An Address to the Undetermined.
James Dodson
PART VII.
AN ADDRESS TO THE UNDETERMINED.
THESE may be arranged into three classes.
1st. Such as have descended from Anabaptist parents, and of course, as far as education extends its influence, are prepossessed in favour of that system, though yet undetermined.
2d. Such as have been brought up to no religion at all, and perhaps are skeptical about all.
3d. Such as have been baptized in infancy, and yet are, by Anabaptist arguments, induced to waver.
With you of the first class, I feel myself bound to treat upon the subject with the greatest sympathy and tenderness, because, however incorrect the system of our fathers may be, it deserves, on their account, some considerable support. Children are naturally disposed to credit what their parents say and believe. All their early views of religious things are derived through the channel of their instructions, and it really seems to me that in the precept, “Children obey your parents” is implied, that we should be of their religion unless upon very mature reflection and conscientious investigation of the scriptures, we discover a better. To an age of so much revolutionary enterprize as the present, and to the descendants of a people of so much missionary exertion and proselyting zeal as your ancestors have always cherished we need hardly state that the religion even of our fathers should be examined by the supreme standard; and if in this-balance it be found wanting, should be abandoned. If this principle be denied, how are we to justify the spirit and practice of the Reformers of the ever memorable 16th century, who shook, in the continent of Europe, the old establishments of papal domination, superstition and idolatry? In what darkness had we been groping, in what distress involved, had they revered the religion of their fathers above the religion of God’s word? Nay, how could we justify the practice of Christ’s own Apostles, who reasoned and testified against the sayings and traditions of old times, who displayed the banner of truth and sounded loud and long the trump of war against all the systems of religion which were then formidable by the multitude of their advocates, and venerable by the sages of antiquity who had been active in their establishment. Of all youth, it may also be remarked, you have the strongest inducements to be candid and disinterested in your investigations of this description. The system of your fathers has taught them to cast you, in religious matters, at the door of public pity. Though the children. of those whom they consider almost exclusively christian, they have excluded you from the church and pronounced you no more worthy of a place in the house of God, than the cattle of the hovel or the hogs of the sty. Still we would not have you forgetful of the kindness of your parents in the exercise of care over, and kindness to, your bodies. Give the system they defend a candid and careful examination, and if you find that they were authorized by the head of the Church to exclude you from his kingdom, let them have credit and do likewise. But if, on the contrary, you find that Christ allows parents to bring their children to him for a blessing and a public recognition as members of the kingdom of heaven, we would, for the sake of your offspring and for the honour of the Redeemer’s clemency and condescension and mercy, entreat you to lay aside the ignorant zeal which has deprived you of the honor and advantage of early adoption into the number and privileges of the family of God. Preserve the same course in this case as you would, without any advice, in a political concern of a similar kind. Suppose your parents had been in the lot of the patriotic heroes who, under the protection and auspices of the Almighty, achieved the liberty of this much favoured land, and by their gallant exploits with their compatriots in arms, obtained the franchise of citizens in this commonwealth; yet not understanding the generous principles of the constitution in this respect, through mistake, had excluded you from the inheritance of soldier’s lands and free men’s rights, saying you had no more right to these possessions and this freedom than the children of red Indians or sable Hottentots, What in this case would you do? Would you not say, certainly our parents designed us no harm, but they reasoned incorrectly. The question relative to us was not, whether we had any personal merit, or desert of gallant deed, according to their own tenure of these privileges, but whether the constitutional charter allows us, as their children, calculating charitably that we would be worthy of such ancestors, to inherit their possessions and liberties, until we forfeit them by actual misdemeanor. Having discovered this mistake, would you not give in the names of your children, have them enrolled as citizens, and so endowed with all the privileges competent to their age? Would you not teach them to say to those who would question their rights, as Paul said, “Yes, but I was free-born”? Should you act otherwise, you would not only injure your children, but also prolong the evil accruing from the ignorance of your parents. By their mistake their children were denied of a privilege, but by your continuance in their system you would make them to blame for the disfranchisement of their grandchildren. Should you say the cases are not similar; Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, we would so far admit that its genius is, in many respects different: It is not established by intrigue nor perpetuated by force and cruelty; but are you really prepared to say that the covenant of grace, the charter of the commonwealth of Israel, is inferior to the constitution of the nations and kingdoms of this world in clemency and mercy? No; you shudder at the thought. You would not even admit that the dispensation of this covenant in the New Testament is behind, in clemency, the same dispensation as it respected the church in the wilderness, or as it was displayed in the ecclesiastical establishment of God’s ancient Israel. Admitting this then, can you doubt that the blessing of Abraham should visibly descend upon the seed of the Gentile Church? This way of arguing will, I know, have no influence upon your conduct, if you believe the cavils of half bred deists, who deny and ridicule the first and largest part of the Bible; if there was no covenant of grace nor Church of the redeem ed till the commencement of the present era, then we must admit that from the scriptures of ancient times and the dispensation of God toward the fathers, nothing can be learned. If Christ came to destroy the law and the prophets, to abrogate, while sojourning in the flesh, and suffering on the cross, the promises which were before confirmed of God in Christ to the fathers, then indeed we shall despair of influencing you anything by our plea in behalf of your own rights and the rights of your descendants. If you can believe that the promise “He will be your God and the God of your seed” meant nothing more than that “if they behave well according to the political statutes of this time, they and their’s should possess the land of Palestine, I shall, in deed despair of effecting anything by my arguments. If, on the -contrary, you should take a view of the God of Israel as the same merciful God, with whom the members of the Church have yet to do, of Jesus Christ as the same yesterday, to day and forever, of the covenant of grace as the covenant which was established upon a basis more permanent than the mountains which may be removed, then we shall hope, that you will believe that the promise is to you and to your children, and that you will be baptized with all yours straightway, resolving that what ever others do, as for you and your houses you will serve the Lord. You need not be afraid of calculating too largely upon God’s constant and consistent clemency. He proposes to you now the same covenant that he proposed by Isaiah lv. chap. “I will make with you an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, for it was even the sure mercies of David.” As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways and thoughts higher than ours. You may see what these sure mercies of David are by turning your attention to the lxxi and lxxxix Psalm—“O God, thou hast taught me from my youth; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works. “Now also, when I am old and grayheaded, O God, forsake me not, until I have shewed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is to come.” “But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven.—Once have I swore by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.” If this gracious and everlasting covenant be all your salvation and desire, you will no doubt desire to have it sealed in the most decent, expressive, and scriptural manner. You will remember that it was really sealed by the effusion of the blood of Christ. Although the system of your parents has hindered the early application of the symbol, the promise yet continues to address you. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy offspring. [Isa. xliv, 3.] However men and systems may do for a while, God will accomplish his word, and will proselyte the nations in that way which shall commemorate best the great deed of the Redeemer’s death, when his face was sprinkled with blood running from his temples, pierced with the thorny crown: “As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider. [Isa. lii, 14, 15.] In these happy times there shall be one great ecclesiastical establishment, which will embrace the world, young and old, the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of Christ. He will then reign over his saints in Jerusalem and to the ends of the earth. It is true children shall then have an admirable maturity of understanding and perhaps none of them will be called hence in infancy. Then “they shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, AND THEIR OFFSPRING WITH THEM.” [Isa. lxv. 23.] In that happy state of society the Church shall have no more trouble with the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts, they shall then be rid of strange children; yet for the building and ornament of that spacious and glorious temple of the Millennial Church, sons shall be plants, and daughters fair carved stones, “Rid me and deliver me from the hand of strange children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood, that our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones polished after the similitude of a palace; that our garners may be full, affording all manner of store: that our sheep may bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our streets: that our oxen may be strong to labor, that there be no breaking in, nor going out; that there be no complaining in our streets. Happy is that people that is in such a case: yea, happy is that people whose God is Jehovah.” [Psalm cxliv. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.]
To the second class, who have been brought up to no religion at all.
There is one thing of which all of this general class should take diligent heed, viz. That they do not consider points which are made matters of controversy, to be therefore indifferent. Upon this principle, what could be considered essential; Not only the truth of the scriptures, but also the being of a God has been questioned. Whether they are practically and pretendedly Atheists, or also speculatively and in their deliberate opinions, may itself be matter of controversy, and upon this men high in the estimation of the Church have already decided differently: but, that they are Atheists their words and their works conspire to prove. Men too have had different views—hot and bloody controversies about the best mode of civil polity. Does this prove that there is no difference what kind of government men adopt, or that they may do as well without any, and live in a state of confusion and anarchy: Such differences may render delay necessary; because the discussion may require time; but no prudent man will think that general skepticism is thereby justified; or that permanent disconnection with every society is therefore proper or safe. Although the diversity of opinion may occasion some disagreeable feeling both to parties regularly organized and to enquirers; yet the man who has a real desire to know the truth, will thankfully improve the opportunity which collision affords to examine opinions and elicit truth. This is, doubtless, the improvement we should make of the present divisions among professors. “Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shalt be increased.” In your deliberations and investigations it will be necessary for you to distinguish between facts and inferences, first principles and conclusions. Upon the former you will find as much agreement in the evidence as is necessary in order to form a fair verdict. The chicanery of advocates will in all trials clash ; if you can bring principles of law to bear upon authentic facts of evidence, you will then be prepared to decide. The bible is before you containing the solemn depositions of competent, disinterested, yea self denied and devoted evidences. There is certainly something very peculiar in the character of these witnesses and of their testimony. There is an inimitable majesty and fidelity in the former and consistency in the latter which can be accounted for on no other principle, but upon the majesty and force of truth. And then you are to remember that they relate miracles, which had they not happened, could be easily confuted. They court no men’s favour or concurrence. Moses relates the miracles of God and the obduracy of the People, his own rashness and dies. The prophets reprove and are hated, rejected and slain; and yet the murderers of these prophets declare the truth of their prophecy and garnish their tombs. In their narratives there is evidently no collusion in order to be consistent with each other, and yet when carefully examined they all agree. As there is no way to account for the existence of the