O ascertain the terms of pardon offered to the alien under the gospel dispensation is the object of this sermon. And as to the importance of the subject, not a sentence is deemed necessary. But a few definitive remarks shall constitute the preliminary.

      1. The inquiry is for the terms an which on alien can obtain pardon. That an offending citizen of Christ's kingdom can obtain pardon--and must, if at all--by repentance and prayer, is very generally conceded by Christians; but that these simply are the terms on which the gospel offers pardon to an alien is denied.

      2. Pardon under the gospel dispensation is treated of, and not pardon under former dispensations. And the gospel dispensation can be dated no further back than to the time our Lord gave commission to His apostles to "go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Touching this point, Richard Watson, the great [141] Methodist theologian, in his "Institutes," says, after citing the commission as recorded by Mark:

      "To understand the force of these words of our Lord, it must be observed that the gate of the common salvation was only now for the first time going to be opened to the Gentile nations. He Himself had declared that in His personal ministry He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and He had restricted His disciples in like manner, not only from ministering to the Gentiles, but from entering any city of the Samaritans" (p. 630).

      Again, the same writer, same book, after speaking of the baptism of John and that practiced by the disciples of our Lord previous to His resurrection, says:

      "For since the new covenant was not then fully perfected, it could not be proposed in any other way than to prepare them that believed in Christ, by its partial, but increasing, manifestation in the discourses of our Lord, for the full declaration both of its benefits and obligations, which declaration was not made until after his resurrection" (p. 632).

      But divine authority for this definition will appear as we proceed with the investigation.

      3. The terms "pardoned," "saved," "forgiven," and the phrase "remission of sins," will be used as expressive of the same idea--will be used interchangeably. [142]

      4. Pardon and conversion, in their popular acceptation, are two distinct things. Conversion is generally understood to refer solely to an internal change; and that it does refer to such a change, when not used in its most extended sense, is not denied. But pardon never indicates such a change, except that it may imply that such a change has passed. Conversion, in the sense generally assigned it, passes in the mind and heart of the person converted; while pardon passes in the mind of the Lord, and is something done for the person pardoned. Pardon comes after conversion, and is dependent upon it. This will appear from one or two Scriptures:

      "Lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt. 13:15).

      "Heal," here, evidently means pardon, and, it will be observed, comes after conversion, and is something the Lord does for the converted person.

      "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19).

      Evidently the phrase, "that your sins may be blotted out," simply means that your sins may be remitted. And here, also, we see that remission of sins, or pardon, comes after conversion, and depends upon it. Let it be constantly borne in mind, then, that, by pardon, conversion is not meant. [143]

      These definitions understood, and we are prepared to proceed with the proposed investigation.

      All who are laboring for the salvation of sinners must, on a final reference, refer to our Lord's last commission for all the divine authority they have for so laboring. From what other source has any man living derived any sufficient authority for offering pardon to a sinner on any terms? To think of this question but for a single moment brings us to the answer.

      As, therefore, all our authority for offering pardon to sinners, for preaching repentance and remission of sins in the name of the Lord, is derived from this commission, it follows irresistibly that we are only authorized to propound pardon an. the terms therein stipulated. And this view of the matter should, were it possible to do so, swell the importance of this great commission in our estimation, in the investigation of this subject. To this important document, then, we are now ready to give attention:

      "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19).

      "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15, 16).

      "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the [144] third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46, 47).

