Part 28

We heard an illusion to the fanciful idea that some have conceived of preaching an “affirmative gospel,” or, as some have expressed it, “preaching the gospel _affirmatively_,” or, as we suppose, to come a little nearer their idea, merely to preach, maintain and defend the truth _affirmatively_, and let the _negative_ alone; or still, if possible, to be more fully understood, to preach _truth_ and not preach against what is _not truth_; to preach what _is to be done_ and not what _is not to be done_. Look at the following Psalm I.:

1. “Happy is the man that walks _not_ in the counsel of the ungodly.” 2. “_Nor_ stands in the way of sinners.” 3. “_Nor_ sits in the seat of the scornful.”

These three items are _negative_—things that the man whom the Lord pronounces _happy, does not_. This is not leaving the negative part out, but inserting it first, and pronounces the man happy that does not these things.

In contrast, the Psalmist of Israel proceeds to give us the following, which is affirmative:

1. “His delight is in the law of the Lord.” 2. “In his law he meditates day and night.”

The Lord gives the following guarantee to those who do not say the negative part, but do the affirmative:

“He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither, and whatever he does shall prosper.”

What an awful contrast with this is the ungodly:

“The ungodly are not so; but are like the chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregations of the righteous.”

To this the Lord adds the following conclusion:

“The Lord knows the way of the righteous,” or _approves_ it, “but the way of the ungodly shall perish.”

The negative is to be preached and taught in all that pertains to preaching and teaching as zealously and faithfully as the affirmative, and is to be regarded equally as much of divine authority. The first commandment the Lord ever gave to a human being was negative. It was in these words: “You may not eat of it.” This was negative—what must not be done. The Bible abounds with this negative teaching, setting forth what may not be done. Look at the following list, gathered from I. Cor. xiii. 4-8, setting forth affirmatively and negatively, or what love _will and will not_ do. First look at the affirmative side, or what love will do:

1. It suffers long. 2. It is kind. 3. It rejoices in the truth. 4. It bears all things. 5. It believes all things. 6. It hopes all things. 7. Endures all things.

This is the affirmative side, or what love _will do_; but the divine authority does not stop at that, but tells us what love _will not do_. See the following:

1. It is not envious. 2. Vaunts not itself. 3. Is not puffed up. 4. Does not behave itself unseemingly. 5. Seeks not her own. 6. Is not easily provoked. 7. Thinks no evil. 8. Rejoices not in iniquity. 9. Never fails.

The negative is longer than the affirmative in this enumeration.

The man with his affirmative gospel is like the man with his two oars, faith and works, to his skiff. He pulled one alone for a time, and run round and round one way, and then pulled the other, and run round and round the other way, and then seized both and pulled them at the same time, when his skiff moved straight ahead beautifully. We must take the whole of the divine teaching, the affirmative and negative; what we are to believe, and what we are not to believe; what we are to do, and what we are not to do. We are to show not only what is truth, but what is not truth; what is of divine authority, but what is not of divine authority.

Had some of our affirmative gospel men been in the place of Paul, when he came to Athens, they would have made no attack on the altar with the inscription: “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD,” but would have gone on with their affirmative gospel. Paul was not of that type of preacher, but brought their view of the unknown God into direct contrast with the revelation of the true God—the Jehovah. He admits that theirs was to them an “unknown God,”—“God who made the world, and all things therein”—“Lord of heaven and earth,” and who “dwells not in temples made with men’s hands,” and “is not worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needs anything, seeing that he gives to all life, and breath, and all things, and has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined before the times appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.”

Not content with this attack on their altar, and the inscription on it, he proceeds to quote and turn their own poets against them: “Certain of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’” Hear him as he proceeds, and see how he wades into their ignorance and superstition, and, above all, how utterly exclusive he is: “For as much then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”

Now for the charitable part of his discourse: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” “The times of this ignorance” was before the gospel came, and the “now,” brought in contrast with it, is since the gospel has come. Seeing that the light has come, men are inexcusable to be in ignorance.

He proceeds to give a reason for the commandment, “to all men everywhere to repent,” in the following words: “Because he has appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained.” But he knew that some man might call that in question, when he closed up with the following: “Whereof he has given assurance to all men in that he has raised him from the dead.” That is, he has given assurance to all men, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he has ordained. The logic runs thus: As he raised Christ from the dead, he will judge the world; and as he will judge the world, all men, everywhere, are commanded to repent, in view of the judgment.