scriptures but that they are divine revelation; so, there is no way to account for the existence of a true Church but that its members are influenced to join it by the Divine Spirit. The scriptures and the Church unite in testifying of Jesus as the seed of the woman, who was to appear in our nation. In the beginning of this era the sceptre having departed from Judah, and that land having become a Roman province, Jesus was born at Bethlehem. That primary fact then is admitted by both. The Jew says, however, that he was an illegitimate child, for both Jews and Christians agree that he was not the son of Joseph. For Mary conceived before they came together. The Christian says, however, that he was a miraculous conception as to his humanity and that he was really the only begotten and eternal Son of God. Here then upon inferential facts they widely differ. Let the candid and yet undetermined then take the fasts that are admitted on all hands, and reason whether he will be an unbelieving Jew believing Christian. Let him ask himself thus: What inducement had the judicious Joseph to retain his espoused Mary and take such care of her son, if the fact be not as the christian scriptures declare? It is well known that jealousy is the rage of a man, and that it will frequently sunder the bands of matrimonial connection, when these have been strengthened by long intimacy, and mutual pledges of everlasting attachment. Here every facility of alienation was afforded. The law was in his favour if the fact of the espousal had been as it commonly was public.[1] In this instance, however, it seems he had it in his power and in his mind to put her away privately. Why did he not the Christian has a reason—an angel appeared to him and told that although his espoused Mary was pregnant, yet she was also a virgin, and that she was with child of the Messiah according to the scriptures, a virgin shall conceive; a woman shall compass a man. The Jew has none. Although descended of the royal family of David she was no heiress. That family was reduced, she had neither money nor friends even in her own city, when she was enrolled according to the decree of Cæsar Augustus, but must endure, even in her delicate situation, the hardships of a stable lodging. Her offering was the offering of the poor. Soon was the babe, [his] mother, and reputed father exposed also to persecution. When Herod understood from the wise men, that some great personage was born at Bethlehem, where the Priests and Levites told the Messiah should be born. He sought the young child’s life, and Joseph must travel with his espoused wife into Egypt. How will the Jew account for this That Joseph should be so careful of one that was, as they blaspheme, a bastard, illegitimate!! But further, his friends and himself hold out uniformly this idea that he was the Son of God. The Jews do not assert that he enjoyed any distinguishing opportunities of learning, how is it then that he was so successful in procuring not only the temporary approbation of the doctors, and the applause of the people, but also the destruction of their system, and the dispersion of the Jews. If not eminently favoured of God, was the thing possible for him If not anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure? Would God then countenance to such a degree, such an arch imposter, and audacious blasphemer as they make him to be? Impossible: They charge him with calling himself the Son of God, they reckon this the same as making himself God, or equal with God. He neither denies the fact nor the inference of the charge. Again, they both say he was crucified between two thieves—both say he was laid in Joseph’s tomb—both say the tomb stone was sealed and a watch or guard of Roman soldiers set, to prevent the disciples from stealing away the body by might. They both agree that the body was removed, and that a great many believed he rose again. These are primary facts then upon which the disputants and opponents in this great controversy agree, facts which Jews and Greeks, Mahometans and Christians all admit as being established with more particular and ample evidence than can generally be obtained, or is generally asked for, in ascertaining facts of history. Then what are the inferential conclusions: Why the Jew says the disciples came by night when the guard slept and stole him away. The Christian says, he rose by the power of God. Here they widely differ, but it is upon a point in which you are not bound to give implicit credit to the testimony of either. You have an opportunity to decide from the internal evidence of the one or the ether of the statements, from other occurrences of those times recorded without any counter testimony, from the effects which the embracing or rejecting of the one or other side has had. First when it is to be noticed that the christian scriptures have recorded without valid contradiction from Jewish and Gentile persecutors, the only rational way, by which this historical phenomenon can be accounted for, or explained. They say that the soldiers are hired to relate an inconsistent falsehood, viz. That while they slept the disciples stole away the body of Jesus. Now in the first place, it must be admitted that this was the account that was given of the matter by the soldiers, by the Jews, by the unbelieving world generally. It would necessarily produce a great deal of investigation. Some cause must be assigned why the body of Jesus was not in the tomb of Joseph. Again it was impossible that the disciples could preserve a record of the solution of this problem which was false. If the soldiers had not said that this was the case, it would have been easy for the Jews to have confuted at once this part of New Testament record. It was about a third party, viz. the Romans that were many ways more attached to, and interested in the Jewish credit now, rather than in the Christian. It must then be a matter of fact that the soldiers said this. The thing, then, to be examined is, did they say the truth? In solving this question we must take several things into the account. 1. What object could they have in view, if they could not save their living master how could the corpse of their dead master do anything for them? 2. Is it likely that the cowardly disciples who trembled and fled and basely denied their Master when interrogated by damsels, would dare, at night, to enter the defiles of a Roman guard, break the seal of the nation and remove the heavy stone, and bear away the dead body? 3. How could this bearing away a dead body avail to the shewing of the same body alive before many witnesses? But again, what does the saying of the guard testify It says that they were guilty of death. Why were not the laws of the military code executed? It was death for one to sleep, and yet how did they all sleep? If they all slept, how did they know what was done? How came they then to tell this incoherent self contradictory story? The scriptures tell us they were promised impunity, in the implied fault, and bribed to relate the obvious falsehood.
