07 - Baptism: Its Subjects
BAPTISM ITS SUBJECTS.
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.-- Matthew 28:19-20.
HAVING considered what is baptism, I am now to inquire, To whom is this ordinance to be administered?
It may be regarded as certain, that a simpleminded reader of the New Testament, uninfluenced by previous instruction, or by any early associations, would never suspect that any other persons than those who believe are to be baptized. In accordance with this sentiment are the concessions of the advocates of the baptism of infants, many of whom admit, with Dr. Woods, that "we have no express precept, or example, for infant baptism, in all our holy writings." "Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative to it" (infant baptism), says Prof. Stuart, "I do not find." [89] Martin Luther says, "It cannot be proved by the Sacred Scriptures, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles." Neander says, "That CHRIST did not establish infant baptism, is certain." Rosenmuller, Tholuck, Winer, De Wette, and others, while they assert that the primitive baptism was immersion, declare, with equal decisiveness, that infant baptism was unknown in the age of the Apostles.
Such being the state of the case, the burden of proof rests on those who maintain that infant baptism ought to be practiced. As the practice is now extensively adopted, a claim might indeed be set up in its favor, as "an existing institution"; but any presumption which might be urged in its behalf, on this ground, is rebutted by the stronger presumption that, had Christ intended so important an ordinance as the rite initiating its recipients into the Christian church, should be extended to infants, He would have left, in the inspired writings, some distinct intimation, at least, of his will. But not one such can be found. Those, therefore, who contend that all Christian parents should apply this ordinance to their infant children, must prove it to be a duty binding on the churches. Those who reject infant baptism [90] are not called on to state one objection against it: they may act only on the defensive, while their brethren are bound to advance good reasons for supposing the practice to be obligatory. Accordingly, pedo-baptist writers usually proceed at once by argument to defend and support the practice. The arguments generally produced I shall now examine.
I. "The New Testament does not forbid the baptism of infants." Nor does it forbid the admission of infants to the Lord’s Supper, nor the invocation of saints, nor prayers for the dead, nor the use of holy water. But does this silence prove that these superstitions are lawful, and should be observed?
2. "The want of an express divine precept requiring infant baptism affords no valid objection against it."
I was myself once satisfied to adopt this sentiment; but a more careful examination has convinced me of my error. Why ought we not to be guided by the New Testament on the question, To whom is Christian baptism to be administered? as well as on the question, To whom is the Lord’s Supper to be administered? And if infant baptism ought to be practiced, although there is no divine precept in the word [91] of God respecting it, why may not infant communion be binding on the churches? Why is not the Bible a sufficient directory on this subject? Is a man who has hitherto been ignorant of Christianity, and who has no views respecting it, but who has now received the whole Bible, and is left to its guidance alone, is he not in a capacity fully to decide the question of duty as to the scriptural subjects of baptism? And where, in the whole Bible, is the passage, or the combination of passages, that would suggest to such a man the duty of infant baptism? But it is said, We have no express divine precept respecting the observance of the Lord’s day as the Christian Sabbath, or respecting "female communion." But we have the practice of the Apostles to justify us for keeping the first day of the week as the Sabbath. Let us have as good a warrant for the baptism of infants, and we will be satisfied. And in relation to the communion of females, the command of Christ, addressed "originally to the Apostles," was not given to them as Apostles, nor as men; but the practice was enjoined on them as believers, disciples. All persons, therefore, whether male or female, being believers, disciples, members of the church, are bound to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It is also clear, from various [92] passages of the New Testament, that women did partake of the supper. (Compare Acts 18:2, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 1:2; and 1 Corinthians 11:1-2, 1 Corinthians 11:20-33.) Can we find in the New Testament as satisfactory evidence in favor of infant baptism? I will only add, that we do not reject the baptism of infants merely because there is "no express divine precept" requiring it; but because there is neither command, nor example, nor fair inference in its favor, in a single passage in the word of God.
3. Authority for infant baptism is supposed to be derived "from the Abrahamic covenant, baptism being regarded as a substitute for circumcision." The covenant made with Abraham we find in Genesis 17:1-14 --
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram; but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee; and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting [93] covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, and the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
"And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed alter thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall he circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you; and he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." This covenant may be considered as having a letter and a spirit. It contains three promises to Abraham: First, a numerous posterity, which was fulfilled in the letter in the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit by the divine constitution that makes all believers the children of Abraham. Secondly, the next promise was, to be a God to him and his seed, which was fulfilled in the letter by his protection of Israel in Egypt; his delivering [94] them from bondage; his taking them into covenant at Sinai; and all his subsequent dealings with them, till they were cast off by their rejection of Christ. This promise was fulfilled in the spirit by God’s being a God to all believers, and to them alone, in a higher sense than he was to Israel. The third promise was of the land of Canaan, fulfilled in the letter to Israel, and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel, in the possession of the heavenly inheritance. Now, be it remembered, it belongs to those who urge the practice of infant baptism to prove, from this covenant, that all Christians are under obligations to adopt this practice. But can any Christian feel that this is the covenant which God has made with him? Christian parent, has God covenanted to give you these blessings? Though he may have covenanted to give you some of these blessings, together with many others, the question must be repeated, Is this the very covenant which God has made with you? If it is, then you are under obligations to perform the rite of circumcision on every man child in your house--and that, too, on the eighth day--neither before nor after that period. But it is said, "Baptism has come in the place of circumcision." Where is the proof of this? You assert it, and you must prove it. [95] If we are yet under "the covenant of circumcision," only baptism having taken the place of the ancient rite, why has not the Bible informed us of the fact? Which some, who had embraced the religion of Jesus (Acts 15:1-29), insisted that the Christian converts should be circumcised, why did not the great council of the Apostles and elders, who decided that circumcision was abolished, satisfy those who were jealous of the law, by reminding them, that the baptism of infants was to be practiced as a substitute for circumcision? And when Paul wrote to the Galatians, in opposition to the Judaizing teachers, who held to circumcision [Galatians 3:1-5], why do we find in his Epistles not a single hint of the same fact? And if circumcision and baptism were the same thing, why was baptism administered to persons who had been previously circumcised? And, again, if baptism be a substitute for circumcision, will it not, of necessity, follow, that ALL SERVANTS, whether " born in the house, or bought with money," must be baptized on the faith of the master? But I need not pursue these inquiries. The most eminent biblical scholars of the age agree with Prof. Stuart in the opinion, that "the Abrahamic covenant furnishes no ground for infant baptism.p The [96] Scriptures themselves have decided who are entitled to the spiritual blessings of this covenant, namely, the spiritual seed of Abraham. But only "they that are of faith are the children of Abraham." Galatians 3:7, and 5:29, "If ye be CHRIST’S, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." So, then, believing Gentiles are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and they only. The children of believers are in no sense his seed. They can become such only by believing in Jesus Christ. When they exercise faith in Christ, then, and not till then, will they be parties to the covenant, and members of the church. Having become "CHRIST’S, they will be Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." For my own part, I zealously and laboriously endeavored, for months, to satisfy myself that the practice might be defended from this covenant, but was obliged to abandon the attempt in despair.
