A SERMON: BY ELDER A. RAINES, PARIS, KY.
REMISSION OF SINS IN THE NAME OF JESUS.
“THUS it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached, in His name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”—Luke xxiv, 46,47.
THE remission of sins is a boon superlatively, excellent. It is an act of God, dwelling in the Holy of Holies, in light unapproachable. It is an emanation from the mercy of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It is conferred freely, and richly, upon all who obey, from the heart, the gospel of the Son of God.
The wages of sin is death. Death temporal, and all our physical ills, are the fruits of the first sin of the first man. Eternal death is the fruit of our personal sins. If, therefore, we would, to any extent, learn to appreciate the value of pardon, we must first obtain adequate conceptions of the turpitude of sin; and, in order to do this, we must contemplate it as it exhibits itself in its bitter and burning fruits—all the miseries of this life, and the weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth—the worm that never dies, and the fire that shall never be quenched, in the dark world of woe to come.
But the most vivid exhibition of the malignity of sin is to be seen on the cross, in the bleeding
agonies of the crucified Lamb of God. He was an impersonation of perfect virtue. He was the brightness of the Father’s glory, the express image of his person; and yet sin, in the persons of those whom he came to bless and to save, put him to a most cruel and ignominious death. Thus we perceive, that sin, had it the power, would destroy God. Horrid as is the thought, it would drag from the eternal throne the Father of mercies, the God of peace and love, the creator and preserver of all, and put him to the most-cruel death. Its having done this to the Son, who is the express image of the Father, is demonstration itself, that it would do the same to the Father if it possessed the power.
Let none marvel, then, that sin should sink the soul of the impenitent into the blackness of an everlasting darkness—into the fathomless depths of that fiery abyss, which is the second death.
There is another aspect in which the cross of Christ may be viewed, by which the malignity of sin is indicated. Without the blood, the sacrificial death of Jesus, there could have been no remission. The costliest creature sacrifice would not suffice. The death of Michael, the Prince of the heavenly hierarchies, would have been an offering too mean. Nought but the blood of God’s only begotten and well-beloved Son would avail as a ransom for sinners. The blood is the life.
Man’s life had been forfeited by sin; and, therefore, blood for blood, life for life; and that, too, his blood and life “who thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” in order to man’s redemption. If sin be that trivial thing which some represent it to be, would Christ have died in order to redeem sinners? Would not a God of perfect wisdom and goodness have chosen a less expensive method of redemption? As, therefore, he has not, and never use inappropriate methods, or a superfluity of means, it follows that the ratio of the demerit of sin must be measured by the depth of the humiliation, and the intensity of the sufferings of Christ; and if so, as lofty as are the heights from which the Saviour descended, so profound are the depths into which sin will plunge the sinner, who dies without redemption through the blood of Jesus.
These remarks are preparatory. The grand Subject which we wish to develop, as God may give us, or may have given us ability, is the remission of sins in the name of Jesus. And may we not be permitted to ask, Whether or not, as God has been good enough to grant remission, he has not also been good enough to grant remission upon such terms, as that those who understand and obey the gospel shall have satisfactory evidence of it.
Christian joy is made, in the Christian scriptures, a Christian duty. “Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice.” But must not dubiety as to whether or not our sins are pardoned, greatly mar, if not totally destroy or prevent our Christian joy?
How can a considerate man be happy, who doubts, or is a skeptic in regard to the pardon of his sins?
Suspense is always painful. How many restless days, and sleepless nights, have men spent, with respect to the loss of a few hundred or a few thousands of dollars. And when life is involved, suspense is often productive of intolerable anguish. But what is life—what is the loss and gain of the whole world, compared with the salvation or the loss of the soul? All temporal interests dwindle, in the comparison, into insignificance. We perceive, therefore, that it is of vital importance that a Christian, in order to permanent joy, shall have permanent assurance of pardon; and reason would dictate that the amount of divine goodness necessary to the granting of pardon, in order that we might be saved, would also grant the means of satisfactory assurance that we might be happy.