If the great fact of our Saviour’s resurrection then must be admitted, as the only resolution of the historical problems of that time, indifference to the publication of this truth cannot be either humane or religious. We should imitate the conduct of the disciples and saints, who witnessed to this truth, by administering and receiving all divine ordinances. What other principle can account for the determined stand they took in opposition to the world, at the peril of every thing which other men count dear? There was no possibility of their being mistaken or deceived in the numerous interviews they had with their risen Master. There is no possible motive which can be conceived, that could induce them to attempt the deception of others; and there is no possible way, by which their success can be accounted for, in scattering the tribes of their Jewish and demolishing the empire and fanes [shrines] of their Gentile enemies, but that their testimony was true and their cause the cause of God. It can not be said they were designing knaves, for such characters have some object in view: what then was theirs? They had seen their master suspended upon the cross, they expected such an end themselves, and were not disappointed. Having no ground then to believe in a blessed resurrection, to act in this manner was evidently superlative madness and consummate folly. This being the case then, what are we to say of the two classes of men, with whom they had to deal? Many believed in them. They must, of course, be counted at least as foolish as their foolish deceivers. But what of those who opposed them? They could not prevail by argument—they erect gibbets for them and kindle furnaces to burn the maniacs. Is this then the view that the advocates of man’s perfectibility and the humanity of heathens give of these matters!!! Man is silly enough and bad enough even when you tell the truth of him, and exhibit his character in the light of candour and charity.
But what do infidels who profess to vindicate the justice of God say for that attribute, when the fact is, that somehow or other he made that religion prevail against all opposition? One of themselves has long ago committed the fraternitv. If it be of man it will come to nought; but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it. It has not only not been overthrown, but it has overthrown and will overthrow everything else. And this it has done, and will do, not by carnal weapons and carnal policy. No, it has to guard itself against all these: these ever have been, and ever will be against it. By what, then, has it been so mighty, if not through God? And can we safely set ourselves against that which he conserves, which he sanctions by his providence, and seals by his grace?
But you will say, we object not to the truth of religion. We only desist from a participation and observance of its rites because of the party spirit which prevails among professors. Religion, we admit, is something internal, and unless it influence life and morals it cannot be genuine; and yet we contend that it is presumptive and dangerous to neglect the positive institutions of piety. It is contrary to our nature to observe no ritual;—it is extremely ungrateful to neglect God’s appointments;—it is by no means safe to violate positive institutions. The nation has never been found, in which there are no religious ceremonies observed. It is quite a reasonable service to offer our souls and bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable upon the altar of divine institution. Has God graciously appointed these appropriate ordinances, and yet shall we neglect them? Has our Creator, Preserver and Saviour no claims on our gratitude? Obedience is of this principle the best evidence, “If ye love me keep my commandments.” What was it that first “brought death into the world and all our woe.” Was it not man’s first disobedience in violating a divine institution? Would that soldier be considered a dutiful soldier who would refuse to wear the livery of his country? If Christ commanded such rites generally to be observed, what valid reason can we give for omission? If they who sinned against Moses’ law died, at the mouth of two or three witnesses, of how much greater punishment shall he be thought worthy, who shall either profanely use, or sullenly neglect these solemn rites by which the blood of the covenant is signified, sealed and applied? Are the men of this generation stiff necked and rebellious? There is the more need that all who are his friends, should show themselves friendly, and not reject the counsel of God against them selves by refusing to be baptised in his name. If any man shall be ashamed of him, of his truth or of his ordinances in the midst of this crooked and perverse generation, of him will he be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and in his Father’s. Do you ask, then, what you shall do to be saved? We are commissioned to preach the gospel of good tidings to every creature, giving them this assurance, that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We have Apostolical example to say “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Should you say, if you have the spirit of true religion, you need not be much concerned about rites and forms, you will not thereby shun the vortex of controversy. There is a denomination who say so: the Quakers say there is but one baptism, and seeing there is certainly an inward spiritual baptism there can be need of any outward. But they might just as well argue that man is but one; there is a spirit in man, or an inward man; therefore there is no necessity of minding the outward man or body. They pretend to reject all instituted forms of religion, but even they have some forms. They have their drab coloured and buttonless coats as the badge of their religion. They reason contrary to the Apostles. They forbid water to their disciples and say they have the spirit. The Apostles say, “Can any man forbid water that these should be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” Acts x. 47. You see then that uniform custom and divine institution enjoin the observance of rites of religion. But you will say, I have not the spirit, and therefore I cannot with propriety be baptized, and make a profession of what I do not possess. If you do not, you ought. Will it answer as an excuse to God, that you were not disposed to bear faithful and true allegiance to your heavenly potentate? Has he not made his revelation credible? Why do you not believe it with your heart? This is his command: It is a reasonable command, and if you do, you may be Baptized according to express commandment and indubitable precedent. If you do not, you know the awful consequence. Cry then, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The Lord added unto the church only such as should be saved. The manner in which you should observe this initiatory ordinance, you must learn from what has been already said, and from