4. It is said, "The Jewish church was the same with the Christian, and as children were connected with their parents by a religious rite, under the old dispensation, this relation may with propriety be marked by a religious rite, under the new dispensation." In this statement are two errors. First, it is assumed that the two churches bear such a [97] resemblance to each other, as to affect the point in debate; but this is the very thing to be proved. No matter how extensive may be the similarity between the ancient and the Christian dispensations, provided they are not similar in respect of their members and ordinances. There is no such sameness as this The one, by its constitution, included carnal members; the other, by its constitution, admits spiritual members only. The one was a national establishment, into which its members were introduced by birth; the other, a spiritual organization, composed of those who have received the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Secondly, another error of the statement is, it supposes circumcision was designed to mark some "peculiar spiritual relation" between the parent and the child. But where is the proof of this? Not a particle of evidence to sustain such a position can be brought from the word of God. On the contrary, circumcision was a mark of national distinction, intended to separate the people of Israel from surrounding nations, and to bind them together as one people. Circumcision, of itself, secured to the circumcised person no blessing; it was enforced by the penalty of death; it was not enjoined on all Jewish children; it was not enjoined on believers in other nations; [98] it could not, therefore, be a spiritual privilege to individuals. From this it is apparent that there is no room for the allegation that, "if children are not baptized, they do not enjoy such privileges as Jewish children had." Even admitting that circumcision was designed to stand connected with peculiar blessings, still the child of the Christian believer has great advantages over the offspring of the Israelite. Unto him are committed the oracles of God [Romans 3:2]; like Timothy, he is made to know the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make him wise unto salvation [2 Timothy 3:15]; from infancy, he is the subject of Christian sympathy and care; from his birth he is consecrated to God by supplication; and on his expanding character are sweetly shed the influences of holy example, of religious education, and a peaceful home. This peculiarity in the condition of a believer’s child is recognized by the Apostle, when he bids Christian parents bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord [Ephesians 6:4]; recognized in all the promises of a divine blessing on parental fidelity; recognized in the promiscuous application of the Spirit’s power to the hearts of children thus trained up, whether they have had the sign of the cross marked on their brow, or had water sprinkled [99] upon their face, or have never approached a baptismal altar.
5. It is contended that "the Jews had been accustomed to baptize the children of proselytes to their faith, and therefore the Apostles must have understood the direction, ’baptizing all nations,’ to include children." This argument depends, for all its force, on the fact assumed, that proselyte baptism was practiced among the Jews in the time of Christ. But this assertion is destitute of proof. Prof. Stuart, after an elaborate examination, has come to the conclusion that "such baptism was practised at, or not long after, the time when the second Temple was destroyed," seventy years after Christ. This conclusion accords with the opinions of the great critics of Germany. The foundation, then, of the above argument being removed, the argument itself falls to the ground.
[The London Baptist states, that there is no evidence that proselyte baptism was practised even as early as Prof. Stuart concedes. It says:
"1. There is no mention of it in the Old Testament."
"2. There is no allusion to it in the [Old Testament] Apocrypha."
"3. It is not mentioned in the New Testament." [100] "4. It is not referred to in Jewish writers of the apostolic age."
"5. There is no reference to it in the Jewish Mishna"--a collection of all the Jewish traditions which had been handed down from one age to the other, and written about the middle of the second century, or the beginning of the third, to preserve the traditions from being lost.
"6. There is no allusion to it in the Christian fathers for the first four centuries." This is confirmed by Dr. P. Schaff and Dr. Meyer, who also place it after the destruction of the Temple. Philo and Josephus are "profoundly silent" on the subject. Dr. Marriott, of Eton College, formerly of Exeter, Oxford, concedes that "among Continental scholars at the present time the prevailing opinion" is in harmony with the views of the London Baptist. Dr. Laurens P. Hickok, in his "Humanity Immortal," explains the conflict of opinions on this subject in these words: "A mode of purification was established in connection with the rite of circumcision, and which became a formal application of water, and known in the tradition of the elders as proselyte baptism. It is sufficient to say, that John’s baptism was quite different from proselyte baptism."--EDITOR.] [101]
6. The friends of infant baptism place great reliance on the fact that "baptism was applied to infants in the early ages ages of the church." The argument from the history of the church might be allowed to have great weight, if the practice under consideration could be traced back to the Apostles; but this cannot be done. While we find Barnabas and Hermas, the friends of the Apostle Paul, together with an uninterrupted succession of writers from their time downwards, frequently speaking of the immersion of believers, we find no mention whatever of infant baptism till the time of Tertullian, two hundred years after Christ! I am aware that distinguished pedo-baptist writers have quoted Justin Martyr and Irenæus, Christian fathers who lived before Tertullian. But a careful examination of the passages referred to will satisfy a candid inquirer that these fathers have been misunderstood.
Justin Martyr says, "Among those who were members of the church, there were many of both sexes, some sixty and some seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their infancy." It is contended that the last clause must refer to the baptism of infants. The Greek verb here employed is the same as that rendered "teach" in the Commission. The [102] simplest and most natural rendering of the passage, is, they were instructed from their childhood.
Matthies, commenting on this passage, says, "These words mean simply that ’FROM THEIR CHILDHOOD THEY WERE INSTRUCTED IN RELIGION,’; for, in another place, speaking of the order and manner of baptism, Justin Martyr says that ’only those who believed what they were taught were baptized].’ From which it appears that, in Justin’s view, baptism was to be given subsequently to faith."
Starck says, "The defenders of infant baptism attempt to prove it from Justin Martyr and Irenæus, but neither of them says what is attributed to him."
Neander, Winer, Rheinhard, and Munscher, Hahn, Lange, and nearly all of the German critics, are directly opposed to the pedo-baptist view of this passage. The passage from Irenæus is as follows: "Christ came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are regenerated [renascuntur], to God, infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and the aged. Therefore he passed through every age respectively, sanctifying infants by becoming an infant to them," etc. Everything here turns on the meaning of the word translated regenerated. If it means [103] they were regenerated, then it has nothing to do with our subject; if it means they were baptized, then it proves the existence of infant baptism in the time of Irenæus. An examination of Irenæus’ manner of speaking will make it plain that the word in debate must have assigned to it the former meaning, they were regenerated. So, many eminent critics.
Baumgarten Crusius. "The celebrated passage in Irenæus is not to be applied to infant baptism, for the phrase renascuntur, etc., evidently means the participation of all in his divine and holy nature, in which he became a substitute for all."
Winer. "Tertullian is the first that mentions infant baptism. Irenæus does not mention it, as has been supposed." So Rossler, Munscher, Von Coln, etc.
Hence it appears that Tertullian, about A. D. 200, is the very first writer who mentions infant baptism; and he opposed it--"a proof," says Neander, "that it was not yet customary to regard this as an apostolic institution; for had it been so, he would hardly have ventured to oppose it so warmly." Again, Neander says, "Tertullian declared against infant baptism, which, at that time, was certainly not a generally prevailing practice--was not yet regarded [104] as an apostolic institution. On the contrary, as the assertions of Tertullian render in the highest degree probable, it had just begun to spread, and was therefore regarded by many as an innovation." It must be remembered that Neander is the most eminent ecclesiastical historian of the present age. With him, in this view, the great body of living German critics are united.
Great stress is laid on the testimony of Origen (who flourished about the year of our Lord 220), and of Augustine (about A. D. 400), who testified to an apostolic tradition for infant baptism. In regard to the former, Neander says, "His words in that age cannot have much weight; for whatever was regarded as important was alleged to be from the Apostles. Besides, many walls of partition intervened between this age and that of the Apostles, to intercept the view."