The inscriptions to the unknown God must be set aside, with all the doctrines and commandments of men; the traditions of Jewish rabbis and Romish priests, with all the unauthorized lumber of Protestants, and the devotees to each and all of them, must be shown that they are unauthorized, and the man who shuns to do this, only does half work, or rather, only half does his work, and will be responsible to the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls.

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS.

It is claimed that whole households were baptized, and that these must have included infants; as, for instance, the following:

1. Lydia and her house. All that is said of Lydia is found in two verses, Acts xvi. 14, 15, and the passage contains not one word about an infant, or a child of any sort. It is stated that “she was baptized and her household.” But it is not stated that she was a married woman, that she had any children, much less that she had any infants; and, therefore, there is nothing here about any infant baptism.

2. The next household mentioned is that of the Jailor, Acts xvi. 33. “And they—Paul and Silas—spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when they had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house.” Here are two things stated of these that can not be said of infants. They spoke unto him—the Jailor—the word of the Lord, and _to all that were in his house_. The Jailor rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Here it is asserted of the household that they rejoiced, believing in God. The word of the Lord was spoken to them, they rejoiced and believed in God. This can not be said of infants.

3. The next case of a household, which we shall mention, is that of Cornelius, Acts xi. 14. Here, however, is conclusive evidence that there were no infants, for the angel said, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Infants are not _told words whereby they are saved_. Those who practice infant baptism do not tell them words whereby they may be saved, and do not believe they are saved in or by baptism.

4. There is but one other household mentioned in the New Testament, in connection with baptism. That is “the household of Stephanas.” I. Cor. i. 16. In the same letter we find one thing affirmed of this same household that can not be affirmed of infants. “They have _addicted themselves_ to the ministry of the saints.” I. Cor. xvi. 15. This is a thing infants can not do.

There were, then, no infants in these households, and nothing particularly strange about that. The writer has baptized many households and never baptized an infant.

KNOWING AND NOT DOING.

“That servant who knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” See Luke xii. 47. From this language there is no escape. If the men of whom we speak, say, they are not servants, then they will be condemned for refusing to be his servants. There can be no middle ground, no neutral ground. “He who is not for us is against us,” says the Lord. We are not simply to do some benevolent deeds favorable to the Lord, or to his cause, but we must be on his side, belong to him, be his; identified with him; one with him, so that his cause is our cause, and his will is our will. But to the mystery again: How can it be, that a man can love the Savior, his people and cause, so as to defend them, give his money to aid them, have confidence in them, and be pleased with their work; but decide to stand, in relation with their enemies, in the same state with them, and not in relation with the Lord and with his people; in the same state with them?

What a fearful thing it is to be _against the Lord_, and to encounter his terrible sentence: “Shall be beaten with many stripes.” Why should a man stand in such a condition a single day? We see not how a man could rest for an hour with such a responsibility on his soul! Why should any man not be willing? nay, more, why should he not _seek_ to place himself under the guidance of Him who is so wise that he can not err, and so good that he will do all things well? What a blessedness for man, that he can have infallible wisdom to guide him, and almighty power to save him! How can it be possible for any well disposed man to stand aloof from the Lord and from his divine arrangement for our happiness, and trust to his own wisdom and his own strength, when he could have the wisdom and power of God pledged for his security? Why not come to the Lord; let his kind hand lead, and his gracious providence guide in the way of life everlasting.

There were old men, too old to be on the muster roll, and boys too young, the history informs us, who fought in the battle of Bunker Hill, in the American Revolution. These received much praise for their good will to the cause and the service they rendered: but they did not belong to the army and received _no pay_. In the same way, we fear, many of these good friends that defend the cause and even pay their money to support it, will lose their reward, because they have never _enlisted_. _They do not belong to the army._

Many such men have noble wives striving to serve the Lord, to train their children in the way of righteousness and bring them to God. These are dearer to them than life. Can they stand out in the ranks of the enemy, and see their companions who gave them their hearts and hands in their better days, struggling to save their precious children, and not stand by their side, aiding and encouraging them? What a responsibility there is here! They know their Lord’s will, and _do it not_ and _will be beaten with many stripes_!