what we are about briefly to lay down, for the direction of this second division of the undetermined, viz. They who have never been baptized, feel convictions of the truth and impression of the importance of religion, and yet are undecided about scriptural forms. We feel sensibly for your case. It is painful to halt between two opinions. It is natural for every person who is a subject of divine grace, to be inquisitive about divine truth and instituted order, and of course to say solemnly, “Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do?” This enquiry will be minute in proportion as imaginations are brought into the obedience of faith. Haughty unsubdued minds will always have something to say in its religion. The true christian will act as Eli directed Samuel, saying, Lord speak for thy servant heareth. At the same time that this is a laudable disposition, it may be carried too far, or rather another may be mistaken for it. There may be a zeal without knowledge. Much litigation has been in the Churches about opinions and rites of human invention. This is not the error however of the present day. If then it were the case that God had commanded you to be dipped, I trust my gracious Master would not allow me to forbid you. If he had commanded you to leave your children without when you came in, I trust I should not invite you to bring them. Let this matter then be seriously examined. Try both sides; lay by prejudices. Try to imbibe as much of the spirit of the gospel as possible, and let these subjects be decided when you are most under its influence. See whether the admission or rejection of the infants of believers would be the greatest evidence of divine grace, condescension and kindness to the children of men; or whether the subjects, administrators and spectators of baptism may not be as composed and believing and of course as much edified by the affusion or sprinkling of water upon the body of the baptized as by plunging it under the water; whether this will not answer as well for a symbol of what it is designed to signify, allowing the scriptures to be the judges, in this case, of propriety. If there be many instances in scripture phrase wherein the operation of the spirit in applying the blood of Christ is expressed by sprinkling, and none where the same is expressed by dipping, you will be at no loss to decide which mode is most eligible, convenient, expressive and proper. That cunning disputants upon the other side may be able to involve you in some difficulties, may be expected. There is nothing, as far as I knew, but what in the present, partial, and imperfect knowledge of man, but what by subtle cavil may be somewhat involved in difficulty, “Now we see through a glass darkly.” We may be practically, savingly and comfortably persuaded of many truths, against which notwithstanding there might be objections offered that we could not readily answer. Philosophers, or rather cavilers, of past centuries, brought forward objections, some against the existence of the material, some against the spiritual, world; which objections and cavils, required the patience and deep investigation of a [John] Reed to answer, and yet I suppose, no honest man of common sense was made really skeptical about the evidence of his senses in regard to the visible world; or of his consciousness and reflection in regard to the spiritual. Speculative triflers have always been ingenious in throwing stumbling blocks in the way of sound philosophy and right religion, while the experimental philosopher and practical Christian have held on their way. Thus if you be careful to walk in the ways of piety and virtue as far as you know, God will reveal in you from time to time whatever may be necessary for the credit of true religion, and the comfort of your own heart. Wrestle with Jacob and you will prevail with Israel, in obtaining a promise of God’s being not only your own God, but also the God of your seed. Christ loves importunity and ingenious reasoning, whereby he may be, as it were, compelled to shew kindness even to our seed. See the instance of the Syrophenician woman. She was not of the Jews, and therefore Christ reasoned with her, as if it had been improper that any thing should be done for her child. It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast to the dogs. What does she answer Truth Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from the Master’s table: See how Christ approves of her ingenious importunity, for he hates putting away. “O woman great is thy faith.” Math. xv. 28—Mark vii. 29. “Verily,” says he, on another similar occasion, “I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel.” In this way, dear fellow men I would have you to become determined, importunate and resolute, so that you would not only come yourselves, and take the kingdom by force for yourselves, but also bring your children, exercise faith upon the promise which is to you and to your children, if you observe the divine call. Be not troubled if some who are called disciples, strive to keep your offering back. The God of Israel hates putting away, he is willing and ready yet to be the God of your seed. His hand is not shortened; his mercy is not diminished; his grace is yet great. He yet gathers the lambs in his arms, and will not you put in for your babes? If you approve of the covenant, would you not wish your babes to have a share in it, and would you not wish that the grace of God and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ for their redemption should, publicly, in the sacrament of baptism, be acknowledged. You have been active, if parents, in presenting to the world children of the first Adam, labour in faith and prayer that they may be born again, made children of Christ the second Adam. If you are believers you are encouraged to do this. “Concerning your sons and your daughters, command ye me:” Doing your duty according to the vow implied in this act of representation and depending upon the grace which, in Christ Jesus, is adapted for every case, you have nothing to fear. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” You may err in calculating too low, but you can hardly err in calculating too high upon the grace and mercy of God toward your seed. Only think what God is, and what he has revealed himself to be through Jesus Christ ; all that he promises to be to you and your seed!! Can you excuse yourselves if you are still among the fearful and unbelieving, who refuse his offers and reject his counsel? Can you justify your conduct to your God or to your children if you receive not such gracious offers in their behalf, if you neglect to have their ears bored and nailed to the door of such a master! To be made children of God is better than all earthly nobility: to be made members of his church is better than to be citizens of any commonwealth; to have an inheritance among them who ale sanctified in Christ Jesus, is better than to be heirs of any worldly patrimony!!