Augustine says, "Infant baptism is believed to be established not without apostolical authority." Living at so remote an age from the Apostles, being deeply engaged in the controversy as a violent party man, and catching at slight evidence with too great avidity, we can scarcely regard him as an historical witness. In the year of our Lord 253, Fidus, a [105] country bishop, submitted to a council, sitting at Carthage, the question, "whether infants might be baptized before they were eight days old." It is said, "There was no doubt respecting the propriety of infant baptism; that was admitted on all hands. And this shows the practice to be general in that age." In reply, I remark, we have already seen Tertullian, who flourished only some fifty years before this, opposing infant baptism "as an innovation." The practice, introduced about his time, had spread indeed; but so late as the time when the council assembled, it was still a question whether it was proper to baptize infants before the eighth day. Now, to my mind, it is plain, that had infants been baptized from the days of the Apostles down to the session of the council, this question could never have been started. The usage in the case would have been settled long before that day; and the fact, that such a point was unsettled in the mind of a bishop, shows that infant baptism was not, even at that period, a general practice.
Before leaving the argument for infant baptism from ecclesiastical history,--an argument on which the very greatest dependence is placed,--one or two comments may be admissible. While the chain of evidence in favor of immersion is [106] unbroken, from the very days of Paul and Barnabas downwards, all the links which should connect the later practice of the church, in regard to infants, with the time of the Apostles, ARE MISSING! We hear not a syllable of the baptism of infants till two hundred years after Christ. It is admitted, however, that the practice was commenced near the close of the second century, and gradually gained ground in the third; and it may be asked, How could the change from adult to infant baptism be introduced? In reply, it is enough to ask, How could episcopacy, and the use of sponsors, the sign of the cross on the forehead, the dressing in white, and a multitude of usages and ceremonies, be introduced, all "without a whisper of opposition?" Especially, I ask, how could infant communion become universal in the church, without a single note of remonstrance? There is the same evidence from antiquity in favor of this as in favor of infant baptism; and if you adopt the one practice on the ground of the usage of the ancient church, you must also adopt the other. The truth unquestionably is, infant baptism was introduced into the church contemporaneously with the notion, that baptism is essential to salvation. When this idea prevailed, baptism of course must be [107] administered to infants, or they were doomed to perdition. But I pass to another topic.
7. Household baptism. It is argued that "the Apostles baptized certain households, and it is probable these households contained infant children." "Probable" they contained infants! But my brethren must make it certain--the burden of proof rests on them. They cannot use the "households" as an argument in their favor till they PROVE, not only that they might contain, but that they actually did contain, infants. This will scarcely be attempted, for the Holy Ghost has left on record facts concerning two of these cases which demonstrate that they contained only those who believed. In the case of the jailer, it is said, "Paul and Silas spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house [Acts 16:32]." "And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" [Acts 16:34]
Dr. Macknight, a pedo-baptist, remarks, "The house of the jailer, it seems, were equally impressed with Paul’s sermon, as the jailer himself was."
Calvin. * * * * * * "in which the grace of God illustriously appeared, because it suddenly brought the whole family to a pious consent."
Bloomfield. "It is taken for granted, his family became Christians as well as himself." [108]
Concerning the household of Stephanas, Paul writes, "It is the first-fruits of Achaia, and they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints" [1 Corinthians 16:15]; on which Dr. Macknight remarks, "The family of Stephanas seem all to have been adults when they were baptized, as they are said to have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints." With reference to the case of Lydia [Acts 16:14-15], it appears she was a stranger from Thyatira, residing in Philippi, nearly three hundred miles from home, for the purposes of trade. It is not in evidence that she had a husband or children. Probably her household was composed of assistants in her business, who, following her example, believed and were baptized; for we are informed that, when Paul and Silas left the city, they entered into the house of Lydia, and saw and comforted the brethren. [Acts 16:40]
Thus we find in the New Testament baptized households just so often as we find believing households. So now, in the church, Baptist ministers are frequently permitted to baptize whole families, on a profession of their faith; and within a recent period, the missionaries in Burmah speak of baptizing eight entire households of believers.
[A few additional testimonies on the subject [109] of "household baptism" may be given. Olshausen, German Lutheran, says: "For infant baptism nothing is to be deduced from the word ’house,’ for the adult members of the family, or the slaves likewise, might be signified by it."
Neander, German Lutheran, "We can not infer the existence of infant baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Corinthians 16:15 shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, who were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults."
One of the most important witnesses on this subject is Dr. Willibald Beyschlag, German Lutheran, who wrote his New Testament Theology in 1899. He says: "Baptism was only administered to adults. All that has been read into the Acts of the Apostles about the baptism of children is pure fancy." "There is no mention in his [Paul’s] writings, or in any part of the New Testament, of a baptism of children." "Appeal has been made to the repeated statement: ’He was baptized with his whole house.’ But who is to tell us that infant children belonged to this house? The possibility of an apostolic baptism of children is destroyed by the reasoning of Paul (1 Corinthians 7:14), where he places the children of Christian parents on [110] the same level with non-Christian husbands and wives, and calls them ’hagia’ [holy] because of their life connection with Christian parents, and not because of having received baptism. But still more convincing is the argument, that if there had been a tradition of apostolic baptism of children, the wavering of the church on the subject even so late as Tertullian and Augustine would have been impossible."--EDITOR.]
8. Infant baptism is enforced from "the nature and fitness of things," and "because it is agreeable to the feelings of parents." The feelings which prompt pious parents to present their infant offspring for baptism are often deserving of great respect. Indeed, they are frequently deemed sacred, and no profane eye should look upon them with unhallowed gaze. But when, influenced by these "feelings," men would impose on the churches, as a divine institution, an uncommanded ceremony, and thus set aside an ordinance of Christ, it becomes us to examine the strength of the argument. The principle on which the reasoning proceeds is this: whatever observance is pleasant to the feelings of good men ought to be regarded as an institution of God! There are, doubtless, pious men in the Roman Catholic Church, and the unscriptural ceremonies of Popery "are [111] agreeable to their feelings." Is this any reason for supposing these ceremonies binding on all the disciples of the Savior? Prayer for the repose of departed spirits, supplications to the Virgin Mary and to the saints, and the worship of images, are pleasant to the "feelings" of those who offer them; but is this a sufficient proof that all the followers of Christ ought to adopt the views of the Catholics, in these matters? If the advocates of infant baptism have no better reason than this for their practice, I do not see how they can require others to conform to them. The fact is, parents usually think of the baptism of their children as an act of dedication to God, and it is in this that their feelings are interested. They desire to consecrate them to the Savior, and they take it for granted, that they may make the consecration "by baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Under the impulse of their affectionate "feelings" they forget to ask whether their proposed course will be agreeable to the great Head of the church. This should not be. Men must not set up their "feelings" as the standard, and bring God’s law to bend to them. We must first ascertain the will of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, and then endeavor to [112] bring our feelings cheerfully to accord with that will. Infant dedication is eminently proper, but let it be performed so as not to violate a law of Christ’s kingdom. Let the fond parent take the child of his affections into his closet, and there, in secret, solemnly consecrate it to the service of his Father who seeth in secret. Let his solemn vows of consecration be followed by appropriate efforts, and he may expect the blessing of the God of heaven upon his offspring. But an argument in favor of infant baptism is founded upon "the nature and fitness of things." This argument entirely overlooks the distinction between positive institutions and moral duties. These last, such as repentance, faith, justice, benevolence, praise, prayer, may be deduced "from the nature and fitness of things." Not so with positive institutions. These depend for their authority on the will of the founder, and unless that will has been clearly expressed, they cannot be binding. To attempt to establish the claims of a religious ceremony, by reasoning "from the nature of things," is essentially absurd and fearfully dangerous. Not a ceremony was ever honored with a place in the Romish ritual for which some such reason could not be assigned. To endeavor, then, by reasoning [113] "from the nature and fitness of things," to fasten on the churches a ceremony which is neither commanded of God nor countenanced by scriptural example, is illogical, absurd, and fraught with the most pernicious consequences.