The Lord suffered and died for these. He hung on the ignominious cross for them, as well as for us all, and poured out his warm heart’s-blood to cleanse them from sin. All this appeals to them. All the exhortations of saints, their prayers, songs, tears and solicitudes appeal to them, by all the tender mercies of God and the infinite compassion, to come to the Savior and live. If they resist all this, turn their ear away from it, and, in the midst of all these entreaties, go down to ruin, what an everlasting source of regret it will be to look back and see what was done for them, but all in vain! “Turn you, turn you,” says the prophet, “and live.” “You would not come to me that you might have life,” says the Lord. “He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” “The Spirit says, Come, and the bride says, Come, and whoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.”

THE BIBLE VS. HUMAN CREEDS.

It is admitted on all hands, by all Protestants, that we should receive nothing more than is contained in the Holy Scriptures.

It is also admitted, that we should receive nothing less than is contained in the Scriptures.

It is admitted, that the Holy Scriptures must not be altered, but must be received precisely as God gave them to the world.

It is acknowledged that the Christian Scriptures constitute a “perfect law of liberty.”

All acknowledge that this perfect law of liberty was given by the infallible wisdom of God, and by his undeniable authority.

Now, the precise opposite of this is true of every human creed on earth. For instance, it is admitted—

That we may receive more than is contained in any human creed in the world.

It is admitted, that we may receive less, or that we are not bound to receive everything in any one of them.

It is universally admitted that they may be altered and amended.

It is admitted, that no creed but the Bible, constitutes a “perfect law of liberty,” hence, those who use other creeds are frequently altering or amending them.

It is admitted, that no creed but the Bible, was given by the infallible wisdom of God.

These are undeniable truths, admitted by all Protestants, as must be seen by the most common observer. Now we ask any man in his right mind, how it can be, that it is _safe_ to receive a creed, not containing all that a christian is bound to receive, containing also some things that may be rejected, one that may be altered, one admitted not to be a “perfect law,” and one not given by the wisdom and authority of God; and yet _unsafe_, to receive as our only creed that Book, containing all that a Christian dare receive, no less than he must receive, one that dare not be altered, that is “the perfect law of liberty,” and was given by the wisdom and authority of God?

GLORYING IN THE CROSS OF CHRIST.

The Apostle Paul says, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of Christ.” Why glory in the cross?—or, why not glory in his miracles, in his feeding five thousand, his calming the sea, raising the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, or giving hearing to the deaf?—or, why not glory in his own resurrection, his ascension, coronation, and being crowned Lord of all? Because it was not at any of these points Peter denied him; it was not here that he was condemned; it was not here that he suffered—that he was put to shame—that he was mocked, derided and despised. But Paul looks at him when he was on trial, when Peter denied him, when he was condemned; when he was delivered into the hands of enemies, despised and degraded; when he was nailed to the cross, crowned with thorns, and buffeted; when all his friends had forsaken him; when all the angels had withdrawn, and the Almighty Father had turned his face away—had forsaken him—and he was in his blood—in the agonies of death, with the sins of the world upon him; we say, Paul looked upon him here, and gloried in him. It was not the cross that he gloried in, literally. The expression is metonymical. The cross stands for Him who hung upon the cross. “God forbid that I should glory, save in him who hung upon the cross.” We are not to glory in men; neither in Paul, Apollos, nor Cephas, but in Christ.

THE PARDONING POWER IS ONLY IN GOD.

In precisely the same way, the appointment in the case of Naaman, in itself, had no virtue to cure leprosy. If another leper had gone to the place the next day, and dipped himself, he would not have been healed. Naaman did not go home praising the waters of Jordan, nor exulting in his dipping, nor his faith, but he said: “Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel.” II. Kings v. 15. The Lord purposely selected an appointment that had not in it, in itself, any curative efficacy, that the man might know the cure came directly from God, and might believe and put his trust in the God of Israel. The same is true of the appointment for the Israelites, bitten of the fiery serpent. The Lord wisely selected something that all men would know had no efficacy, in itself, to heal the bite of the serpent, that the glory might be given to God and not to the brazen serpent. It is no question about whether the Lord _could_ have saved the Israelites in some other way. No one doubts that he _could_. But the question, in this case, is simply about what _he did_. The people did not heal themselves. Their faith did not heal them. Their prayers did not heal them. Their looking did not heal them. The brazen serpent did not heal them. _God healed them._ When did he do it? When they obeyed him. Where did he do it? In his own appointment.

