the disciples showed, and he went to another village, declaring no curse on them, and yet he was the Lord of men and of angels. Luke 9:51–56.
2. Another objective of these fake revelations was to quiet the implacable and frighten the disobedient. Whenever things went awry in the Mormon Church, a revelation came immediately, and the blessings and curses were proclaimed, until all the Mormon Saints were trembling with fear. This is the way in which this chief deceiver kept the Mormon people in order. As we attempt to bring this deceit to the attention of the world,
As we have attempted to bring deceit to the attention of the world, the kind that is under our scrutiny at present, of necessity there have been many difficulties and obstacles that needed to be removed; we shall cast a glance at the manner by which some of them were removed and shed great light on the deceit on which we are presently focused. But since my article has already become too long, the remainder shall be left unto the next issue.
[TO BE COMPLETED IN THE NEXT]
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—October, pp. 298–300
https://
Mormon Lies
Mr. Editor—I am glad that you are so liberal, kind, and merciful, as to allow space in your Treasury for a poor Mormon to relate his experience, state his complaint and make public his opinion of the Baptists. For the Mormons are loud in their condemnation of all the editors of the monthly periodicals of Wales and publish as much in their Trumpet until the sound of it reaches from Merthyr to Cardiff and Holyhead. They claim that they are prevented from defending themselves against their heretical opponents; but they should respect you, Mr. Editor, for being so generous as to allow them to attack the Baptists in such brazen fashion. It seems that they have for some time accused the Baptists in the harshest possible terms, by means of other languages, but having now published in the language of our homeland, through the medium of the Treasury, there is an opportunity to defend the accused. Yes, I am confident that you will permit me the use of your Publication to this end. I say this as your neighbor, if not indeed as a brother who has appeared, as it were, in the guise of a Mormon, as Satan once appeared as a snake in Eden, and the thief in the guise of an ox in America. I have had an unbroken connection with the Baptists for many years; therefore, I believe that I know just as much about this sect as any Mormon, despite their being (so they claim) full to the brim with the spirit. Yet I do not seek to justify every last Baptist, since who can hold himself responsible for the actions of all his people? neither do I seek to comment on Mormon boasting as to their superiority over the Baptists. But allow me to make a few observations as to the false statements which Mormons have made against the Baptists.
They say that “we meet with much opposition and many obstacles, yet no one has attacked us in such an impertinent and unchristian way as the Baptists”. Your contention, Mr. Mormon, is that our attack on you, is impertinent and unchristian. Attacking destructive heresies, according to the practice of the holy men of old, is not impertinent but wholly Christian. On the contrary it is a heretical practice to count everything which is said against their errors as arrogant persecution. The fact that Joseph, the false prophet, was once a Baptist does not prove any more of a relationship between them and the Mormons, than there was between unbelievers in the days of John and the sect to which the Apostle eventually belonged, he having come out from among them; and Joseph is no more of a shame to us, Mr. Editor, than was Judas to the Apostles, or Simon to the Christians of Samaria. It is in the spirit and light of the gospel of Joseph that the similarity of the Baptists and the Mormons is made clear to the weak-minded and the prejudiced. I will demonstrate this by addressing the seven headings which appear in the course of this monstrous article.
- “That the Baptists believe that baptism is essential for salvation.” This is a barefaced lie. Baptists do not believe that baptism is any more essential to salvation than is communion, and they do not believe in any greater connection between baptism and salvation or between the ordinances and salvation than do the Congregationalists. Their deeds prove it; those who do not wait until a man requests baptism, and who give communion to those on their death beds who do not belong to an organized religion, are obviously people who give equal weight to baptism and communion as essentials of salvation; why, Mormon, do you accuse the Baptists more than others? I am one of thousands who have heard them preaching and seen them baptizing hundreds, and yet I never heard a single one ever say such a thing, and neither did you except by the mouths of their enemies.
- “That the Baptists believe that only believers should be baptized.” What a surprise! An unusual statement on their part, since it comes close to the truth, as the Baptists do indeed believe that those who profess that they believe in the Son of God should be the sole recipients of baptism; and I would not abandon this principle, although Mormons also hold to it any more than I would doubt that Christ was the Son of God, merely because the devil had professed his belief in such. I never saw a commandment, or divine example of baptizing the same person twice, and therefore we have never sought to do such a thing. With reference to the person who having been baptized, ‘becomes a blasphemous unbeliever for several years and then returns to believe unshakeably in Christ’ in my judgment there never was such a man, and nor ever will be; but a man who, having once believed, can become a backslider, (but not a blasphemer), and then return to this Father’s house, in repentance; therefore there is no need to baptize him a second time, as he was a believer when he was baptized. Under this heading, he (the Mormon) wrongly accuses his brothers of believing that the first baptism, (if there was any need for a second one) was no better than infant baptism; do you not know Mormon, that the belief of your denomination is that the first baptism forgives all sins previous to it, and washes us also, and that the second saves us from sins committed after the first baptism, but that infant baptism is useless, except as something to go to law about, in front of unbelievers, to the great profit of solicitors.
- “That the Baptists perform miracles.” This is a hypocritical lie. There is no miracle in safely administering baptism, to a healthy man or woman, in any country or climate; neither is it impossible anywhere that it is possible for men to live. It is a demonstrable fact that the human constitution adapts itself to the nature of the climate, in whatever land that may be, and the sea is no colder in Iceland than it is in Britain; immersion is practised for the sake of health, in every inhabited land under heaven; the Greek Church practises baptism by full immersion in the extreme north. If the Mormons believe that immersing a man in cold water without harm, is a miracle, surely, we live in the midst of miracles every day, but no one sees them except the Mormons. Again, ‘The Baptists maintain that there is no danger to man or woman, in any circumstance, in being immersed in the freezing element.’ This is Mormon false witness; we do not mean that Gospel ordinances are intended for all men in all circumstances, such as patients on their sick beds; if some natural disability proves an obstacle to obedience to religious ordinances, we believe that people can be saved without them; the blind can be saved without being able to read the book of life, the deaf without being able to hear preaching, the mute without confessing with their mouth, the infirm and housebound without being baptized, and the patient on his sick bed without communion. ‘Some of them go so far as to say that the water should be cool, when they are to be baptized.’ Whoever said such a thing? Bring me even one person who ever witnessed them (the Baptists) going to such extremes of foolishness; if you cannot, you obviously love telling lies. Remember your standing before God. It was to my boundless amazement that Christians could make such a cunning, premeditated and fraudulent claim as the following. ‘For we are witnessed of more than one person, who, in weakness, ill health and old age, has been baptized, not in a figurative sense, but according to the true and literal sense of the word, to death;’ that is, that being baptized has caused men to die; but considering that it is Mormon testimony, my surprise soon dissipated. You Mormon witnesses; your testimony would not be accepted in a court of law, as you have lost the trust of all those who know you. At one time, the papists made an energetic attempt in a national court, to prove that a Baptist minister had caused a woman’s death by means of baptism, with the intended aim of depriving her of life. But they failed, in spite of all their wrath, and despite the court being full of papists. No doubt the authors of the above testimony would like to be able to prove that all Baptist ministers are murderers!