There is, also, another reason why the christian should have full assurance of pardon. It is, in a good degree, his strength. Doubt is, in this case, not only misery, but feebleness—a cankering skepticism which will corrode and debilitate the soul in all its religious struggles and aspirations. “Am I pardoned?” the troubled soul will say! Let the answer be, “perhaps.” “Only perhaps!” “Then,” says the soul. “perhaps I am an heir of perdition. Perhaps I am deceived, and the victim of a delusion! Perhaps! O! these enfeebling doubts—these chilling, damning damps of death!” Thus, he who doubts, as it respects pardon, may be as effectually paralyzed as he who doubts the sonship of Jesus, or the verity of the Divine existence. To be strong, therefore, in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, we must have a satisfactory assurance that God, for Christ’s sake, has pardoned our sins.
This assurance the primitive Christian had. In no part of the New Testament do we find a Christian doubting the pardon of his sins. We have obtained redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, is the language of unadulterated Christianity, in its hale and unregenerate days. And hence they were exhorted “not to forget that they had been purged from their old sins,”—evidently proving that they had full assurance of pardon, unless it be admissible to affirm, that as man may forget what he never knew! they never hoped that they were pardoned. They hoped for eternal life, and all good things to come. Their hope was set before them, but never behind them, as is the case with many modern Christians. They had not learned to make doubting meritorious; nor to feed each other with stale crumbs of comfort, by a rehearsal of their doubts. This dolorous skepticism was reserved for the dark and cloudy day of sectarianism—for the murky atmosphere of those “who are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth!” No mortal priest—either Romanist or Protestant—can give me this assurance. As forgiveness is an act of God, so my conviction of that act must be by the word of God. Those inner lights, which may be darkness, or satanic delusions, and which have not the demonstration of miracles, or the seals of a Saviour’s blood, will not suffice. Give me the rock and I will build upon it,—thus saith the Lord, and I will believe and rejoice. But away with the fluctuating quicksand of human feelings and imaginations as evidences of pardon, “To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” We shall proceed, to the words of our text: “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” In the discussion of this subject, we shall consider the following particulars: 1st. The name of Jesus. 2d. The place where. 3d. The time when. 4th. The person by whom preached. 5th. General remarks, and conclusion. 1st. The name of Jesus. The word name, in this connection, indicates the radix, the axle, the hinge of the whole gospel system. In Christianity all things were to be done in the name of Jesus. Col. iii, 17. Under the former dispensation, and under the personal ministry of Jesus, religion had been administered in the name of the Father. The gospel was to be administered in the name of the Son. He was crowned Lord of all—the prophet, priest and king of the church, and head over all things to the church. His image and superscription, his seal and signature should give life, and efficacy, and authority to the whole Christian institution. “All power [authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. “Matt. xxviii, 18, 19, 20.
Hence, the apostles spoke and acted in the name, that is, by the authority, of Jesus. Through this commission the mantle of Christ’s authority, as a teacher, fell on them. They were thus divinely
authorized to teach all that the “one law giver,” the “King of Zion,” commanded them to teach and to do all he commanded them to do. They preached in his name; they prayed in his name; they sang in his name; they baptized in his name; they administered the Lord’s Supper in his name; they wrought miracles in his name; and, in one sentence, “whatever they did, in word or deed, they did all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” Col. iii, 17.
The point upon which we would concentrate is, the power, the efficacious and saving power of the name of Jesus. “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts iv, 12. Hence, as the name of Jesus has saving efficacy in it, so this efficacy connects itself with the gospel preached in his name; with the ordinances administered in his name; with singing and prayer presented in his name; with miracles enough in his name; and with all things that are truly done in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith, filled with the gospel, is faith filled with grace and truth, and is the connecting link between Christ and the soul—the spiritual conductor through which passes into the mind and heart of the believer all Divine and saving influences. And the name of Christ just as naturally connects itself with his nature, divine and human; with his bloody passion and cruel death; with the whole of his redemption work; with all that he has promised to do in the salvation of men; with the perfections of his nature and character; with his eternal glory and renown; so that “he is wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” to all who “put him on,” Gal. iii. 27, or upon whom “his name is called.” Acts xv. 17. “God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11.