      "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

      Here we have before us our Lord's great commission, given for the Christianization of the world, as recorded by four inspired writers; and from these records we are to eliminate the terms of pardon. And it is noticeable that these records are not given in the same words, yet there is the utter absence of anything like contradiction. For where the same facts are touched by any two or more of them, they perfectly accord. Yet, in their testimony, they do not seem to notice the same points, and narrate them in the same order. But, so far from throwing any doubt over their testimony, as has been claimed, this circumstance strengthens it, and to thinking persons displays the wisdom of God. As illustrative of this, let us suppose an analogous case: A. is accused of the murder of B. and is brought to trial for the crime. Four witnesses are introduced to prove his guilt. They testify each to facts not noticed by the others, but, wherein they touch the same facts, there is perfect harmony. In all [145] their testimony there is no contradiction, and, taken as a whole, it establishes the guilt of A. Now, because these witnesses do not all testify to precisely the same facts in the same words, shall their testimony be ruled out of court? Certainly not. And again, must not the jurors, in making out a verdict, consider all the testimony of these four witnesses? Certainly. Precisely of such character is, and so must be treated, the testimony God has given concerning His Son. If we would have the whole truth concerning any fact connected with the life, death or resurrection of our Lord, or concerning anything taught by Him, this rule must be observed: Consider all that is said touching it by the four inspired witnesses. This rule must be strictly observed if we would understand the commission. And for this reason attention is called to the commission as it is given in all the inspired records. This rule has not been generally observed. For when the advocate of infant sprinkling would find authority for it in the commission, he has use only for what he calls "Matthew's commission." It says nothing about faith or repentance as antecedents to baptism. He reads it simply, "disciple the nations, baptizing them," etc. But were he to read this great commission as recorded by all the inspired penmen, it would simply ruin his argument. But to return: Let us now carefully examine these records of the commission, and gather all its specifications. [146]

      From Matthew we get simply "teaching" and "baptizing." Mark has it, instead of "teach all nations," "preach the gospel to every creature." What, therefore, Matthew means by "teach," Mark expresses by "preach the gospel." Preaching is teaching; that is, sensible preaching--such as the Lord contemplated--is. But Mark adds: "He that believes [here is an additional item] and is baptized [here he touches one of the items given by Matthew, and harmonizes with him] shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned." All this last is more than was mentioned by Matthew, but not contradictory of anything he said. Putting their testimonies together, we have teaching, faith, baptism, salvation and damnation to the person that believes not. But, by examining Luke's testimony, we get the additional item of repentance, and learn what Mark means by "saves"; for Luke calls it "remission of sins." He also informs us that this great work among "all nations" was to have its "beginning at Jerusalem." John is more general in the terms of his record than any of them, and from him we get nothing additional.

      Summing all up, then, we have as follows: Teaching, faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and damnation to him who believes not. We also learn from the testimony before us that this commission is universal in its character: it sends the preacher to "all nations"--in this respect unlike [147] any commission previously given by Heaven to man.

      Now, that all the items before enumerated are in this commission, is agreed to by all the parties of the day. They all contend for them, preach and practice them in some order in discipling persons. The difference between us, therefore, is not so much in fact as it is in order. The order in which these items stand is the matter about which we differ so widely and contend so strenuously. In what order does a person come to teaching, faith, repentance, baptism and pardon? Here we differ widely, and hence we differ about the antecedents and conditions of pardon. Let us look this difference full in the face; for there is no use to cover it up. We are all agreed that the commission, under which we profess to operate, authorizes us to teach, to require faith, repentance and baptism, and to promise pardon. But in what order do these matters stand in the divine arrangement? This is the question! Now, there are three orders advocated by the professing Christians of the day. There are the pedobaptist, the Baptist and the Christian orders; and they are as follows:

      1. Pedobaptist: (1) Baptism, (2) teaching, (3) repentance, (4) faith and (5) pardon.

      2. Baptist: (1) Teaching, (2) repentance, (3) faith, (4) salvation and (5) baptism.

      3. Christian: (1) Teaching, (2) faith, (3) repentance, (4) baptism and (5) pardon. [148]

      Are all fairly represented here? It may be said that the pedobaptists are not--that they do not put baptism first in order, as they are here represented. But still it is contended that the order here given them is correct; that is, that it is their order. It will not be denied that this is their order in the case of infants--that baptism is the first thing in the commission they give to them. Well, it is submitted that this is their rule, and anything else they may practice in case of adults is merely exceptional. It is granted that they do sometimes baptize persons who have been previously taught and who believe, but it is done in every such case simply because they could not baptize such persons before they were taught. Their rule is to baptize in infancy, and before teaching, and that they may baptize after they have been taught and believe are merely exceptions to the regular pedobaptist order. This is obvious. Notwithstanding this, it is freely granted that pedobaptists are in the habit of complaining that others get their subjects to the water too soon! Now let every one be held responsible for his own consistency. Pedobaptists are the first people to the water!