- “That the Baptists do not believe that the New Testament, as we received it from our fathers and as it is believed by other Christians, is the sufficient guide to salvation.” Another untruth. Nobody who knows us says this, except those who have received the spirit of Mormonism. It is true that we say, as do all our dissenting brethren, that the translation of the occasional word is imperfect; it can be revised without adding to, or taking away, from the Holy Scriptures. We do not have a totally, or even partly, new Gospel, and this is well known to you. When the Baptist missionaries were translating the Testament, they translated the word “baptism,” along with all the other words, instead of leaving it untranslated; and just because of this the Bible Society withheld its assistance in printing the Testament; and because they (the Baptists) believed that this word should be translated, just like any other, they separated on grounds of conscience from the Society. This is how it was in this case.
- “That the Baptists assert their infallibility.” Do not bear false witness, Mormon; remember the lake of fire. We admit our imperfection; it is our chief concern so to do. We claim some measure of certainty, that baptism, as it is administered among us, is according to the examples and commandments in the New Testament. As certain as any reasonable creature accountable to his Judge can be, regarding one of the most important things that holy men of God ever wrote about, with the aim of instructing us and our children in perpetuity, with as much certainty of mind as imperfect creatures can possess. The whole of scripture inspired by the spirit of God proclaims that it is Christ alone who saves, and therefore the Methodists, Congregationalists and Baptists all concur on their certainty in this matter. We do not part company from other denominations on the grounds of shocking errors, but on the issue of infant baptism. Did you take an oath Mormon, before starting to write, to say the truth and nothing but the truth about the Baptists; if you did, then you are a shameless perjurer.
- “That the Baptists receive people into their Churches through the laying on of hands, according to the example set by the apostles.” The Baptists as an organization do not do that; some do, and some do not: it is my practice to do so, and the shameless misuse of the ordinance by the Mormons is not enough reason to abandon it. I know that some people in the early church, apart from the Apostles, practiced it, and I also know that it was administered as a matter of course in order to impart specific spiritual gifts. Anyone who wishes to look into this matter more fully should read the work of the Reverend H. Jones, Awst Road Chapel, Camarthen, in the book called “The Church of Christ,” where this leading figure leaves the matter in no doubt, namely the continuation of the laying on of hands in the church.
- “That the Baptists claim that there shall be none present in the Millennium but themselves,” and the Mormons make the same claim. Why do you connect the Baptists and yourselves in this regard, Mr. Mormon, more than any other sect? Does not everyone who believes that there will be oneness of mind in the Millennium, and in all conscience believes that their principles are scriptural, believe the very same thing concerning their own sect and the Baptists? Also, it is a deceitful boast to claim that you have had as much success in a few years as the Baptists have had in as many centuries. Every Church historian knows otherwise, and they know that what I write is true. If any Mormon or Saint should happen to read this, let him reply using his proper name. If he fails to do so, it will not be worthy of notice.
Ebeneser, Llangynog
T. Williams
Congregationalist Treasury, 1850—December, pp. 392–94
https://
Similarity of the Baptists and the Saints Again
Mr. Editor,
Having been as silent as the grave for several months, in order to listen to sundry pearls of wisdom, I am glad to report that I am alive and well, in good heart, and confident, however fierce the battle, of emerging from the campaign as the undisputed victor. I can see, as can the public, and, in my opinion, many of your readers, and even some of the Baptists, that the Saints have truth on their side. You know, Mr. Editor, that truth is powerful and unconquerable: its face never grows pale, its knees never knock, neither does its voice weaken nor its tongue stammer; despite being slandered by being called a bungler, liar, Satan, cat’s paw, monkey, father of lies, Dick’s donkey, Congregationalist weakling, Methodist magician, etc., by such worthies who have matriculated from Billingsgate College such as Mathetes and his ilk. M showed sense in writing to the Star, because in an empty ring and fighting with his own shadow, he might have a chance of winning.
Now I advance to confront the two giants of the battlefield, armed as they are with all their Baptist weaponry:
I said that the Baptists and the Saints both believe that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation. (Not as T. W. and M untruthfully said, ‘baptism’ but baptism by full immersion; such men have so little respect for the truth, that they pull it to pieces in broad daylight). T.W. says that neither he nor anyone else ever heard any Baptist say such a thing. You condemn yourself out of your own mouth; the people of Llangunnog and Llanstephan, etc., can testify that they have heard you saying the same thing as I did many times, both in effect and substance, if not in the same words. Did you not say while baptizing by full immersion—Dear people, this is the way and the only way for you to be true followers of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Catholicism is with the sprinklers: “whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
Mathetes denies that all Baptists believe that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation. I do not say that every Baptist is of that belief; but the majority of them are. Indeed, reader, does not Mathetes let the cat out of the bag when he says, that according to the Baptists, Noah’s task was to build the ark according to specification, and that it is their duty to believe according to the New Testament? Here Mathetes contrasts Noah’s ark with baptism by full immersion: since we know that Noah’s earthly life was concerned with building the ark according to specification, does not man’s eternal life, according to Mathetes’s own logic, depend upon baptism by full immersion? Mathetes accepts that Mr. Rees, Llanelli, practices infant baptism with as good a conscience as he himself baptizes by full immersion: this is in contrast to the beliefs of most Baptists. We know that they tend to use glasses, and Mathetes makes mention of it, in order to search the hearts of those who practice infant baptism. And they testify that the baptizers of infants are of the same opinion as themselves, but that they hold to the beliefs of the church fathers for the sake of profit, or because of pride. One question before leaving this matter; if you, as Baptists, do not consider baptism by full immersion as essential to salvation, why do you refuse, to take communion with Mr R., “one of the most prominent men of substance in the Welsh Congregationalist church,” ( as you yourself say)? If this man of substance is not guilty of denying an essential element of salvation, why do you not tolerate him in love, and acknowledge him as a brother at the communion table? He is allowed to read, pray, preach in your chapels, but he cannot take communion, because you say that he is not baptized. Is it not clear that baptism by full immersion is more important in your opinion than preaching, and even praying, and is not praying essential to salvation?