Our readers will perceive that we are not teaching a form of godliness, while we deny the power thereof. There is power in the name of Jesus. Hence, there is power in the gospel, in faith, in repentance, in confession, in baptism, in the Lord’s Supper, in prayer, and in good works—the power of the name of him who said, “All power is given to me in Heaven and on earth.” Thus through the name of Jesus do we find saving virtue in the appointments of God.
Therefore, “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” Matt. iv. 4-. Hence, if the Saviour has said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” Mark xvi. 16, it follows, that baptism, in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins, is the appointment of the Sovereign Lord and Lawgiver; and hence, in pursuance to this commission, the apostle said, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the NAME of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” Acts ii. 38; for so, according to our text, “repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in his NAME, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” And who art thou, O! man, that repliest against God? Shall the culprit condemned to death, chaffer with the Governor of the Universe, as to the terms upon which he shall be delivered from death?
Permit us to illustrate the subject now under consideration. Two persons purpose to unite themselves with each other in matrimony. They have mutually loved. They have mutually declared their love. They have obtained license. All things are ready. They stand up in the presence of a person legally authorized. They listen to a simple ceremony from his lips. They assent to it. He pronounces them, in the name of the commonwealth, husband and wife. They are no more twain, but one flesh! Is this a great mystery?
It illustrates the gospel process by which we are married to Christ. Rom vii. 4; Eph. v. 25, 26.
Christ loved the sinner—wooed him by all his overpowering charms revealed in the gospel. The sinner loved Christ in return—confessed—put him on in baptism—his state is changed, from condemnation to justification—as in the illustration, the state of the parties was changed from celibacy to matrimony—in the name of him, whose name is Saviour, and the legitimate appropriation of whose name is salvation.
Take another illustration. I pass along the street and behold a giant outlaw committing depredations on the persons and property of the citizens. I command him to desist. “In whose name,” says he, “do you presume to command me?” In my own name, I reply! He dashes me against the earth, and puts his foot upon my neck.
But suppose the case changed. Suppose that I am an officer of the Commonwealth, legally authorized to make this outlaw my prisoner. The Commonwealth is pledged—stands, with all its power, at my back, to execute the law. The analogy is obvious. Were I to baptize, in my own name, it would be inefficacious—it would be sinful! But the authorized administrator baptizes in the name of Jesus; and therefore, around him and the believing penitent, who submits to this appointment, all Divine power and authority stands pledged for the fulfillment of the promise, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Scoffer! art thou not afraid of the power? Do that which is good, obey the gospel, and thou shalt have praise of its author!
There is a difference, wide as the poles apart, between baptizing in the name, and into the name.
In the name, means by the authority of; into the name, implies a change of states. Thus, persons are said to enter into matrimony, or into partnership, to go into debt, to plunge into ruin, etc. Persons entering into matrimony, pass from the single into the married state. Persons going into debt, pass out of a state of un indebtedness into a state of indebtedness, etc. Hence, we baptize in the name, that is, by the authority of Jesus, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
In this ordinance, therefore, the believer passes out of the state of condemnation, into the state of justification. Thus, the commission as given by Matthew, harmonizes perfectly with that given by Mark: the one affirming that the baptized believer is pardoned; the other implying the same by his use, when the passage is correctly rendered, of the word into.