We must, before we finish our address to the undetermined, and with it, our book, say something to the third class, which is composed of those who have been baptized in their youth, and yet by the arguments of Anabaptists are undetermined in their minds upon this important point of controversy.
I hope I shall never be so far an enemy to truth as to urge implicit faith to any instruction merely human or continuance in any system that is predicated on the mere dogmas of man. To discuss the doctrines, with which our memories were stored in early youth, is laudable. The constitution of our nature, and the development of our mental powers seem to be an index of what is our proper course of conduct in this respect. Youth is docile in perception, capacious in memory, and credulous in believing ; more advanced life should be marked for abstraction, reasoning, and investigation. If this mode be not adopted, truths which have a divine basis and are predicated upon the scriptures, may have to us, nothing for their foundation but the traditions of our fathers and the dogmas of our teachers. I would have you, therefore, shun this degrading extreme; if the system which your parents taught you be true, consistent and scriptural, it can bear an examination; if not, it is worth very little or rather as a religious system, it is worth nothing at all. If society around had all been taught as you were, and you and they were disposed to continue in that system, in which you had been taught, it might be enough for the maintenance of any argument that could occur in that case, that you know the current and catholic doctrines; but seeing the Head of the Church has seen proper that matters should be otherwise, you are under a strong obligation to yourself and your system, to give this and every other common controversy a careful investigation, so that you may be prepared to give an answer to him that asks of you a reason of your hope. As an inducement to investigation, also, I assure you that you never can have the same comfort in believing any system which you have taken upon the credit of others, as you can have in the faith and profession of that which you have examined, and discovered to have a scriptural foundation. The Thessalonians were believers and saved: They gave themselves, in a solemn covenant, first to God, and afterwards to his ministers by the will of Christ. [2 Cor. viii.] The Apostle had reason to thank God for them, “because God had from the beginning chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” [2 Thes. ii. 13.] Yet they were deficient in this respect and inferior to the Bereans. Why? Because these latter searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so. At the same time, however, that we would encourage investigation, we would dissuade from either a precipitate change or constant indecision. The latter of these will be the native result of the former as well as of a partial investigation of the subject. Whilst all rapid and thoughtless changes are improper and dangerous, there are some things peculiarly critical in the change which your indecision, if not settled, contemplates. Let us view a few of them.
1st. It is an act of the greatest ingratitude and dishonour to your parents, who in your infancy had you solemnly dedicated to God by the symbol of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Are you then solicitous to nullify their deed and to declare that their offering was an abomination? Are you prepared to say that parents have no right to make a religious disposal of their children? If you despise the religious transactions of your parents, and scorn to have church privileges entailed to you through their representation, you ought, to be consistent, to renounce all other advantages which have, or might have accrued to you through the same channel. Now, how would you do in another case? Suppose through them were assigned to you as their heirs a large estate; would you say that you would have nothing but what you earned by labor or gained by trade? I trow not. Then evidently, if you renounce the inheritance, you will be considered as despising your birthright, as well as your parents, and I would really have you take care lest you seek its restoration in vain, should you seek it again even by tears.
But in the second place. By acting in the way which Anabaptists would have you, you excommunicate all Pedobaptist professors. Are you prepared to say that none are baptized but those whom Anabaptist elders dip? If so, you must look upon surrounding professors not only as unbaptized heathens, but as arrogant profaners of a very holy ordinance. I say you must consider them as wilful opposers of the purity of divine institutions, because I cannot conceive, how you could find for them the apology of comparative ignorance. Baptists themselves must admit that the ministers of other denominations are at least equal in learning to theirs. Now, do you really think that all the fathers of the first ages of the christian church, who contended so earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, who vindicated so bravely the prophetic office of Christ against the traditions of the Jews and the philosophy of the Gentiles, were either not taught of God themselves, or were such knaves that they would deceive others by baptizing those who neither were, nor could be the subjects of that ordinance? Their success in confuting all the learning and all the policy of that day, confutes the first of these suppositions; the fact that in maintaining their system, in vindicating the liberty whereby Christ makes his people free, they had to resist unto blood, striving against sin, renders the latter of these suppositions, namely, their insincerity, impossible. It is true this controversy had then no place in the Church. Those who had been engrafted into the good olive tree, had no doubt but that if the root was holy so were the branches. They knew that in the Apostolic churches the children even of a pious mother were holy, not by native innocence, not by works of righteousness, but by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which was promised to be poured out upon the seed of believers. What are we to say of that galaxy of burning and shining lights that rose up on the benighted world at the reformation? Can you mention any of those who have attained to eminence for that great work, that were advocates or rather that were not strenuous opposers of that system which excludes from the Church of the Redeemer the infant seed of believers? Were we now to write in this controversy in the style in which Luther, Calvin, Owen and Flavel have discussed this subject we would be thought very harsh. These men, too, did not draw their arguments from the practice of the Church in the middle and dark ages, but from the authority of the primitive fathers, from the Apostles and prophets, on which foundation they uniformly desired to build, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Were these men then ignorant and weak, or were they roguish and deceitful men! They had all the weight of arguments that have been since adduced in favour of that system, they were in the way of