I said that the Baptists maintain that only believers should be baptized. “What a surprise,” says T. W. “Here is a strange thing, because it is close to the truth.” It meets with the truth, says Mathetes. Be consistent in your claims, teachers. It is a surprise, say I, and everyone else who has heard T.W. speaking about baptism that he denies that only believers should be baptised. Then, says T. W., the Baptists believe that those who profess to believe in the Son of God should be the only recipients of baptism. Is not this the same thing as I said, namely, that the Baptists believe that only believers should receive baptism, (believers in the Son of God, I would think, as reason indicates). But he says that only those who profess belief in the Son of God should be baptized. The reader can see that despite all of T. W.’s many words he is merely fighting with his own shadow.
I am sorry to see Mathetes being so presumptuous as to conflate the ordinance of baptism with gambling, by calling it a game of baptism. Then Mathetes says that the apostles did not consider a true transformation of lifestyle to be a condition of baptism, but rather a profession of belief. If this principle were to be generally applied, then everyone living in a Christian country, except for Atheists, Deists, and Jews, would be suitable candidates for baptism: because liars, drunkards, Sabbath breakers, blasphemers, etc., all generally admit that they believe in Christ, that he is the Savior of sinners, and that they hope to be saved by him. In this way, the demons also would qualify for baptism by full immersion, since they also believe. Like those who practice infant baptism, you make the ordinance a matter of process rather than something relating to belief.
They baptized Simon Magus, says Mathetes. Yes, and if your Mr. Magus (as you call him) were to come to belief for a second time, the Apostles would baptize him; if not, prove differently.
As for Peter, he fell; not as I said, showing to the world by means of a lascivious life, lived according to the flesh over a period of years and in a state of unbelief when he was baptized, etc.
I said that the Baptists perform miracles. This is a hypocritical lie according to T. W. So, Mr T. W., is it a lie that you performed a miracle while preaching against the Saints in Llanddowror, and spoke with such conviction that two sheep got into such an agitated state that they leaped to the top of a bell tower, which was about fifty feet high, I think? It is T. W. who says that there is no miracle in safely administering baptism to a healthy man or woman in any country. But oh, Mr. W., what about the sick? Some are ill from childhood, and yet others ill for years before their death. They can read, pray, and worship with the Saints but not remember the death of Jesus, although he urges them every Sabbath day to, “Do this in remembrance of me.” “I can’t,” says the broken-hearted, “I am ill.” Indeed, in this respect the yoke is not easy and the burden is not light, T. W. What good is it to such as Lazarus who was covered in sores, etc? T. W. abandon your dangerous and cruel baptism, or accept the miracles wrought by the Apostles of Christ and the saints until the end of time.
Some of them go so far as to specify, says the Saint, that the water should be cool when they are to be baptised. Who said so, bring forward your witness, says T. W. I bring forward one of your own members who said that he was ill for years, and felt himself being healed as soon as he dipped his foot into the waters of the baptism, “and he was healed from that hour.” But for the fact that I do not wish to write at too great a length, I would recount many such facts to T. W of the same type as the above, but fear not, it may be that he will shortly hear of even more extraordinary facts than these.
Saint says that the baptism by full immersion, in the absence of miracles, is dangerous, disadvantageous, unseemly and cruel. The only thing I will say by way of reply, is that the most capable expounders of scripture say that it was practiced in the time of the Apostles. Mathetes says that he never said otherwise, but I say that miracles accompanied baptism in the time of Christ; did not the Holy Spirit descend upon Christ in the form of a dove, after his baptism? And miracles are still essential to baptism by full immersion, so that the Gospel call may be reasonable, sincere and open to all.
- “Unfortunately, this slanderous Saint says,” comments Mathetes, “that we Baptists do not believe that the New Testament is as we received it from our fathers, and that we have a new Gospel.” I do not say that, and in any case there is no need to, as Mathetes, on the cover of the October edition of the Treasury confirms my thesis. “Mathetes wishes us,” says the Editor, “to make known the fact that there is an error in his article which he wrote for the last edition of our periodical; namely, that instead of saying that we Baptists do not believe that the New Testament is as we received it from our fathers, and that we have a new Gospel, etc., it should read that we Baptists do not believe that the New Testament as we received it from our fathers is a sufficient guide and that we have a new Gospel, etc.”
- “Saint says that the Baptists claim infallibility. Do not bear false witness, Mormon, remember the lake of fire,” says T. W., and in his next breath admits that I spoke the truth, because, as he says, “We claim a measure of certainty that baptism, as it is administered among us, is done so according to the example and commandments of the New Testament.” As T. W. asserts his certainty regarding baptism, I do not know why he is imperfect and fallible as regards the other doctrines and ordinances of the New Testament. Mathetes does not deny that the Baptists claim infallibility, but he contends that those who practice infant baptism, and Mr. Rees, Llanelli, assert as much infallibility as they do. If you are not under the direction of some spirit that is more infallible than that of Mr. Rees, etc., why do you presume to call his baptism a partial baptism, a stench disguised by a bouquet of Popery, etc. Mr. R. has the New Testament and I would not think that you would presume to say that as a denomination you are as learned as the denominations who practice infant baptism. What reason can you give for libelling and condemning those who practice infant baptism? Are you any more intelligent, more learned, and godly? We know that you are not, if you do not claim to be receiving more direct guidance from the Holy Spirit than from those who practice infant baptism.
Saint comments that the Baptists receive people into their Churches according to the apostolic example, through the laying on of hands. T. W says that the Baptists as a denomination do not do this. I say that nine out of every ten of your ministers practice the laying on of hands. What need is there for you to send me to the Rev. H Jones to have proof of what I already believe? But I ask as before, if the Baptists do not profess to impart the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Apostles, what consistency is there in concerning oneself hypocritically with the outward appearance, while denying the deeper meaning? This is the mark of the Beast, is it not? Respect for old apostolic practice, according to Mathetes. Why do you respect one apostolic practice and yet refuse others? Was it not an Apostle who said, “Is anyone of you sick? Let him call upon the elders of the Church and they shall pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall heal the sick.” James Chapter 5:14–15. Consistency, consistency; take the word as your guide, and not observance of old practices. If not, you shall be worthy of the old cap which you have accused other denominations of wearing down through the ages, namely, that they follow the religion of the fathers. The cap fits T. W and Mathetes splendidly; in my opinion, no milliner from London or Paris could make a better fit.