9. Although it is conceded that there are no commands or certain examples, in the New Testament, in favor of infant baptism, yet it has been supposed indirectly to find support from several passages of Scripture, which I now notice.
Matthew 19:13-14. "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." It is said, the phrase, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven," means, for to such the kingdom of heaven belongs: they have a right to its blessings. In support of this rendering, Matthew 5:3, is quoted: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." But there is a marked difference between the two passages, in the Greek, as well as in our own version. Respecting the poor in spirit, it is said, of them, or of these, is the kingdom of heaven; the kingdom of heaven is made up of these. [114] These, the poor in spirit, these only, are the subjects of the kingdom of heaven. In relation to the children, it its said, of such is the kingdom of heaven; not, of these, but of such as these, of persons like these children. [See an account of the same transactions, Mark 10:13-16; Luke 8:15-17.] The English edition of the Polyglot Testament (New York, 1832) gives the true sense. "Of such is the kingdom of heaven"; that is, "of persons resembling children in disposition; having their innocence, simplicity, humility, teachableness." So Barnes, in his note on the place: "The kingdom of heaven evidently means here the church. Whosoever shall not be humble, unambitious, and docile, shall not be a true follower of Christ, or a member of his kingdom. Of such as these--that is, of persons with such tempers as these--is the church to be composed. He does not say, of those infants, but of such persons as resemble them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up." So Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and Bloomfield.
Acts 2:39. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
What "promise"? Certainly not any promise [115]
found in the covenant with Abraham; for the
matters therein contained have nothing to do
with the subjects of which he is speaking, namely,
the influences of the Holy Spirit. But he
refers to the promise recorded Joel 2:28, which
had already been adduced in the seventeenth
verse. " children." In Joel, to their "sons and daughters," who should be old enough to prophesy. The word "children" here denotes descendants, posterity, and has no reference to children as children. [See Barnes and Bloomfield.]
1 Corinthians 7:14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy."
It is said that the children, being "HOLY," are to be considered "as belonging to the Christian community--are to be treated as CHRISTIAN children." Admit that the children are to be reckoned, in some sense, with the Christian community, it does not follow that they are connected with it in such a sense as to require them to be baptized: admit that they are to be treated as Christian children, the question arises, How are Christian children to be treated? We are not, by any means, here informed that such children are to be considered proper [116] subjects of Christian baptism. If they are to be so considered, let it be proved from other parts of the word of God, and then it will be conceded, that the children of parents, one of whom is an unbeliever, must be baptized. A slight examination will show that the passage affords no support for the practice of infant baptism. The Corinthians had inquired of Paul, whether the marriage connection between a Christian and an unbeliever ought to be dissolved. Paul answers in the negative. In the verse quoted, he gives a reason why diversity of religion should not authorize a separation, and in assigning this, he anticipates the objection, "Shall I not be polluted by such close union with a profane and polluted person?" To which the answer is, "No: the believing wife is not polluted by the unbelieving husband, but rather the unbelieving is sanctified (made ceremonially clean. or holy), by the believing." For otherwise (namely, if the unbelieving party be not thus clean) your children would be considered impure and unclean. But you believe they are not unclean; therefore you may be satisfied that your connection is lawful and proper. Or thus: As the man and wife are one, they [117] are ceremonially clean (holy), so that they are not to be separated. If this were not so, your children would be unclean (ceremonially, not civilly), and the pious parent could lawfully have no intercourse with them, must not even touch them; but "now," since the unbelieving parent is thus affected by the believing, your children are clean, ceremonially pure, "holy," and the marriage-bond must not be broken. The whole case may be decided by a single consideration: the holiness here spoken of is ascribed to the unbelieving parent, as well as to the children; and if the children are so far affected by the piety of the believer as to be entitled to the ordinances of the church, the unbelieving parent is affected to the same extent, and must be entitled to the same privileges.
Prof. Stuart remarks on this passage, "It cannot mean that the children are made the proper subjects of baptism; for if this were the case, then the unbelieving husband or wife would be made so by the believing party. Further, such a sense would be inapposite to the course of the reasoning."q
Barnes, in the course of an exposition of the passage, agreeing in the main with the above. [118] remarks, "There is not one word about baptism here; not an allusion to it; nor does the argument, in the remotest degree, bear upon it."
Romans 11:1-36. The argument from this chapter is the same as that already noticed under the fourth head of this discourse. I will here observe, there is not a word in the whole chapter to show that the Apostle had a single thought respecting any external rite or ordinance whatever. It may be inferred from his representations, that the Jewish and the Christian dispensations are similar, so far as the spiritual and essential nature of religion is concerned; nothing more than this can be logically deduced from the chapter. So Barnes, Stuart and Bloomfield, who avail themselves of every passage which promises the slightest support to pedo-baptist views, have never thought of deriving proof from this chapter. The arguments which are usually employed, by the ablest writers in favor of infant baptism, have now been presented and examined. Do these arguments prove it to be an ordinance of the great Head of the church, appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and binding on all the churches? If proved, whence is the proof derived? From the passages of Scripture just examined? They "do not hills at the subject." [119] "From the nature and fitness of things?" This argument cannot be applied to positive institutions. They are obligatory only because they are commanded; but it is granted that infant baptism is nowhere commanded in the word of God. From its being "agreeable to the feelings of parents?" But this is a question of fact, not of feeling; of duty, not of desire. We must not by our "feelings" decide what ought to be God’s word, but must submit our feelings to whatever is God’s word. From "the baptism of households?" It is not proved there was a single infant in those households; and if there were many, the Holy Ghost has added circumstances which clearly show that "the narrative speaks only of adults or intelligent agents."r Is infant baptism proved "from church history?" But while, from the earliest period, the baptism of believers appears on every page of history, her voice is dumb respecting infant baptism for two hundred years after Christ. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and all the writings of the fathers, down to Tertullian, there is not even an allusion to this subject. Nothing is said in the New Testament, nothing in the fathers, concerning children who had received "the seal of the [120] covenant." Though often addressed, the children of believers are never reminded of the obligations which this covenant, made by their parents on their behalf, imposes. Parents also, although admonished to "train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," are never called on to "remember the covenant" in which they gave their children to God at their baptism. In short, we have no hint at the baptism of infants, till the ordinance was considered essential to salvation. Is the practice argued from "proselyte baptism?" It is settled by the decision of modern critics, that the baptism of proselytes was not known among the Jews till after the destruction of the second Temple, A. D. 70. Is the duty enforced from "the Abrahamic covenant, and the substitution of circumcision?" But we have seen, that the covenant with Abraham is not the covenant with believers. The token of this covenant, as applicable to the Gentiles, was solemnly disavowed, at a convention of the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Nor was a syllable uttered respecting baptism as a substitute for the disavowed token. Besides, if we say circumcision was a type of baptism, we violate a great principle of interpretation, namely, nothing in the New Testament is to be [121] considered as typified by the Old, unless clearly so regarded by the sacred writers themselves. If we depart from this canon, we open the door to a deluge of allegorical absurdities. We must agree, then, with
Starck. "The connection of circumcision with infant baptism deserves no consideration, since there were physical reasons for circumcision in infancy."