We shall conclude our remarks, under this head, by a quotation from Hodge, a modern writer, and a learned Pedo-Baptist. On the words Rom. vi: “As many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death,” he says, “In the phrase to be baptized into anyone, the word into has its usual force as indicating the object, design, or result for which anything is done. To be baptized into Jesus Christ, or unto Moses or Paul, therefore, means to be baptized in order to be united to Christ, or Moses, or Paul, as their followers, the recipients of their doctrines, and expectants of the blessings which they have to bestow. See Matt. xxviii. 19, 1 Cor. x. 2, 1 Cor. i. 13. In like manner, in the expression, baptized into his death, the preposition expresses the design and the result. Thus, baptism unto repentance, Matt. iii. 11, is baptism in order to repentance. Baptism unto the remission of sins, Mark i. 4, that remission of sins may be obtained; “baptized into one body,” 1 Cor. xii. 13, that we might become one body. The idea of the whole verse, therefore, is, that as many as have been baptized into Jesus Christ, have become intimately united with him, so that they are united with him in his death, conformed to its object, and participate in the blessings for which he died.” Having now, we trust, made apparent the difference between the phrases in the name, and into the name, and having also shown, to some extent, the meaning of each of these phrases in the several instances referred to, we pass to our next proposition, which is,
2nd. Where was remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, first preached? Our text says, “at Jerusalem.” And Christ says, also, “thus it is written.” For proof, read the following: “The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule then in the midst of thy enemies.” Ps. ex. 2. “And many people shall go and say, come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Isa. ii. 3. “For the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Mic. iv. 2. These passages harmonize precisely with our text; and show, incontrovertibly, that Christ’s gospel was first fully developed, and preached at Jerusalem. Remission, in the name of the Father, had been proclaimed through every bloody offering from Abel’s altar to the granting of the apostolic commission, but was first announced, in the name of Jesus, at Jerusalem.
Had the gospel been first—I mean Christ’s gospel—preached at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, at any other city or place, these prophecies would have been falsified; but, in this case, as in all other cases, the prediction is unerring, because uttered by “the Spirit, who searches all things, yea, the deep things of God:”—holy men, committing them to record, “as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
3d. When was this gospel first preached?
We answer, on the day of Pentecost. Hence, Christ says, immediately after having commissioned his apostles, “and behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until you be endued with power from on high.” Luke xxiv. 49. “The former treatise have I made.” says Luke, “of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom he had chosen.”—“He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” Acts i. 1-5. Hence, “when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord at one place.” Acts ii. 1. The Holy Spirit descended upon them, and filled them, not only with all the fullness of the gospel, but endowed them also with the gift of tongues, so that they could preach it in all the languages of man, whither they might be sent to preach the gospel.
We are safe, therefore, in the conclusion, that Jerusalem was the place where, and the day of Pentecost the time when, the remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, should first be preached, since the world began! But by whom should this doctrine first be preached? We answer:
4thly. By the Apostle Peter. “And I will give unto thee,” says Christ, to Peter, “the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. xvi. 19. A steward, who should receive from his lord the keys of certain apartments, would, in the reception of those keys, receive also, both authority and ability to open and enter, legitimately, all the apartments, the keys of which he had received. This was figuratively, or spiritually fulfilled in Peter, so soon as the Holy Spirit came upon him. He possessed authority and power to open the temple of Christianity, and all its magnificent apartments, to both Jews and Gentiles. This he did, for the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, and for the Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius! We say Peter did this, and no other man! Jerusalem, by an irreversible decree, was to be the place, and Peter the man. Hence, not James, nor John, nor Thomas, but “Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said,” etc. Acts ii. 14. The apostles all spoke, one in one language, and others in other languages; but Peter had the precedence! The preaching of the others was but translations of Peter’s discourse. “Unto thee,” in the singular, “will I give the keys.” Not to all the apostles—of course not to the popes! “And whatsoever thou,” in the singular, “shall bind”— “shall loose”!! To no other man, than Peter, has this power ever been imparted. Nor has it been necessary. The door of the gospel kingdom being once opened, no man can shut it! The pope may open, and shut, the door of his kingdom, at his own option; and others may do the same, in regard to the doors of their petty kingdoms! But we rejoice, that “the happy gates of gospel grace, stand open, night and day.” None, but Prince Messiah, can shut them; and this he will never do, until “he shall come a second time, without a sin-offering unto salvation.”