Given that the above is an assertion, and that T. W and Mathetes surpass me in the making of assertions, I will leave it for time to prove.
Saint.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1851—January, pp. 21–25
https://
The Saint Weighed in the Balance and Found Wanting
It appears that Saint is hale and hearty; a thick skin is a great blessing. He is confident also that he will emerge from the campaign as the undisputed victor: the average man and woman may discuss the law as they sit around their cottage hearth, and thus win their case before going to court; but almost without exception, on leaving the actual assizes they find that they have lost, whereupon they curse the jurors and lawyers, etc., and malign the opposition on account of their cunning deceit.
In my last essay, I let it be understood that Saint was some kind of practitioner of infant baptism in disguise, and I rebuked him harshly for the literary and theological bungling in his leading article. But his comments in the November issue of Treasury do not touch upon any of the said rebukes, indicating that the discipline thus meted out was justified by the resulting display of graciousness. Mathetes has not, as Saint suggests, called the truth “a Methodist magician or a poor excuse for a Congregationalist.” Rather it is he who incorrectly calls himself a Saint that Mathetes refers to in those terms. “Certain men have so little respect for the truth that they pull it to pieces in broad daylight.” Personal experience is of great help to a man in writing or speaking on any subject and doubtless in this case it was of considerable help to Saint in writing the above meaningless sentence; a look at my leading article will prove that. What he writes in relation to baptism and baptism by full immersion is the height of stupidity as it pertains to myself, as he knows that I do not consider anything to be baptism but the submerging of the believer in water; therefore, each time that I use the word baptism, baptism by full emersion is implied. It is Saint’s utterly shameless assertion that he did not accuse all Baptists of arguing that baptism is essential for salvation; but that he condemned and does condemn most of us of that wicked sin; for further clarification on this point, read his own words on the subject, as follows: “The Baptists and the Saints believe that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation.” Here is an example of a man inventing one of the most hellish lies, who then goes on to deny that he ever said it; how much can any man trust such a creature? But this is totally typical of Mormonism. Again we read, “That some men have so little respect for the truth that they pull it apart in broad daylight.” It is too late, Mr. Saint, you are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted; it is a well established habit with some men to invent lies, and then to deny them, when they see that they do not achieve their purpose of shaming and deceiving their neighbours.
Mathetes has not let the cat out of the bag, in relation to Noah’s ark. Saint says that he has, according to how he (Saint) sees the truth, but in fact this is a matter of debate. Noah received a direct commandment and likewise baptism is founded upon a direct commandment. Such emphatic founding principles must be adhered to literally. Noah kept to the letter of the commandment in a very precise way and because of this won the approval of God, and by being just as careful with baptism as Noah was with his ark, we also will satisfy the Eternal Being. If it were possible to make a moral commandment out of baptism, doubtless it would not matter how it was administered; but inasmuch as it is a specific ordinance, one ought not to concern oneself with the consequences of either obedience or disobedience, but rather to observe the rule that a Sovereign God has established. Saint testifies that Noah’s earthly life was concerned with the construction of the ark according to specification, and that man’s eternal life, according to Mathetes’s logic depends on baptism by full immersion. In what way does Saint prove that Noah’s earthly life was concerned with building the ark according to specification? The scripture is as silent as the grave on this subject, and as a consequence, in order to prove his thesis, Saint can do no more than draw a conclusion from the way in which God has been wont to display his zeal for his specific foundational pronouncements; but I have the same right to conclude from God’s actions, that Noah’s earthly life was not dependent on the aforementioned precision as relating to the ark: it is true that God has killed some because of their disobedience to direct commandments; and it is also true that he has saved others, although they have transgressed similar commandments, such as Moses and Saul; he showed them his displeasure, but did not deprive them of their lives. Insofar as God has not habitually killed men without exception for straying from founding principles as emphatic as gospel baptism, we are on firm ground in believing that God will not damn those who practise infant baptism, although they are mistaken as regards the manner of apostolic baptism and those whom they consider to be proper candidates for it. My aim (as every man as so wishes can see) was to contrast the commandment that Noah received, in its nature and obligations, with the nature and obligations of baptism. Given that I deny the premise of Saint’s argument on grounds of reason and scripture, his conclusion is as much without foundation as the divinity of the Book of Mormon, and as contemptable as Mormonism itself. Mathetes has not let the cat out of the bag as Saint testifies, rather his argument is on much firmer ground than that of J. Smith in America. While reading this feline sentence, I cannot but remember the story of the little boy and the cats: “Mother, mother,” said the lad. “There are thousands of cats in the garden.” “Don’t say untruths,” said his mother. “Indeed, I think there is some cat or other apart from our cat,” he replied. The Saint and the little boy are very similar to each other. The belief that Mr. Rees, Llanelli, practises infant baptism with a good conscience, is a new phenomenon in the belief system of most Baptists, according to the epistle which I here condemn. But, pray, what has the belief system of the Baptists got to do with Mr. Rees, either as a man or as a Christian, and what do most Baptists know about Mr. Rees? Is there any different account to that which I wrote, offered by the majority of Baptists who actually know him, in relation to his acting in good conscience? The able and respected Editor of The Revivalist is as much a stranger to most Baptists as Mormonism is to the New Testament. If he had some aim in writing, and if he understood the matter at hand, perhaps he was endeavouring to convince men to believe that we do not credit those who practice infant baptism as generally acting in good conscience, regarding its scriptural nature; if this is what he meant, let it be remembered that we, as Baptists, do not believe that all those who practice infant baptism believe in the divine nature of this institution; their numerous and well informed writings on the subject prove that we are correct in our beliefs about them; the reader can see many of them being quoted in my articles in Star of Gomer over the last two months. These are the Glasses through which I examine the consciences of those who practice infant baptism, while also looking at the divine nature of the ordinance of infant baptism. Permitting Mr. Rees to pray and preach in our chapels, and refusing him communion is the next issue to come to the attention of this mighty Solomon; and because mixed communion is a constant source of contention between various parties, I invite the reader to consider in some detail the following comments:
We as Baptists believe that the connection between Baptism and the Lord’s supper was established by Christ—baptized people should not permit the unbaptized to partake with them of this special feast, because there is no mention of any but the baptized being allowed to take communion in the time of the apostles; and we believe as devoutly that baptism consists of burying the body in water, and that it is only believers who have any right to that ordinance; thus we are bound to consider all those who were baptized by the sprinkling of water on the head when in a state of infancy as being unbaptized, and that, as a consequence, communion should be refused to such as these. We would have to sacrifice our principles as Baptists, in a word, we would have to stop being Baptists, before we could allow a mixed communion. Doddridge (a Sprinkler) gives us to understand that only those who had been baptized would partake of the Supper in the early Church; and Dr. Worchester testifies honestly and emphatically that the Baptists can never be in favor of an open communion, as long as they believe that there is an essential connection between the two ordinances, and consider those who practice infant baptism to be unbaptized; and a talented and learned man (a Sprinkler) said very much the same thing to the writer recently. It is impossible for any man to be a Baptist without believing in all conscience, that the burial of the believer in water is the only scriptural baptism and that everyone who is not baptized in this way, has not received the baptism ordained by the Head of the evangelical Church; therefore instead of condemning us for our closed communion, we are to be condemned for being Baptists; because restricting communion to those who have been baptised is as essential to the religious viewpoint of Baptists, as heat is to fire, and purity to salt. If we admit that infant baptism is a Christian baptism, we must, on the same grounds, admit that we are guilty of rebaptising and therefore deserve the name of Anabaptists.