      It is difficult to see how they can find in the commission one order for an infant, and another different one for an adult. For who can not see that to whom any part of the commission applies, it all applies; and that the order in which it applies to one is the order in which it applies to [149] all? The Lord makes no such distinctions and variations as appear in their practice. But now we are ready for the most important question of all, and the one that bears directly upon the subject of this discourse. Is any one of these orders correct, and, if so, which one? Here we have a question of order to which there are three parties claiming respectively as follows:

      1. Pedobaptists: (1) Baptism, (2) teaching, (3) repentance, (4) faith and (5) pardon.

      2. Baptists: (1) Teaching, (2) repentance, (3) faith, (4) pardon and (5) baptism.

      3. Christians: (1) Teaching, (2) faith, (3) repentance, (4) baptism and (5) pardon.

      To whom shall we refer this question? To Father Wesley? We are not agreed. To Dr. D. R. Campbell? Still we are not agreed. To A. Campbell? No! no! Then, to whom shall we refer it? It is proposed that it shall be decided by the Spirit of God--the Spirit of unerring wisdom. Who objects? Surely none can.

      Immediately following Luke's record of the commission we have this promise and instruction given by our Lord to His disciples: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem till ye be endued with power from on high."

      And in another place He promises them the Spirit in these words: "But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my [150] name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

      From these Scriptures, and others that might be cited here, it appears that the apostles, before entering upon the work assigned them in this commission, were to tarry in the city of Jerusalem till they received the Holy Spirit; and that by it they were to be guided into all the truth. We learn also from Acts (first and second chapters) that they did go, as instructed, to Jerusalem, and there awaited the coming of the Spirit; that the Spirit came as promised by the Saviour: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." There and then they began the work assigned them in the commission, guided by the Spirit of God into all the truth. Then, and ever afterward, when proclaiming the gospel, they were directed by the Spirit that never errs. It is proposed, then, that we take our stand here and see the order of the commission set forth infallibly right. For whatever order is set forth here manifestly bears the divine sanction, for it is the work of the Spirit of the living God.

      After explaining the miraculous phenomena of the occasion, for these attracted the attention of the people, the apostle Peter preached the gospel to the multitude; or, in other words, taught the people concerning Jesus. After a profound and [151] convincing argument, he concluded: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

      Evidently the first in order here is teaching. This can not be disputed. And we are informed that when the people "heard this they were pierced in the heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we dog" Here we have, in the second place, unmistakable evidence of faith. When these persons are "pierced in the heart" with what they had before supposed to be false, and call on the apostles, whose mouths they had before stopped, to know what they must do, do they not believe? It would be too great a compromise of common sense to argue such a question. The question now to be answered by the direction of the Holy Spirit is, What must such persons do?--persons who have been taught concerning Christ and who believe. Hear the answer: "Repent [this settles the order of faith and repentance, for here believers are told to repent], and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Here, then, we have all the items contained in the commission set forth in the following order: (1) Teaching, (2) faith, (3) repentance, (4) baptism, (5) remission of sins. This settles the question of order. Here we find the place in the divine arrangement, and consequently [152] the conditions of pardon. A man must be taught, he must believe, repent, and be baptized, and then he comes to pardon, as it stands in the gospel plan.