The faith of the army of Joshua did not throw down the walls of Jericho. There is nothing in faith, in itself, to do a work of this kind. The marching round Jericho, did not throw down the walls, nor have any tendency to throw them down, if they had continued to march round till this time. The blowing of the trumpet did not throw down the walls. Nor did the shout of the army. God broke down these massive walls. When did he do it? When they obeyed him. Where did he do it? In his appointment. The work was just as much of God, as divine and miraculous, done in this appointment, as if it had been done without any appointment at all. The appointment was precisely such an one, as to direct the heart of the people to God, as the author of the victory. But had they refused to march round the walls, shout and blow the trumpet, though they might have prayed till now, the Lord would not have answered them nor saved them. In all these cases, they might have prayed for saving power till they breathed the last breath, and no saving power would have come. The saving power was promised, but promised in certain appointments—not because the Lord _could not_, but because he _would not_ save in any other way, only as he had appointed.

The same is true of saving men in our time. We have no dispute about what the Lord _can_ do. The only question we have is about what the Lord _will_ do. The Lord will do precisely what he has promised, and no man in the world can produce one particle of evidence that he will do anything else, to save any man. If the Lord had said, “He that believeth and prays, and is prayed for, shall be saved,” every one that prays and is prayed for, would be saved. But such, it is admitted on all hands, is not the fact. Many pray, and are prayed for, who, it is admitted, are not saved or pardoned. The Lord’s appointment is, “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Here is the Lord’s appointment, and he who comes here, has the promise of the Lord that he shall be saved, or pardoned. This appointment is like those we have been looking at. It is evident to all, there is no virtue or merit in faith, in itself, to save a man. It is equally evident that there is no merit or virtue in repentance, in itself, to save any one. It must be equally evident to all, that there can be no virtue, merit, or efficacy in baptism, in itself, to save or pardon. It is God that pardons. Who does he pardon? Those who obey him. When does he pardon them? When they obey from the heart, that form of doctrine delivered to them. “Being _then_ made free from sin, they have their fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life.” Where does he pardon them? In his appointments.

THE ACTION OF BAPTISM.

Referring to the position of the disciples on the action of baptism, a correspondent says: “That, in regard to the sacrament of baptism, the whole christian world have been in the dark, from the earliest history of the church until within three hundred years, and much the greater part are still behind!” He adds, “Not deceived, be it remembered, about some things not essential to the ordinance, but _in regard to the very nature of it_. And what is yet more singular, denominations possessing much the greater share of learning are most in the dark!” He proceeds, “Nay, even the christian fathers, who were, some of them, Greeks, and men of learning, and who certainly should have known something about their own language, were in serious error upon this very subject!”

All this is said, by our worthy friend, in reference to our position, that nothing but immersion is baptism. It contains several items, and to give them all possible conspicuity we notice them separately.

_First._ His first trouble is about the whole christian world being in the dark, if our position is true. This expression, “the whole christian world,” must be simmered down a little. We strike out of it, then, all the christians of the first two centuries, as not in the dark, for they held and practiced nothing but immersion for baptism. This is sufficient, if we could say no more. But we add to this all Baptists of modern times, who have not been in the dark on this point. No fact is better authenticated than that for the first thirteen centuries immersion was invariably practiced by all professed christians, except, after the third century, in cases of extreme weakness, where they thought immersion could not be endured, they decided that affusion would do; but these could never hold office in the church. Even the Episcopalian church, in the time of Mr. Wesley, almost invariably immersed. Now sum up all these, and then decide how large the number in the dark, and you will find that the sprinklers are a mere drop in the bucket.

_Second._ The above shows that they have not possessed much the greater share of learning, but much the smaller share of learning.

_Third._ The christian fathers, so called, are not to be entered in that list. They were on the other side, and practiced immersion and nothing else. The remark of the Cyprian shows that he is defending something new and in doubt; hence his remark that “it is of equal validity with the laver of salvation.” There was no doubt about what he calls “the laver of salvation,” but there was doubt about sprinkling. The one needed argument and the perversion of the passage in Ezekiel to support it; the other was universally acknowledged.