5th. General remarks and conclusion.—
The characteristics of Peter’s preaching were, 1st. Pre-eminent fitness to excite faith in the minds of those to whom it was addressed. He preached Christ, crucified, buried, risen, glorified. He presented to the minds of his hearers such proofs as were directly fitted to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of sinners, the Lord of all; and, consequently, to put them into the possession of faith in Jesus, the cardinal first principle of the gospel, without which not even the first step can be taken toward either the kingdom of grace or of glory. 2ndly. It was pre-eminently fitted to produce in the minds of those that believed it, deep and bitter convictions for sin. “He,” says Christ,—the Spirit—“shall convince the world of sin.” Peter preached “as the Spirit gave him utterance,” Acts ii, 4, and therefore, the Spirit,—the gospel being then, as it is now, the word of the Spirit—wrought faith and conviction in the minds of those who were converted on the day of Pentecost. They were made to feel the enormity of sin, in that they had been instigated to nail the innocent Son of God to the accursed cross, and put him to a most infamous and cruel death. 3rdly. It was fitted to excite penitence, deep and bleeding penitence, for having sinned against a Saviour superlatively kind. “O! thou bleeding Lamb! thou who hast said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,’ is there forgiveness for us.” This, or something like this, must have been the language of their hearts. They loved Jesus, seeing that he had first loved them, and had given himself to die for them, that through his blood, and in his name, they might obtain the remission of all their sins. 4thly. It was fitted to produce reformation. The exemplar was most upright, the motives comprehensive and omnipotent: motives, high as Heaven, deep as hell, comprehensive as the universe, and durable as eternity! Being “pierced in their hearts,” “they were dead to sin,” and through faith in a risen Savior, “alive to righteousness”—prepared, therefore, to serve God “in newness of life.” 5thly. It was fitted to administer immediate relief to believing penitents. “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” &c., Acts ii. 37,38. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.” The manacles and fetters of their sins fell, broken, to the ground.
They could now go on their way rejoicing. They had believed and been baptized, in the name of him who had died for them, and who had said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” They could not doubt the veracity of Jesus; and hence, felt a rejoicing freedom, a renovating emancipation. How unlike to this are the gospels of modern sectarianism!
This gospel, this and no other, was, by the command of Christ, to be preached in his name among all nations. “If any man preach any other gospel to you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed,” Gal. x. 9. The gospel as preached by Peter contains the terms of reconciliation—the conditions to be complied with on the part of sinners, in order to reconciliation with God,—the terms which the Son has authoritatively propounded through the Apostles. Any person, therefore, who shall propose other terms, or conditions of pardon, than those first preached at Jerusalem, and to be preached among all nations, perpetrates a forgery—does that, in the name of Christ, which he has never authorized. Hence, the malediction of Paul. O! it is a fearful thing, willfully to pervert the gospel! Ye haughty men, take care! Your clerical robes will not shield you when this globe shall be sheeted in flame! Away with party pride, and denominational selfishness! We shall be judged by the word which Christ has spoken, at the last great day.