      This order of the great commission is not so fully and clearly set forth in any subsequent case of salvation that occurred under apostolic preaching; nor was it necessary that it should be. Yet not a single instance in which a person came to pardon in any different way can be shown in the entire history of the preaching of the apostles. There are cases, it is true, where persons came to pardon, in which all these items are not named in their order, but they are clearly understood. With the case we have examined, which was the beginning of the work, fully before our minds, we will readily see the same simple order throughout the entire Acts of the Apostles. Nor is there anything contrary to this--as it has been claimed--in any of the apostolic Epistles. On the contrary, it is there corroborated. It is true that, as against this order, such passages as predicate our justification, of salvation, of faith, or of grace, or of something else without naming all the condition, are often cited. But for the power of prejudice over the mind on which it has hold, this objection need not be noticed; but, on that account, a brief notice is deemed necessary. It is not held that we are saved by the conditions before set forth--nor on those conditions--independently of the grace of God, the blood of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or the [153] work of the Holy Spirit. We are saved by the grace of God, by the blood of Jesus, by the resurrection of Christ, by the Spirit of God, and yet we must be taught, must believe, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. But for the grace of God, Jesus would never have died for sinners; but for His death, there would have been no gospel; but for the Spirit of God, the gospel would never have been preached to men; but for the preaching of the gospel, men would never have been taught, could not have believed, would not have repented and been baptized; and, consequently, there would have been none saved. When, therefore, the Scriptures predicate our salvation of grace, it is right; and so of the blood of Christ, of the Spirit of God, of the name of Jesus Christ, of knowledge, of faith, of repentance and of baptism. When grace is the subject of which the inspired writer treats, he predicates our justification of it, without there naming any other cause or condition. So of the blood of Christ. So of faith. So of any cause or condition of our salvation.

      The passage, "Therefore being justified by faith," only teaches that we are justified by faith. That's all. The language does not exclude the grace of God, the blood of Christ, repentance or baptism--in one word, it excludes nothing.

      Again, the expression, "Baptism doth also now save us," only predicates our salvation of [154] baptism--not of baptism alone--because the apostle is there speaking of baptism. It is submitted, therefore, as a rule, that where in the Scriptures our salvation is predicated of a named cause or condition, every other cause and condition named elsewhere in the Scriptures must be understood. Otherwise, the Scriptures will be made self-contradictory.

      Perhaps the only objection that will ever be raised to this discourse will be that it makes baptism a condition going before pardon. True, it does, and simply because the word of God does. And so have taught the most eminent men in all the denominations that now denounce the doctrine as terribly heretical. It may not be out of place, therefore, to conclude this discourse with a few quotations from some of those eminent men:

      1. John Wesley: "It is true, the second Adam has found a remedy for the disease which came upon all by the offence of the first. But the benefit of this is to be received through the means which He hath appointed; through baptism in particular, which is the ordinary means He hath appointed for that purpose; and to which God hath tied us, though He may not have tied Himself" ("Treatise on Baptism, Doctrinal Tracts," p. 251). This doctrine was published for several years, and up to 1864, by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. True, in 1864, the Conference laid this treatise by Mr. [155] Wesley aside, substituting therefor one by a committee appointed by Conference for the special purpose of revising Methodist doctrine on that subject--in which new tract we have as follows:

      2. "Baptism, therefore, is a sacred rite, without which no man can be initiated into the visible church of Christ. See Rom. 4:11, etc., where baptism is clearly connected with the promise of God respecting our salvation. And also Mark 16:16, where the promise of salvation is secured to the baptized believer; namely, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'" (pp. 244-5).

      In Richard Watson's "Theological Institutes" a book that the Methodist Discipline recommends him who would be a Methodist preacher, to study four years--we have this language, after some extended and sensible remarks on 1 Pet. 3:21:

      "It is thus that we see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith by which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission of sins, or the obtaining a good conscience before God" (p. 630).

      This language is as strong as it can be, and so plain that all can understand it without difficulty.

      Next we will hear Dr. Gale, than whom we have no superior scholar or writer among the Baptists. In his "Reflections on Wall's 'History of [156] Infant Baptism'" (Letter II., p. 83), we have as follows:

      4. "Baptism, I grant, is of great necessity; and though I dare fix no limits to the infinite goodness and mercy of God, which I am confident He will give mighty proofs of, in great instances of kindness toward all sincere, though mistaken, men; however, the gospel rule is, according to the doctrine of the apostle, to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. We should be very cautious, therefore, of making any change in these things, lest we deprive ourselves, through our presumption, of that title to pardon without which there is no salvation."

      The concluding caution of this eminent Baptist is most affectionately urged upon his brethren, who, of late, it seems, for the sake of being orthodox, as well as the pedobaptists, have agreed with them to call baptism a non-essential.

      May God help all who strive for the truth! Amen. [157]

[NTC1 141-157]