We believe that Baptism is the distinctive feature of Christianity, by means of which a man makes a public profession of Jesus Christ; he has previously thought about our Savior, and prayed to God in his name, (if all as is as it should be), but on the day of his baptism, he swears an oath of loyalty to Christ—he clothes himself in Christ—he accepts the currency of Christian government, and is publically received into the army of his king; from then on, and not before that, he has a right to the privileges of a soldier, and is subject to army discipline. I do not think that unprejudiced believers in infant baptism would condemn us on account of the strict limits we set on our communion, because they, like ourselves, take communion in accordance with how they understand the ordinance: Papists do not take bread and wine in the communion, but bread (a wafer) only. But the Congregationalists would not permit them to take communion with them if they do not take the bread and the wine. Because our Congregationalist brethren believe in all conscience that there is an indisoluable relationship between the two aforementioned elements in the Lord’s Supper. If they argue that there is an essential connection between the bread and the wine, and refuse communion to a Papist, because he believes differently, they do not have any right to grumble if the Baptists believe that there is as much of a close connection between Baptism and the Supper as there is between the bread and the wine, and refuse communion to everyone who is unwilling to acknowledge such a relationship; we refuse to separate the two ordinances, in the same way that our brothers who practise infant baptism refuse to separate the two aforementioned elements. Many people say that we do not act in a brotherly fashion in our policy regarding the ordinances—that we ought to take communion together as we are all trying to get to the same place etc. etc.; but it should be taken into consideration that feelings are not our guide in religious matters but rather, the Word of God: “Thus spake the Lord,” is the law of Zion; I along with every other minister, deprive many people of Church membership in contradiction of their feelings; but we must act according to the Word and the evidence of the Church’s teaching; and if we are blamed for disciplining this one and refusing communion to that one, we need only direct their attention to the standard set by the Gospel, and let them argue with Christ and his Apostles. Brutus said after killing Caesar, that he had respect for Caesar, but that he had more respect for Rome; we have respect for those that practice infant baptism, but we have more respect for the authoritative and unchanging rules of our Lord.
It has long been the practice to ask pointed and difficult questions concerning the spiritual realm. Why, (it is sometimes asked) did the God of love allow immorality into the world? How can the two natures exist in the person of the Savior? Why cannot Baptists and those who practice infant baptism take communion together, etc.? In answer to these and many other similar questions, I would say, “Therefore, it was pleasant in his sight,” and “You do not know at this hour, but you shall know after this time.” Obedience to baptism and a corresponding lifestyle is what befits a man to partake at the communion table: these are the two qualifications—the one as essential as the other, according to the unfailing rules of the twelve apostles; in this way, it is not the ungodliness of those who practice infant baptism that causes us to refuse them communion, but their mistaken thinking, in relation to what we consider to be an essential requirement for partaking in the feast.
It is not the godliness of men, in the limited sense of that word, that we insist upon, but rather the previously mentioned qualifying conditions for baptism, and only those; we say this because there were men bereft of the saving principles of religion as they sat around the apostolic tables, according to divinely inspired and infallible testimonies. Doubtless, good men are enticed and deceived by erroneous teaching, and can be godly despite being mistaken in relation to the emphatic founding principles of heaven. In the second chapter of the Book of Revelation is the story as to how Jezebel deceived “the servants of God,” and if we are asked how men can be saved, and at the same time act in contradiction to the apostolic method of baptism, I would ask, in defense, how could Jezebel beguile the elect of the most high God? If men were open to misconception in the time of John the Divine, then religious misconceptions are just as possible in the nineteenth century. The above observations show that we are not obliged either by reason or by scripture to cast doubt on the eternal salvation of those with whom we refuse to sit in order to remember the death of the Messiah—we consider them to be brothers who are mistaken, rather than ungodly men. Our merciful God has made it incumbent upon us to connect faith with baptism, and baptism with the Lord’s Supper; but he is not bound to damn everyone who is perhaps mistaken in their ideas on these subjects. Theologians know that those who hold to moral commandments outnumber those who receive direct commandments. It was the duty of the whole Jewish nation to love God, etc., but the particular rules governing the holy place belonged to the Priests, etc., rather than to the whole of the elect. The Priests were to make themselves one with the people in loving God and respecting their neighbors, despite the fact that the people were not to join with them in direct service in the Tabernacle and Temple. Praising God and teaching men is moral in its scope, and incumbent upon all, and especially professors of religion; but communion is a direct ordinance, and limited to particular persons, namely, those that have been baptized upon their confession of faith in the Savior. Everyone (especially professors of religion) can unite in what is moral in its scope, namely, praising God, etc., even if everyone cannot unite in the direct ordinance of the special feast, which belongs to those described above. What I have written here in relation to the directly received commandments and moral obligations of the old dispensation is wholly illustrative of the way in which we should approach both moral obligations and directly received commandments in the realm of the Spirit; and will serve to show how Mr. Rees and Mathetes can unite in praise and thanksgiving to God, in that which is moral, even if they differ in their views on the direct ordinances of Christianity.—To be continued.
Congregationalist Treasury, 1851—February, pp. 51–55
https://
The “Saint” Weighed in the Balance and Found Wanting
(Continued from page 25)
I will state boldly and resolutely, that it is public profession of Christ in baptism, and a corresponding change of lifestyle as a consequence of this, that gives a man the right to be received at the communion table, and that diversity of opinion in relation to Gospel ordinances, does not prove that brothers who have various view points on these matters, should not cooperate in their approach to the moral obligations of the new dispensation.