Augusti. "The parallel between circumcision and baptism is altogether foreign to the New Testament."
Prof. Lange. "This comparison [of baptism with circumcision] is without foundation because the only circumcision of the gospel dispensation is, according to Paul, the circumcision of the heart" [Romans 2:29].
Rheinhard, Morus, and Doederlein say, "Infant baptism is not to be found in the Bible."
Gesenius, the celebrated Hebrew lexicographer, being informed that the Baptists of America practise immersion, and reject the baptism of infants, remarked, They do right--that is, accord to the Bible."
[Beyschlag, quoted before, says: "The Abrahamic and Mosaic circumcision had no further relation to Christian baptism than that the former was the sign and seal of the old [122] covenant, and the latter the sign and seal of the new covenant. No conclusion can be drawn from this similarity for infant baptism; for it is a very different thing to enter by birth into an allied people as the Israelite boy, and to enter by personal faith a community of believers."
Godet, Presbyterian: "In a discussion on baptism, I would not use the argument of circumcision; for one might always retort that, in the old dispensation, free adhesion was not required, whereas it is in the new."
Pressense, French Protestant: "Regarded from the Apostolic point of view, baptism cannot be connected either with circumcision or with the baptism administered to proselytes to Judaism. Between it and circumcision there is all the difference which exists between the theocracy to which admission was by birth, and the church which is entered only by conversion. It [baptism] is in direct connection with faith; that is, with the most free and most individual action of the human soul."--EDITOR.] But to proceed. Is the obligation to baptize infant children made out "from the identity of the church?" We have seen that this identity is nothing to the purpose, so long as the Christian dispensation differs from the Jewish in its [123] rites and its subjects. The resemblance in the case is internal and spiritual, not external and ritual.
Finally, is "the silence of the New Testament concerning infant baptism" a proof that Christians are bound to observe it as a divine institution? Can silence establish a positive institution, or a blank give us specific and definite instructions?
I repeat, do the foregoing arguments, separate or combined, PROVE infant baptism to be a divine ordinance, and binding on the followers of Christ? In the New Testament, faith and baptism are always joined together; not a whisper is heard concerning the application of the ordinance to infants till six or eight generations of Christians, after Christ, had gone to the mansions of rest. If, therefore, this practice is to be regarded as a requisition of the Savior, the labor of proving it to be such assuredly rests on those who would lay the obligation on the churches. As the proof is not made out from the arguments above noticed, I might here pause. I am not bound to advance a single consideration against infant baptism, or in favor of believers’ baptism. This latter stands as the baptism, the only baptism recognized in the gospel, till proof, full and decisive proof, is [124] adduced, showing that infant baptism is also enjoined. No man is at liberty to apply the sacred rite of baptism to any other subject than a believer, till he can show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that such an application is required by the Founder of the Christian system. It is not enough that the practice in question be innocent, or even appears to be useful; it must be required. But although, according to every rule of fair, logical reasoning, it cannot be demanded, yet I am willing, as a gratuity, to suggest some reasons for thinking THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS TO BE THE ONLY GOSPEL BAPTISM.
1. This is evident, in the first place, from THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.
"The great characteristic which distinguishes the present economy from that which has vanished away is its spirituality. The ecclesiastical constitution which commenced in the family of Abraham, and was fully organized by the ministry of Moses, was not only religious, but political. Church and state were then one; for the civil government was then a theocracy. It embraced all who were natives of Judea. To be a member of the Jewish church, and a subject of the civil government, was the same thing; [125] for to the church God held a political relation; but to the Christian church God holds no political relation. Though the Son is King in Zion, and wields a mighty scepter, yet he rules by a spiritual, not a civil, sway. If, then the kingdom of Christ is strictly spiritual; if the subjects of it ’are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ [John 1:13]; if they are not to say within themselves, ’We have Abraham to our father, because God is able of the very stones to raise up children unto Abraham’ [Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8]--then, how incongruous is it with the nature of that kingdom, to give one of its sealing rites to those who can furnish no evidence of a spiritual regeneration, and who are connected with the subjects of it only by ties of natural or civil relationship! What a confounding is this of the relations of nature and of grace, of the claims of the flesh and of the spirit, of the immunities of the church and of the world! But if true Christians ’are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus’ [Galatians 3:26]; if as many as have been baptized into Christ ’have put on Christ’ [Galatians 3:27]; if, in his kingdom, ’there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither, male nor female,’ but ’all are one in him’ [Colossians 3:11; Galatians 3:28]--then how fitting, how becoming it is, that all such, and only [126] such, should show forth their ’peculiar relation to him,’ by being baptized into his name!"s
II. THE SIGNIFICANCY OF BAPTISM, AND THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER WHICH ITS RECEPTION LAYS ITS SUBJECTS, afford conclusive proof that it should tee applied only to believers. On examining the Acts of the Apostles, we find baptism every where regarded a public profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those "who gladly received the word were baptized" [Acts 2:41]. So "Crispus" and many of the Corinthians, hearing, "believed and were baptized" [Acts 18:8]. As soon as a person was baptized, he was called a "saint," a "disciple," a "believer." So, by baptism, we sacredly bind ourselves to believe the doctrines of the Savior, to obey his precepts, to lead pious, godly lives, after his example. Paul says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" [Galatians 3:27]; that is, are Christians, and are therefore bound to confess him for your Lord and Master, to obey him, and to follow his example. Peter calls baptism "the answer of a good conscience toward d God" [1 Peter 3:21]. The meaning of the [Greek] word [eperotema] here rendered "answer," is, engagement, pledge, or promise, and so denotes any solemn obligation which one assumes before God. The idea of the Apostle is, By baptism we [127] take upon ourselves the sacred obligation, in the presence of God, to maintain a good conscience, to be watchful against sin, and to strive after holiness. As the Israelites, being baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, submitted themselves to his authority and guidance, so baptism into the name of Christ is an oath of allegiance to him, as a sovereign; it is a "devotement" to him, an oath of entire consecration to him, a voluntary yielding up of the whole body and spirit a "living sacrifice" to his glory. It gives a beautiful and strong expression to the feelings of the Christian, who can say--
"Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love, so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all." But nothing but the baptism of the believer can meet the representations here given. Infants cannot profess their faith, or put on Christ, or acknowledge their obligations to maintain the answer of a good conscience, or practice the self-devotement which is required of the baptized. And yet all these are exhibited in the New Testament as essential to the nature of baptism. The New Testament also represents baptism [128] to be emblematical of the death and resurrection of Christ. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his DEATH?" [Romans 6:3]--or did, by our baptism, acknowledge his death as declared in the gospel? "Buried with him in baptism, wherein" (in which emblem) "also ye are risen with him, through faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead" [Colossians 2:12]. Here the Apostle associates our being quickened, or rising to a holy life, with Christ’s rising from the grave. And he reminds us of the source of all our hopes ("having forgiven your trespasses" [Colossians 2:13]), by reminding us of the significant and solemn act by which we publicly devote ourselves to the Savior, "being buried with him in baptism."