reformation; they had no long formed attachments to any system but to the one they renounced. In what way then are we to account for their practice, but that they were persuaded that truth permitted, yea, encouraged the admission of infants into the Church in the simple, plain, but at the same time, expressive and scriptural mode of baptism by affusion. Before, then, you renounce either the doctrines or order of these eminent reformers, whose integrity was equal to their talents, and their talents and integrity equaled by few, I have but one thing to ask of you, viz. That you first know their system, and that then you act prayer fully and conscientiously. Doing so, I have no fear, that you will either excommunicate them, or renounce the scriptural system which from them has been to you, in kind Providence, transmitted. Hold fast then what you have received; let no man take your crown: for he established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers that they should make them known to their children; that the generation to come might know them; even the children which should be born; who shall arise and declare them to their children. In the third place if you should adopt the Anabaptist system, you must be again baptized. If that would be necessary in your case, it would be necessary in the case of all who have been baptized in infancy; if it would not be necessary in, all cases, and yours being the same as theirs, it must be a profanation of the name of God and of the ordinance of baptism. You can easily see then, that whether you will or not your infant baptism puts you in a predicament very different from that of these who have not been subjects of that solemn rite. You will, perhaps, say, you cannot answer the Baptist objections against infant baptism. What then? Is there no way of accounting for this, but that they are unanswerable? Can you answer all the objections of the deist against the scriptures and the Christian religion? If you cannot; have you not the same reason to become a deist that you have to become an Anabaptist? Again—should you change you change your profession to-morrow are you sure that you could answer all the objections which might be brought against the system? If so, you will, to be sure, be so far comfortable; if not, what better will you be then than you are now? The same obligation will be upon you to change that is now, but this difficulty will be in the way, that you do not want to be always changing, and you will have a kind of pride in maintaining a system which you have personally adopted. You may say, however, that you shall then be baptized in a way which you are sure is scriptural, and therefore your mind will be easy. It will certainly be desired by all true christians that they may profess what is true, and practise what is correct, according to the scriptures; but you will find it to be a very hard task to bring from scripture any precedent of the same deed that you have in contemplation. There were adults baptized; of that we have no doubt. So we, without any scruple, baptize adults, of whose cordiality in the faith of the gospel, we can obtain comfortable evidence. But where is the example of any baptized in adult years who had been baptized in infancy? This is your case, and for this you have no scriptural precedent. Nay more, until the fifteenth or sixteenth century, you will find no precedent of this kind, and at that time it need not seem strange, when society received such a fiery purgation, if some dross should be found among those who were separated from the popish mass. You will perhaps further object, that sprinkling a little water upon an unconscious babe could answer no purpose for the purging of the soul. It is admitted on all hands that baptism, in whatever form, and to whatever subjects administered, does not avail to the purifying of the flesh, or the cleansing of our polluted, carnal nature. It is only by the blessing of God upon an ordinance of his own that we can expect any advantage from the sacraments. Is God then not able to bless the infants of his people with effusions of his Spirit for cleansing and sanctification according to his own promise? If so, are we not bound to acknowledge this his great grace and condescension, and having had it acknowledged upon our selves, we ought certainly not to deny it, either in its propriety, or to our offspring. Do you yet object that you have found no advantage from your baptism, and therefore you consider it necessary that you should renounce the first and have recourse to another baptism? Before you actually do so, I would ask you a few questions. First—Have you improved your infant baptism as you ought? If you have, and yet find no advantage I could not much blame you for trying an adult baptism. If you have not; then, Second—I would ask you, whether it is not more likely that the calamity of your spiritual condition is to be ascribed to your misimprovement of a divine ordinance, than that infant baptism is destitute of authority? You know, there is no propriety in reasoning from the abuse of any thing against its right observation and use. In the old dispensation circumcision was profitable to those who kept the law of that institution; in relation to others, circumcision became uncircumcision; not so that the rite should be repeated, of which we have no record, but that they might not, in a licentious course, presume upon covenant blessings, but rather take warning and reform. The same is the case here. If we have trampled under foot the blood of the covenant ; there is no other blood of atonement ; nor any propriety of having baptism, the symbol thereof, either in the same, or any other form, repeated. Third—Should you proceed to make the rash experiment, and run the hazardous, because unauthorized, risk, Are you sure that you will keep perfectly the vows and obtain certainly the advantages of religion in this second and other baptism? If you are, then go on and prosper: If not. Is one profanation and misimprovement not enough? Are you prepared to say, that God cannot consistently give you the comforts and blessings of salvation if you walk in all the statutes and ordinances of religion, according to the obligations of your first baptism, unless you have recourse, without any argument direct or indirect for this unauthorised deed I would really have you take care, and look before you leap, lest you find yourself not only plunged in waters of affliction, but lest you should also be mired in a morass of delusion and carnal calculation, from which extrication will be difficult. Are you prepared to say, that your parents had no right to dedicate you to God by baptism; or that if they had, you have a right to disannul, as far as you can, their deed? Are you prepared to say, that all your pious predecessors were unbaptized heathens; either blind and ignorant, or rebellious and obstinate, and that all who satisfy themselves with infant baptism do, either ignorantly or willfully, reject the counsel of God against themselves by refusing to receive a christian baptism? Have you lived so long without noticing one mark and evidence of providential or gracious kindness, which might restrain