The success of one particular denomination in both numbers and influence, convinces us that we should oppose an open communion; those who practice infant baptism are greater in number than the Baptists, and as a consequence their influence is greater; and because of this, we are in danger of losing our places of worship and our members. This has happened many times and has caused much vexation and disappointment to the followers of Christ and John the Baptist. Those without religion will tend to look upon baptism as a trivial matter, both regarding its various forms and those who practice it: the proponents of, the “basin” will multiply and those who believe in a profession of faith and the Jordan River (baptism by full immersion) will become harder to find, and less influential, if we dissolve the relationship that exists between the two ordinances; denominational policy obliges us to adopt the aforementioned approach, even if no other consideration claimed our obedience. To be cunning in order to defend one’s own interests is a good thing, as long as it accords with God’s word; and insofar as the Scripture does not condemn, but rather approves of a limited communion, it is our duty to continue in this approach, whoever we might offend. As space is limited, I will refrain from adding any more observations on this important subject. Let it be noted, that I do not write in order to oppose “Saint” as such; rather I have tended to make the previous comments, in order to give an explanation to some believers in infant baptism of the behavior of the Baptists in relation to a closed communion; so that they will not attribute our behavior to religious narrow mindedness, and denominational fanaticism but rather to our conscientious faithfulness to the principles which are essential to us as a denomination of believers. Let the reader weigh my comments on the scales of truth, and if they meet the requirement, let them be adopted; if not, let their inadequacies be attributed to mistakes made in good conscience by their author. I have a few more words to address to you, Mr. “Saint,” before ending my letter. You say that it grieves you that Mathetes has dragged mention of the gamblers’ table into the debate around baptism, perhaps because the fate of his soul weighs heavily on your mind; whatever the case, Mathetes continues to believe that Mormonism is nothing but a joke and a fraud from beginning to end; that it is just a “game” designed by unprincipled layabouts in order to live in idleness on the backs of superstitious simpletons. There is a parallel between this and that which has happened many times previous to the establishment of Mormonism; the pagan philosophers did not believe in the superstitious views of their contemporaries, but made an outward show of approval in the furtherance of other ends; Simon the Sorcerer’s aim was to make money; indulging their own laziness was the intention of some who professed themselves to be teachers of the Gospel in the early days of Christianity; and some were so foolish in those days as to follow false apostles. The Mormons are made up for the most part of cunning and fraudulent snake oil salesmen, fanatical and crazy fools, along with those who have been disciplined for their wayward lifestyles by other religious denominations; these charlatans set themselves up as the top dogs, while the poor dupes are forced to bear the burden of the system which they have created. The monkey was enough of a trickster to take hold of the cat’s paw in order to pull the potatoes out of the fire; in the same way, many poor creatures in our day are nothing other than cat’s paws in the hands of unprincipled people, who use them in order to lay hold of the “potatoes” on which they have set their sights. These cunning people know that Christ and his angels have not paid secret visits to them, although some of these crazies are, perhaps, daft enough to believe that. One very prominent apostle, not a hundred miles from this neighbourhood, got terribly drunk recently, and in that condition, threatened to perform a “little miracle” in order to punish some old man whom he had attacked in this drunken state. It is said that there is someone else who is nearer to here than California, who is happy to teach the way to heaven to “some man” for a pint of beer; or so it has been said in a local public house recently; and who knows if he would not set a man on the road to paradise for half a pint, while in the clutches of agonising thirst; let it be remembered that this creature is a high priest in the order of Aaron. “Man is full of iniquity.” If Mormonism is not a joke and a fraud, it is not easy to know what use these two words serve in the Welsh language.
If, according to my thesis, profession of faith is the prior condition for baptism, “Saint” concludes that everyone except Atheists and Deists may be considered appropriate candidates; yes, and demons too, because they make a profession of belief, etc. But it would pay Mr. “Saint” to wait patiently for victory and not be so frightfully eager for it, in case things turn out contrary to expectations—a disappointed mind is a heavy burden. One tries to understand the context when expounding upon a verse from the Bible and if, for the sake of fairness, we were to say that my words on the above topic are veiled, my meaning would still be clear, even allowing for the sake of argument that the meaning is not clear in the words themselves; and even allowing that the term “profession” is unscriptural, and insufficient to denote the characteristics which we wish to convey; but there is no need for me to appeal to the context at the moment, because the sentences to which “Saint” refers convey my meaning as clearly as language can; and the term “profession” is consistent with the word of truth—it is used to distinguish religious men from the ungodly. “Saint” can base his thesis on the story of the baptism of the eunuch as much as upon my words; Philip asked him if he believed; he said that he did. What was that if not a profession of faith in Christ? And what was the condition for his baptism, if not that profession of faith? “According to this thesis, we see that everyone except Atheists, etc., can be considered as appropriate candidates for baptism.” The eunuch made a profession of faith, and he was baptized upon that profession. Prostitutes and devils make professions of faith, and as a result they also should be baptized; this is the new “logic” of Mormonism. “Let us hold fast to our profession,” says one of Jesus’s apostles, and then there is the statement, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering,” which can be seen in the inspired Volume. And according to Mr. Saint’s reasoning the apostle exhorts prostitutes to hold firm to their profession to the end of their lives; and demons are commanded to “hold fast to their profession of hope without wavering, although they are in a place, within the limits of which the rays of hope never shine. I would think that the reader by now sees that it is apostolic error to which Mathetes has fallen prey. If “Saint” had lived in the time of the apostles, he could have taught them much wisdom; it is likely they would have been more perfect under his oversight than they were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
What “Saint” writes in relation to the rebaptizing of Simon the Sorcerer, is as far removed from the subject in question, as is the east from the west, and as irrelevant as the Book of Mormon is to the religion of Emmanuel.
My argument was that it was on condition of professing belief in Jesus—(“Then Simon himself believed also”)—that Simon the Sorcerer was baptized; since “Saint” cannot deny this—(it is hard to kick against the pricks)—he wishes to escape slyly to another topic; since the condition for the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer was the original topic, he must dispense with that before speaking in relation to his second baptism. It is an old debating trick of those who would try to tell you that black is white, to move from one topic to another, like a bird hopping from branch to branch; it is something that lowers the tone of debate. He accepts that baptism was administered by means of full immersion in the time of the apostles, but insists that miracles accompany baptism. “Did not the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove upon Christ after his baptism, and miracles are still essential for baptism by full immersion.” And baptism by full immersion, says he, is often found to be dangerous and cruel, if performed in the absence of miracles. There is no mention of Christ catching a cold in the Jordan, and no wonder, because, “Did not the Holy Spirit descend upon Christ,” to prevent the pangs of death taking hold of his constitution, because, of course, baptism by full immersion is dangerous without miracles.