Baptism is also significant of the belief of the subject of it in the resurrection of the body. "Else, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29). That is, if there shall be no resurrection, why do the followers of Christ, by their very baptism, profess their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection? And why is baptism so significant a sign of our dying, and rising again? But what avails all this fullness of meaning, [129] this richness and preciousness of instruction in the gospel ordinance, if it is to be thrown away upon unconscious infancy? But if only those who believe are proper recipients of the ordinance, then indeed can we perceive it to be instructive, impressive and delightful.
III. We have seen, from the spiritual nature of Christianity, and from the significancy and uses of the ordinance, that baptism is, in its nature, adapted to believers only. If any doubt yet remains, as to the duty of confining it to believers, all uncertainty will be removed by considering the bearing of THE APOSTOLICAL COMMISSION on this subject: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" [Matthew 28:19-20]. This is the LAW under which the ministers of Christ are instructed to go forth, as the agents and representatives of the Lord Jesus, and, by their instrumentality, convert men, receive them into the church, baptize them on a profession of their faith, and afterwards instruct them into the knowledge of Christ’s commandments; this is the law, established by the King in Zion for the forming and organizing of [130] churches. The words of a law should always be precise and readily understood. If the legislature order the raising of an army, they describe the class of men who shall be enrolled (say, able-bodied men from eighteen to forty-five years of age), and the manner in which the enrollment shall be made. So the law of Christ under consideration. There are three things which our Lord distinctly enjoins, namely, to make disciples or Christians; to introduce the disciples (Mark 16:16), called believers, into the church by baptism; and to instruct the baptized into all the duties of the Christian life. Can any thing be plainer, than that this law authorizes the baptism of believers only? But it said, the directions of Christ here refer only to "those who are capable of believing," and the language "does not forbid" the baptism of infants. True, these directions command none but believers to be baptized; and we see good reason for this in the considerations, heretofore suggested, relative to the import and effects of baptism. But further,--the terms of the Commission, while they enjoin the baptism of believers, do, most certainly, exclude the baptism of any but believers. If I commission my agent to purchase for me a lot of Webster’s large dictionaries, does he not violate his instructions, if he also buys [131] on my account a lot of the abridgments? But he says, "You did not forbid the purchase of the abridgments." "Did not forbid the purchase!" I answer, "It was not necessary for me to insert in your commission a prohibition against purchasing other books. Your instructions were definite; and when I directed you to buy the large books, you must have known you had no authority to buy small books; you have done it at your risk." You are about to engage in the cultivation of silk, and you send a commission to a friend, requesting him to purchase for you five thousand mulberry-trees, two years old. In answering your order, he sends you five thousand of the age prescribed, and five thousand more of only one year’s growth. You remonstrate. Your friend replies, "The words of the commission referred only to buying five thousand which were two years old--you did not direct me not to buy five thousand more, the growth of the present year." "Nor was it necessary," you rejoin. "When you received a commission to purchase mulberry trees of a, certain description, you were as really prohibited to purchase any others, on my account, as if I had said, in so many words, ’Buy five thousand mulberry-trees two years old, and do not buy any others.’ You might as well have procured for me five thousand hickory--trees, and [132] urged that the words of your commission do not forbid it! In doing as you have done, you have not only acted without authority, but also against my instructions, and you must abide the consequences."--So the commission granted by our Lord directs his ministers to baptize believers, and them only. Mentioning none but believers, it virtually excludes all others. To administer the ordinance to any others, is to act without the authority of Christ, and against his instructions. Yea, more: "Not only does this commission exclude infants from the baptism it enjoins; if there were even another commission requiring the baptism of infants,--when these infants who have been baptized, according to this supposed second commission, come to believe the gospel, they must be baptised according to the commission now under consideration, without any regard to their baptism in infancy. The commission commands all men to be baptized, on believing the gospel. Had there been even a divinely-appointed baptism for them in infancy, it cannot interfere with this baptism, nor excuse men from obedience to the command that enjoins believers to he baptized. The command of Jesus to every believer to be baptized, stands engraven in indelible characters in this commission. It cannot be effaced; and I call on all [133] believers, on their allegiance to the Son of God, to submit to this ordinance of his kingdom."
"But," it will be said, the reply to this is simple and satisfactory. Suppose the ordinance of circumcision had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms: ’Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them, in the name of the Father,’ etc. Had such language been used, we should have known that children were to be the subjects of the rite, as well as their parents; the previously existing practice would have ascertained this." This is specious, but by no means conclusive. Had such a commission been given to circumcise, it would have utterly excluded infants. Could a command to circumcise believers include a command to circumcise unbelievers? Impossible. No matter what was the former practice with respect to circumcision. If the Apostles are commanded to circumcise believers, they cannot, in virtue of that commission, circumcise any but believers."
"With reference to Mark 16:16,--’He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned,’--it is said, "If we infer that a person must actually believe, else he cannot be baptized, we must also infer that he must actually believe, else he cannot be [134] saved; hence infants cannot be saved. Certainly, if there were no way of saving infants but by [believing] the gospel, this conclusion is inevitable. The gospel saves none but by faith. But the gospel [as requiring belief] has nothing to do with infants, nor have gospel ordinances any respect to them. The gospel has to do with those who hear it. It is good news; but to infants it is no news at all. They know nothing of it. The salvation of the gospel is as much confined to believers, as the baptism of the gospel is. None shall ever be saved by the gospel who do not believe it. Consequently, by the gospel no infant can be saved. Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by [believing] the gospel, not by faith. They are to be regenerated, but not by the gospel; they must be sanctified for heaven, but not through the truth revealed to man. The position is therefore good; none can be saved by the gospel, but such as believe the gospel. None can be baptized with the baptism of the gospel, but such as believe the gospel. There is no exception in either case."t
If any thing more were necessary to satisfy us respecting the commission, we have it in the formula employed in administering the ordinance: [135] "Baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Barnes gives the meaning thus: "Baptizing them into the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by a solemn profession of the only true religion, and by a solemn devotion to the service of the sacred Trinity." But surely none but believers can make this "solemn profession," and this "solemn devotion" of themselves to the Trinity. To pronounce these words over infants, is to use the sacred names of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, without meaning, or with a meaning which is wholly unauthorized by the commission of our Lord. That none but believers are entitled to baptism, is also evident from the concluding direction of the commission, "teaching them," etc. The candidate is supposed to be old enough to be taught the other institutions of the gospel. Unconscious babes are of course excluded. This is agreeable to the views of many learned and pious men, who were not Baptists.
Grotius. "Christ properly requires teaching the first elements of Christianity as preceding baptism; which also was always used in the church previous to that ordinance."
Jerome, the most learned of all the Latin father, says, "They first teach all nations; [136] then, when are taught, they baptize them with water; for it cannot he that the body should receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul has before received true faith."
Calvin. "Because Christ requires teaching before baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem be rightly administered, except faith precede."
Baxter, speaking of the Commission: "This is not like sonic occasional, historical mention of baptism; but it is the very commission of Christ to his Apostles for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several works in their teaching, to make disciples, which by Mark are called believers. The second work is to baptize them. The third work is to teach them all other things, which are afterwards to be learned from the school of Christ. To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied that there is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism."