It has often been objected that Peter, himself, did not, at the house of Cornelius, preach baptism for the remission of sins! Let us for a moment examine this case. “He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do,” Acts x. 6. “Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Acts xi. 14. Thus spoke the angel to Cornelius. Now what are the saving words? Why, Peter, with great brevity, preached Jesus to him, that he might believe, and commanded him “to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” This, in so far as Peter’s preaching is concerned, is positively the whole case. How accurately this tallies with the commission, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” But Peter also in this discourse says: “to him give all the prophets witness that through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive the remission of sins.” Now if Peter commanded them to be baptized in his name, and if in his name they received the remission of their sins, does it not follow that they received remission in baptism? Faith, baptism, and the name of Jesus, being all connected in this discourse, which contains the words by which Cornelius and his house should be saved, as they are connected in the commission, as given by Mark, and in the discourse on the day of Pentecost, and in the obedience of Cornelius and his house, the remission of sins in baptism is the necessary result. Nor does the descent of the Spirit militate against this position. The Spirit imparted to the converts the gift of tongues, Acts x. 48, and was a miraculous demonstration that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, Acts xi. 12, but the gift of faith came through the mouth of Peter! “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth, should hear the word of the gospel and believe,” Acts xv. 7. Believing therefore, by the mouth of Peter, and being baptized, in the name of Jesus, as Peter commanded, they were saved, or pardoned, as Christ promised. Their hearts being “purified by faith,” and being “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and “into his death,” they obtained redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.
If we are right, in our position, that remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, was never preached until the day of Pentecost, it follows that those who quote cases of pardon which transpired previously to that day, are guilty of an egregious blunder. As well might we, of Kentucky, consult our old State Constitution to ascertain our constitutional duties and privileges under the new.
The new covenant was not sealed or ratified until after the death of Christ, and Christ was not crowned until forty days after his death, and ten days before the Pentecost! How, then, could the new covenant be in force anterior to the death and coronation of Jesus? But Jesus having died and sealed the new covenant with his blood, and being crowned Lord of all, on the memorable Pentecost, after his death, the administration of the new covenant began! There, “beginning at Jerusalem,” we find the gospel terms of pardon; then fully developed, and never before since the world began.
If those who assume to be evangelical preachers, would practically regard this fact, it would save them, in communities enlightened by the gospel, from many blunders, and some shame, and those led by their teaching from much blindness! We should hear no more, for instance, of the thief on the cross, as a reason why persons need not obey Christ in the ordinance of baptism. The thief on the cross! a worthy exemplar of a worthy cause!!
During his life he robbed men of their property, and now, that he is dead, he is ready to rob Christ of his glory, and men of their souls!! The thief! why, sir, the thief himself would reprove you! He was nailed to the cross. Baptism with him was an impossibility. Is it so with you? You are not a thief nailed to the cross! You may, indeed, be nailed to a stubborn orthodoxy, and I will not judge you.
But I can give you a better model than the thief!
Take Jesus for a model. He performed a laborious journey to receive water baptism at the hands of John, and when he had received it, said: “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” Is not this a better model than your thief on the cross?
Besides, your thief case proves too much! He had never joined the church. Does this make it unnecessary that we should join the church? He had never partaken of the Lord’s Supper. Does this make it unnecessary that we should partake of the Lord’s Supper? He had never given his goods to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked. Does this make it unnecessary that we should have that charity, without which we are nothing? In short, he had been a dishonest man Does this make honesty a non-essential, in regard to pleasing God, and ultimately obtaining a place in Heaven? Let us hear, then, no more of the thief on the cross, as a reason why the sinner need not obey the Saviour in the ordinance of baptism.
Every intelligent reader of the scriptures knows that there are many instances in the interim between John the Baptist and Pentecost, in which Christ, being personally present, pardoned sinners. But are the terms upon which they obtained pardon precisely those upon which we are to obtain it, under the New Covenant? A woman washed Christ’s feet with tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head? Are these conditions of Gospel salvation? Zachaeus, who was rich, said: “The one-half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man, by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” “This day,” said Jesus, “is salvation come to this house.” Take also the case of the rich young man: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” “Thou knowest the commandments,” said Jesus; preached the law instead of the gospel! “All these have I kept from my youth up.” “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all thou hast, and give to the poor!” Why not preach these cases as models, rather than the thief on the cross?
But I must close. Reader, “begin at Jerusalem.” Make this your stand-point. From this beginning corner, you may run, with accuracy, all the lines of the plantation of Grace. The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!