It seems that the eunuch and others were healthy men after being in the water; but no wonder, because, “Did not the Holy Spirit descend upon Christ?’ and that descent ensured safety for all those who were baptized in those times; but what if it so happened that men went into the water nowadays without such a defense? Doubtless dreadful consequences would follow: their constitutions would be rent asunder by the cramp, and oftentimes death would be the end of their torments. Some say that this Mormon doctrine is contrary to facts and common sense; but it must be remembered that sense and undeniable facts inevitably submit to Mormon authority. The simple convert fails to understand in what way the Mormons drown each other if miracles accompany baptism, and she is persuaded to blame the Holy Spirit for not restraining Tom the Saint in his efforts to steal the wife of the poor quarryman, especially when they are both members of the Mormon brotherhood; but, no doubt, clouds and darkness surround the throne, as it were, on this matter. “Saint” further teaches us that the Gospel is nothing but an unreasonable system of belief and is fraudulent, not being dependent on miracles; and whilst reading this new teaching, it is difficult to restrain oneself from crying out against what they teach, in the words of our Redeemer, “Ye are of your father the devil—when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.” But one cannot expect anything else from the Mormons, because every religious system is bound to leave the imprint of its own image on its adherents.
In his first article, “Saint” testified that the Baptists have a partially new version of the Gospel and the Epistles; I proved this contention to be without foundation, in the course of which a small error occurred. The genial editor of The Treasury was, in a brotherly fashion, good enough to correct this shortfall on the wrapper of the following number, in accordance with the wish I had expressed to this end. Now “Saint” is impertinent and shameless enough to say that the correction of the aforesaid error on the wrapper of The Treasury proves his basic thesis, namely that the Baptists have a partially new Gospel and Epistles!! I did not realize it was possible to prove “Saint’s” lying and blasphemous assertion, simply by correcting an error of syntax which occurred in the course of my rebuttal of his claims. He further states, “Mathetes does not deny the Baptists’ claim to be infallible,” which is as contrary to the truth as saying that Mormonism is the religion of the New Testament; and as proof of this, look at the following words from my last letter: “Everyone knows that we do not profess to be able to carry out miracles; and this profession is in accordance with our fallibility.” Here is an infallible man, in the opinion of “Saint,” publicly admitting his fallibility. What I wrote has nothing to do with Mr. Rees’s being as infallible as we, but is, rather, a mode of speaking and writing, well known to every thinking man, in order to demonstrate that Mr. R. and the Baptists both have their minds firmly made up on the subject of baptism, regarding both its form and its recipients. It is “Saint’s” intention to convince the readers of The Treasury that there is a difference of opinion between the Baptists and those who practice infant baptism, regarding fallibility and infallibility; I have striven to prove that such a difference does not, in fact, exist; and by means of this, I proved that both the Baptists and myself, generally speaking, profess infallibility!! By the same reasoning, “Saint” could say that Paul was a liar, because he said, “If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, then let it be to his greater glory.” And in accordance with the same principles he could testify that the Gospel is weakness and foolishness, because Paul uses those words in connection with it in his epistles to the Churches. Obviously, one must take note of the apostle’s aim in writing, and the circumstances under which he wrote. But what is the point of talking about rhetoric and writing styles, and various literary aspects, to a man who, in all likelihood, knows no more about such things, than a mole knows about the principles of astronomy. I did not write these lines to oppose him—he is not worth taking notice of; but his writings (if worthy of the name) have given me an opportunity to call the attention of my fellow countrymen to the principles of which we all need to take notice. Having said that we claim to be infallible, he writes, “If you are not under the guidance of some spirit which is more infallible than Mr. Rees,” etc. In this sentence, he admits quite clearly that we do not deny our fallibility, and then goes on to use this one admission as a reason in support of not calling baptism as practiced by infant baptizers “a partial baptism,” although he has said previously that we profess infallibility in the same way as do the Saints!! Did you ever hear such a thing? It is exactly as if a man were to say to his friend, “I am the best scholar in the whole world.” And then his friend answers, “As you admit your ignorance, for shame’s sake, you should try to learn something.”
Having made all of the above blunders, “Saint” starts to look longingly at those who practice infant baptism, like a spaniel who makes big eyes at them and licks their feet, in the hope that they will approve of him, and reward him with a piece of bread. As regards slander and abuse, I do not think that any denomination is perfect; but saying that we are worse than those who practice infant baptism does not make any sense; the reader may refer to the writings of Evans, Zion Chapel, in The Revivalist, and especially one particular song that has been composed, in all likelihood, by one of the ministers who practice infant baptism, and then he shall see for himself. If “Saint” had said that nine out of ten of us do not practice the laying on of hands, he would have been closer to the truth; but all this fits in with the other lies he has written; because his foundation is so deceitful, (namely the number of those who practice the laying on of hands), what he builds upon it is not worthy of notice. The reader knows that I personally did not approve of the laying on of hands in order to show respect to an old custom. What I did was merely to state that that was the reason given by those who practice it. “Saint” makes a straw man of this, in order to have the honor of attacking it. It seems that holding firm to the religion of the fathers is the cap that fits the Baptists; I do not deny that we follow the religion of the apostolic fathers, the religion of old father Paul, and old brother Peter; the religion to which the senior elder John held firm, and for which the martyrs of Piedmont shed their blood; this all fits us far better than miraculous gifts fit the dregs of humanity in the present day; there are “milliners” living nearer than Paris or London who can do far better than that. I am now tired of relating “Saint’s” lies and bungling, although I have not totally exhausted all his writings. Whether “Saint” is a Mormon or someone who practices infant baptism, I do not intend to write any more.