It is unnecessary, by way of further confirmation, to refer to the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament. In all cases, we find only those who believe permitted to receive the ordinance. So the description of [137] those who composed the churches in the time of the Apostles, shows that none but those who gave credible evidence of piety had received the rite of initiation into the church. They are said to be "not of the world" [John 15:19; John 17:14, John 17:16]; to have "put on Christ"; to be "saints" [Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; etc.]; to be "the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty" [Galatians 3:27]; to be "the elect of God" [Colossians 3:12] "through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth" [2 Thessalonians 2:13]; to be "the faithful in Christ Jesus" [Ephesians 1:1]. And there is not the slightest intimation concerning the membership of baptized infant children. In the progress of these discourses, it has been shown, it is hoped, that immersion is essential to Christian baptism; that infant baptism cannot be defended, either from the Scriptures of the New Testament, or from analogy, or from antiquity; while the baptism of believers only is demanded by the spirituality of the gospel dispensation, by the design of the ordinance, and, especially and absolutely, by the terms of Christ’s commission.--I conclude with some practical observations.
And, in the first place, let me address those who have already submitted themselves to the ordinance of baptism, according to Christ’s appointment.
"It is our happiness, my brethren, to feel an [138] unshaken confidence, that we are standing on scriptural ground. We have known our Master’s will, and we have been baptized. We have found that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light [Matthew 11:30]. In obeying, we have had a sweet consciousness of his approbation. And when, from time to time, we have had occasion to gather around the baptismal waters, we have had some awakening of salutary recollections, some renewing of solemn vows, some increase of faith, some foretaste of the glory that shall be revealed. Happy, thrice happy would it be for our own souls, for the church of Christ, for the honor of our Lord in this ordinance, and for a perishing world, were we to recur constantly to first principles, and always bear in mind the obligations of the baptized."
"Did I say, we have known our Master’s will? Yes, brethren, we have known it. We have been convinced, that we, being dead to sin, as he died a sacrifice for sin, should, in our baptism, acknowledge ourselves obligated to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; to rise to a new and holy life, as he, to whose sufferings we owe our deliverance from sin and condemnation, rose from the dead, and as we hope for a glorious resurrection, when the trumpet of the archangel shall sound. We have acknowledged our obligations. Heaven and earth have [139] witnessed. Christians living in error on this subject, and attached, as men naturally are, to what has been handed down from their fathers, have marked us, and the men of the world have marked us. They have observed our lives. And have we never heard the keen reproach, What do ye more than others? Ah, my brethren! if it were only a slander, we could bear it. He who has loved us, and died for us, has taught us to endure patiently the unfavorable opinions and representations of men. ’Blessed are ye when men shall say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for my sake’ [Matthew 5:11]. But when he himself, our Lord and Master, into whose death we have been baptized, casts on us the grieved and piercing look which he cast on Peter, when he denied him, and asks, What do ye more than others?--we can only go out and weep bitterly."
"From his throne on high he looks down this day on all the baptized; he looks down on us, and seems to say, ’I am he that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore’ [Revelation 1:18] To you I have given to know my will, and to hope for eternal life through my death. Into my death ye have been baptized. Created anew, ye have been set forth as alive from the dead. From the waters of baptism ye have come forth, as citizens of heaven, to sojourn awhile on earth, that [140] ye may show to all the purity and power of my gospel, being yourselves examples of all that is lovely and of good report, in all the relations and conditions of life. It is yours to endure, as seeing him who is invisible; and to shed around you an influence that shall continually evince your heavenly birth. To you I have looked to be first and foremost in promoting the interests of my kingdom. Where are ye, at this eventful period? Are ye duly mindful of what is implied in your baptism? Are ye truly and faithfully doing your utmost for that cause for which I became poor, and suffered unto death, even the death of the cross [Php 2:8]? Are ye dead to sin? Are ye living and laboring, not for yourselves, but for me; for the riches and honors, not of earth, but of heaven? ’Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing’ [Matthew 24:46Luke 12:43]. To you I have intrusted the vindicating of my wisdom and goodness in the institution of baptism, by exemplifying in your lives its holy tendency. Vain are all other vindications, without this. My command will not be obeyed. Men will misunderstand and neglect baptism, and cling to their own substitutions and traditions. ’Neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead’ [Luke 16:31]. Ye that have been baptized [141] into my death, must rise from the dead in a better than the literal sense of the words. Wherever ye are, ye must stand forth, witnesses alive indeed from the dead, walking in newness of life, and presenting, every day and every hour, a lovely, practical demonstration of the import and utility of baptism, of the baptism which I have commanded. Ye must, every one of you, become a book, of unanswerable arguments and eloquent expostulations; a living epistle from my own hand, known and read of all men. So will ye honor me and my command. So will baptism be restored to the place and the purposes for which I ordained it, as the initiatory rite, marking the boundary between the world dead in sin and the church alive to God, ascribing the spiritual life of the believer to my death; and whenever it is administered, proclaiming to all, by an emblem more expressive than words, that ’I am the way, the truth, and the life’ [John 14:6]"u With regard to those of my hearers, who hope they love the Savior, and desire to keep his commandments, but have never been buried with their Lord in baptism, let me ask, What doth hinder you, my brethren, to arise and be baptized? If any dependence can be placed on [142] our investigations into the meaning of language, and if the language of the Bible is to be understood according to the universal laws of interpretation, has it not been made evident, beyond reasonable doubt, that the religious immersion of a believer, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, AND THAT ONLY, is the baptism prescribed by Christ to his followers? Why, then, will you not keep his commandments? Are you still unsatisfied? Have you not, then, reason to fear for yourselves that you are under the influence of unhappy prejudices? I, too, have felt their power. I have writhed under the agony of the stricture with which they bound me. When the providence of God compelled me to enter on the inquiries which resulted in a change of views, I was wrapped in prepossessions against immersion, strong as armor of triple brass. I cherished a spirit of proud indifference, not to say contempt, totally opposed to the temper of the candid inquirer after the will of Christ. Possibly, my friends, a similar spirit may have possessed you. But the demon must be cast out, or the Savior will not smile on your search after truth.
Again, do you urge, "Why trouble one’s self so much about a question of much water or [143] of little water?" It is not "a question of much water or of little water." The controversy on this subject relates to what is Christian baptism, and to whom is the ordinance to be administered. Suppose we could see no reason for having "much" water, rather than "little," still we should not be at liberty, from mere personal considerations, without reference to the will of Christ, to substitute sprinkling for immersion. But there is good reason for employing so "much" water as to immerse the body. This we have seen in remarking upon the meaning and significancy of the rite. If baptism were designed to intimate only the necessity of the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, then, indeed, a smaller quantity of water might be emblematical of this truth. Even in this case, however, if the Christian felt his entire depravity, his utter defilement from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, and desired to be "thoroughly washed" from his iniquity, he might crave the entire immersion of the person in the waters of baptism, as symbolical of the universal cleansing which he sought by the influences of the Holy Ghost. And when we find that, in addition to the idea of internal purity, the Holy Scriptures represent baptism [144] as an emblem of the burial and resurrection of Christ, and of our own resurrection, both literal and figurative, we cannot but feel, that immersion belongs essentially to the nature of the ordinance, and when men sprinkle a "little" water upon the face, they practice an unwarranted substitution.
I repeat, it is not "a question of much water or little water." It is a question relating to the proper subjects of baptism. If the views exhibited in these discourses are correct, it follows that those who practice the sprinkling of infants, not only strip the ordinance of baptism of the meaning and instruction which its divine Author has connected with it, but they act on a principle which would banish believers’ baptism out of the world. Is it a matter of no importance that the traditions of men should make void an ordinance of God?