you from renouncing the covenant God of your youth? Has he ever commanded you, or any of the seed of Jacob, to seek his face in vain? Rather, Has he not a thousand and a thousand times saved you from dangers, and granted you supplies, for which you neither prayed, nor gave him thanks? Can you then be so foolish, and, ungrateful as even to try to get another God than this God of your fathers, and God of your youth? Would it indeed be an advantage to barter the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for any of these modern deities, that thoughtless man has made? Is it an attribute against which you would object, that He is the God of his people’s seed? If your present indecision be likely to have that termination, it would, certainly, be proper that you should give him some other name, as well as ascribe to him other attributes. The God of Israel is the maker of all things. If you choose another, whatever you may call him, he must be inferior, yea, if we allow the scriptures to be judge, in the case, they will tell us that the gods who did not make the heavens are no Gods. Nor must you call him Christ, for he is the same who appeared to Abraham and to Moses. Before Abraham was, says he, I AM. Against whom did Israel rebel; whom did they tempt Certainly it was Jehovah their God, yet the Apostle has most positively said that they tempted Christ. 1. Cor. x. 9. “Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted.” This need not seem strange, for he is the same in all ages past, present, and to come. Heb. xiii. 8. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day and for ever.” If you adopt another than the God of Israel as your God, either the God of Israel is not the true God, or yours is not; for there is, and can be, but one true God. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. There is one God, and one Mediator, between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. If you join another Church, than that which was in the wilderness you cannot join the true Church, unless there be more true churches than one; Christ Jesus the divine Husband has but one spouse—one Church, and in that Church he will have his children named, and nourished, recognized and cherished. Can you then any longer hesitate and be undetermined—will you not from this time say, “Thou art my Father the guide of my youth?” Would you not sustain a loss to relinquish all the precious promises, and lose the sanction of all the salutary precepts of Old Testament scriptures? And how can you retain the new, which so fully and frequently establishes the authority of the old? Can the cause be good or eligible, which requires such a sacrilege and such a sacrifice? Try the reasoning of these, who are like to persuade you, and see if they do not lead to such conclusions. I do not say, they either profess, or intend it. Neither is it certain that they will admit the inferences, which from their system may fairly be deduced. That being the case, I would not even charge them with holding these tenets. Still, I insist that the system leads to them, and numbers, by reflecting and arguing upon the system have actually professed them. If I know anything of my own heart too, I can assure you it is with pain that I have even glanced at the consequences of a system which so many, bearing the christian name defend and maintain. There are many of the profession, against which I have been writing, of whom I would charitably hope the better things that accompany salvation, though I thus speak. The scriptures leave it without a doubt, that all who build upon a right foundation shall be saved, although they may heap upon that foundation of Christ Jesus, a great deal of stubble, which they must, in the end, be willing to have consumed. It is because I love their persons, and, in many respects their deportment, that I feel such an interest in having their dreams and delusions destroyed. “What is the chaff to the wheat?” If, too, we were to hesitate about joining a system as long as we see any of its vouchers apparently pious, we might hesitate long, and about many systems. When we make a profession it should not be of our own piety, or of the piety of our party; but it should be of our faith in Jesus Christ the only Saviour, the living and true God. If you would attain a comfortable establishment of heart in a profession of religion you must examine carefully your own heart to make your calling and election sure, but, I do not know that you have any authority to examine the heart and experiences of others. It is by their intelligent profession, and holy walk and conversation that is, by their fruits ye shall know them. There are, alas! too many instances of proof to shew that men may call themselves converted christians, when yet they make the true Christ a blasphemer as did the Pharisees of old, because he, being a man makes himself equal to God. Proselyting zeal and ostentatious piety may run very high where there is no true religion. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, the kingdom of God cometh not by observation; Neither shall they say; Lo here, or Lo there, for, behold the kingdom of God is within you. When they shall say to you, See here; or See where go not after them nor follow them. If there ever was a time in which it was necessary that the Spirits should be tried certainly it is now. Still if we humbly and diligently apply ourselves to this work, taking the bible as our manual, and the Spirit of God speaking therein as our guide to the knowledge of all truth, we need not be like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine; but may become strong in the faith, giving glory to God. Difficult as these trying times are, and scarce as true faith may be, undetermined and wavering people of God’s covenant, trust in the Lord and you shall yet be established. “Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord and my judgment is passed over from my God. Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding: He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Thus saith the Lord that formed thee from the womb which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob my servant; and thou Jesurun whom I have chosen. . For I will pour water up on him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thy offspring; And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses, Hearken, unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb; And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you?” What say you, then, dear descendants of God’s people, do you still hesitate, whether or not, you should be stedfast in God’s covenant; or, do you not rather say with David. “The Lord hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, for this is all my salvation and all my desire.”
FINIS.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] That espousal was a public deed generally, and so an example for the orderly practice observed in civilized communities generally of publishing parties before marriage [i.e., proclamation of banns of marriage], is evident from this fact, that the punishment of violating the betrothed was the same as for adultery, Deut.xxii. 24.