Mathetes
(If “Saint” so wishes, I will publish one more of his letters, but it must be short; this will end the debate. Editor)
Congregationalist Treasury, 1851—March, pp. 73–76
https://
The Similarity of the Baptists and the Saints, Again
Mr Editor—I extend to you my warmest thanks for your kind and Christian behavior towards the poor. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” You and I both know that Mr. W., Ebenezer, and Mathetes, along with many of the faction to which they belong, are ready to bare their teeth, and would bite if they could, because you have been so generous as to allow Saint to speak a little truth. The supporters of the Baptist establishment cannot abide these blistering attacks. I can assure you that many of the Baptists have received the true light because of this debate, and have turned to the Mediator, and to us the Saints as his church; hungry for the bread of life, they have totally and permanently renounced religion which separates the water from the Spirit. This separation has been perpetrated even though our dear Jesus placed on oath that, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” I am not surprised that you wish to end the debate, as Mathetes babbles about things which have no connection to the matter at hand. Great is his spleen towards those who practice infant baptism, in order that he might have somewhere to flee from the Saint’s firm grasp of scripture. He runs to the infant baptizers when the going gets tough, full of flattering phrases; and then the next minute, you will see him betray them with a Judas kiss. In the last two essays, he wishes to let it be understood that he argues against Saint, but on closer inspection, one sees that his ineffectual arrows are, in fact, aimed at those who practice infant baptism, and that his whole exposition on Saint, and his foundational theses which he puts forth during the debate, are conveyed by means of foul expressions, totally bereft of sense and good taste, which do not deserve the name of religion. Such as Mormonism, Joe, Josi, Jon and Jane the gossip, Lie, Hellish, Mr. Magus, etc. We ought not to wonder that Mathetes is so contemptibly vile, when he cannot come up with any better relatives than his uncle Jon and his aunt Jane the gossip, nor a better master than Simon the Sorcerer. Mathetes strives to convince the readers of The Treasury that he is a man of literature, a theologian, and a genuine scholar. But this strains the belief of all but his uncle Jon and his aunt Jane the gossip. Without boasting, you know, Mr. Editor, that I have forgotten more doctrine and literature, etc., than Mathetes ever learned. Mathetes thinks that he is somebody special, as he is a kind of lap dog, who runs after everyone who cannot see as he does that the kingdom of God comes by means of the waters of baptism. Dear Baptist brethren, take a word of advice: if there is not a much more able correspondent among you than Mathetes, do as you did when you opposed the brother of our revered president, Captain Jones, which was to employ the famous man of literature, Brutus. I will not weary you by going on at length, and in fact there is no need to, as Mathetes himself proves my foundational theses, so that there is no way that anyone may doubt their veracity. The reader will see Mathetes’s evidence in his own words, and it will prove every point that I am trying to make.
My first statement was that both the Baptists and the Saints believe that baptism by full immersion is essential for salvation. Listen to what Mathetes says; he states that, “Noah received a direct commandment, and baptism is based upon a direct commandment; one must keep to the letter of the commandment, through which he won God’s approval, and by being just as particular about baptism as Noah was with his ark, we will please the eternal Being.” What need is there of any other evidence? Again, just listen to this—“and by being just as particular about baptism we will please the eternal Being.” What is it that pleases God? Is it not salvation? And how can we please him? By being particular as to how baptism is carried out, says Mathetes. Here is another piece of evidence: “I believe,” says Mathetes, “that baptism is the distinguishing feature of Christianity, through which a man makes public profession of Christ; he has thought about his Savior before, and has prayed to God in his name (if all is as it should be) but on the day of his baptism he accepts the currency of Christian government.” Please note that he has thought about and genuinely prayed in the name of the Savior. But how can thought and genuine prayer exist without baptism? It cannot be, says Mathetes, because one cannot please God until one is baptized. “Ah, alas; great is Diana of the Ephesians.”
Secondly, I noted that the Baptists and the Saints maintain that only believers are suitable candidates for baptism. Let us listen again to Mathetes babbling on: “We believe,” says he, “that baptism consists of the burial of the body in water, and only believers have a right to this ordinance.” Saint believes the same thing; but, Mathetes, you believe something in addition to this, namely, that hypocrites have a right to the ordinance, yes, even the arch-hypocrite Simon the Sorcerer. Oh, dear reader, what bungling. ‘We believe,’ says Mathetes, “that only believers have the right to be baptized;” and Mathetes asserts that Simon the Sorcerer had just as much right to receive the ordinance, when he knows that his Mr. Simon, “believed no more than a calf in the cowshed,” as Tom from Nant said. On the day of his baptism, the sorcerer accepted the currency of Christian government, and since the right to this currency came by means of baptism, and since this baptism is still valid, despite all his hypocrisy, according to reason and law, Simon is, by now, an aged pensioner on the payroll of Christian government. Such is Mathetes’s judgment, his theology and logic, etc.
Mathetes, you see that your sandy foundation is sinking into error and the greatest disgrace ever seen. Flee, flee, from the water to the rock of truth and the Saints, as I hear the Baptists are doing in their thousands in the United States. When we, the Saints, perceived that the person being baptized was being hypocritical, and not motivated by belief, we considered his baptism to be as all his other achievements—vain and useless. And if he should turn to us, we would baptize him on the grounds of his repentance, “for the forgiveness of sins.” “Go thou and do likewise.”
Mathetes takes great umbrage because I speak of Mr. Rees, Llanelli. Oh, please! Is it not you who called on the help of those who practice infant baptism when you were in difficulties? You said that the talented Editor of The Revivalist claimed as much infallibility as do you, and if I were to be sentenced to the ditch on the basis of mere opinion, the understanding that Mr. Rees would be in the same ditch would be a great comfort to me. So much for Mathetes’s charity! This enlightened man possesses more empathy and Christian feeling in hell than does Mathetes in his church. “Oh, father,” says he, “send someone to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also should come to this place of torment.” Mathetes makes a straw man of the issue of mixed communion, and shoots a bullet at it with his gun, and intends the reader to believe that he is aiming it at the Saints. If Mathetes were to come to the communion of the Saints, he would understand, although he has been washed in the lake, that he will have to be submerged for a second time, not as before, as an example, but as did Jesus Christ and the Apostles, “For the forgiveness of sins,” and then he shall have the privilege of sitting among the ranks of the consecrated. Let him say as much as he likes to other denominations, “Stand back, for I am holier than thou.” We say to him, “Stand back, we are holier than thou.” Is there not unspeakable vileness in this statement? “We must sacrifice our principles as Baptists: in a word we must stop being Baptists.” It is not important if people stop being Saints, but it is important if they stop being Baptists. If they stop being Baptists it does not mean that they stop being Christians. Beware, everyone, of the damnable sin of not being a Baptist. Mathetes is tired, he says. No, no, Mathetes, it is better to admit the truth—failed, Mathetes, you have failed—that is how it is. A Baptist said to me—and he is a man from whom Mathetes might learn much—“Mathetes would be wise to hold his peace, as with every word he speaks he is digging a hole for himself.” I hereby make a proposal to Mathetes, and then you will be fine. Although The Treasury has a large circulation, there are many who have not had the chance to read this debate. I propose that Mathetes and I agree together to ask The Treasury to print 500 or 1,000 copies of it. I shall pay half the cost, and I shall take half the books—let Mathetes bring forward the other half of the cost and receive the other half of the books, so that everyone may see which direction the scales tip.
Saint.