It is not "a question of much or of little water." The New Testament every where treats men as acting for themselves in matters of religion, and as responsible for their own acts. One man cannot repent for another, or believe for another. The language of the Scriptures to each son and daughter of Adam is, Repent thou, believe thou; and, Believe thou and be baptized. The religion of the son cannot save the [145] father, nor can the religion of the father save the son. Every person must engage for himself to serve the Lord--every one must act for himself. But the language of infant baptism is diametrically opposite to this language of Scripture. It says, the father can covenant for the child, the father can act for him. The act of the parent shall answer for his offspring--the faith of the parent shall save the child! Says an eminent pedo-baptist minister, a Christian parent, who uses the ordinance of infant baptism aright, "may be sure that the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls has written the name of that child before him, in letters which his infinite forbearance and mercy will long keep from being blotted out, though the child should perversely break his father’s covenant." "If the parents die while the child is young, the remembrance of its dedication to God, and the confident belief that it was received into his covenant, will help them to look at it from the dying pillow with peace."v As exhibited in these extracts, is not infant baptism manifestly at war with the great doctrine of JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH? This teaches that faith, one’s own faith, not another’s--faith,, [146] not works, either his own or another’s,--shall save a man. Shall the immersionists be charged with bigotry for endeavoring to uphold a doctrine on which the great Apostle of the Gentiles has so strenuously insisted, as fundamental to the Christian system?
I need say nothing of the fatal influence of the views I am examining on multitudes of careless adults, who are encouraged in a life of impenitence by complacently dwelling on the covenant made with God on their behalf, when their parents presented them for baptism. From their infancy, they have been accustomed to reflect that they have received "the seal of the covenant," have been "made members of Christ" [1 Corinthians 6:15], and "children of God" [Romans 8:16; Galatians 3:26] having been "regenerated with the Holy Spirit" [Acts 1:5]. Is it strange that such persons should feel themselves safe, and at liberty to continue in sin?
It is not, then, I reiterate, a question "of much water, or of little water." It is a question whether men shall lay unhallowed hands on an ordinance of the great Head of the church, and profanely strip it of its significance and its teachings,--whether they shall strike down, in the temple of gospel truth, the noble pillar of justifying faith,--whether they shall lift from the sinner’s conscience a [147] weight of personal responsibility, laid there by the Lord Jesus himself,--whether they shall abrogate a law of the King of saints;--or whether they shall keep the ordinances, as they have been delivered in the Statute-Book of Heaven, revering the will of the Sovereign, and observing all things whatsoever he hath commanded, exactly as he hath commanded. Is it suggested that "immersionists do not believe in the divine authority of the Old Testament"? This allegation is the offspring of an ignorance that demands our pity. For a refutation, consult the writings of Andrew Fuller, and other eminent divines of the denomination. Their ministers also select texts indiscriminately from the Old Testament and the New. But do you plead that "immersionists attach too much importance to the ordinance of baptism?" I might reply, pedo-baptists attach too little importance to it. When individuals are led to inquire respecting the mind of Christ, do not even ministers endeavor to quiet their uneasiness, by telling them, "the subject is of no consequence"--"it is a mere external ceremony"--"it is not worth while to trouble one’s self about it"? When young converts are seeking to know the will of their Lord respecting the ordinances of his church, do not their spiritual [148] guides often ply them with "dissuasives" from investigation? Do not parents endeavor to restrain their children from examination, because it is pleasant to have all the children in the same church with the parents? Are there not members who will not listen to a sermon on the subject? And do not even theological students, while pursuing their studies, content themselves with a partial view of the matter, forming their conclusions without reading a single immersionist author? And how happens it that the scriptural mode of administration is, in many places, fallen into disrepute? How happens it that immersion, confessedly practiced by the Apostles, and by the entire church for many centuries, is now covered with obloquy, "as unsuited to the manners of a polished age"? Do not all these things show that many pedo-baptists attach too little importance to this Christian ordinance? And, if this state of things continues, may it not soon be true with regard to baptism, as it now is of the Lord s Supper, that multitudes of adults will be admitted to the ordinance without any pretensions to piety?
But, let me ask, how important do immersionists believe this rite to be? I answer, they do not consider it a saving ordinance. With other Christians, they believe that all the waters [149] of Jordan, all the waves of the ocean, are unavailing to wash away sin. Except a man be born of God, his baptism will profit him nothing as a passport to heaven. But while they do not regard the ordinance as essential to salvation, they do believe it to be essential to obedience to the law of Christ respecting the introduction of members into the visible church. They believe the ordinance of baptism should be observed in the way of Christ’s appointment. True, it is only an external rite; but it is a rite enjoined by Christ himself--it is a rite full of meaning. And as any rite is but a form, if we do not preserve the form, we do not practice the rite. Hence immersion is essential to baptism. Hence baptism by immersion is essential to obedience to Christ; essential to the highest instruction and comfort of believers; essential to the best moral impression on unbelievers; essential to the purity and stability of the church of Christ.
But, as we are supposed to lay an unwarrantable stress on baptism, let us see what importance is attached to the ordinance by others.
Mr. Barnes, Note on Mark 16:16. "It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made baptism of so much importance. He did not say, indeed, that a man could not be saved without [150] baptism; but he has strongly implied that, where this is neglected, knowing it to be a command of the Savior, it endangers the salvation of the soul. Faith and baptism are the beginnings of the Christian life; the one, the beginning of piety in the soul; the other, of its manifestation before men, or of a profession of religion. And no man can tell how much he endangers his eternal interests by being ashamed of Christ before men." Does the objection come from Episcopalians? And what stress do they lay upon baptism? In their catechism, to the question, "How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in his church?"--they answer, "Two only, as generally necessary to salvation--that is to say, baptism and the Supper of the Lord." After the baptism of an infant, the minister is instructed to say, "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits." And then follows a part of the thanksgiving: "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church." Before confirmation, the [151] baptized child is required to learn a catechism. The following question and answer will show that he is taught to regard baptism in the same important light.
"Who gave you this name?" "My sponsors in baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." Does the charge come from the Presbyterians? And what stress do they place upon baptism? In their confession of faith, they say, "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only as a solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and SEAL of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins." Does the objection proceed from Congregationalists? And what stress do they lay on the ordinance? Hear Dr. Dwight. "When children die in infancy, and are scripturally dedicated to God in baptism, there is much and very consoling reason to believe that they are accepted beyond the grave." He further says, "There is, I think, reason to hope well concerning other children dying in infancy; but there is certainly peculiar reason [152] for Christian parents to entertain strong consolation with regard to their offspring." Here Dr. Dwight evidently supposes baptism powerfully to contribute to the salvation of infants. For language still more remarkable, refer to the
After these quotations, can any one charge the immersionists with attaching too much importance to the ordinance of baptism? Whatever the language employed in these extracts may mean, I have never met, in any Baptist writer, expressions so extravagant. But do you fear that a change of views, on account of baptism, will expose you to the imputation of "thinking more of external rites than of internal holiness; of paying tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, while you neglect weightier matters"? But is it true, as a matter of fact, that immersionists esteem the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and the indispensable duties of piety, less than those who differ from them? Are they not equally attached to the doctrines of the entire depravity of the natural heart, the necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, the atonement by the blood of Christ? And may not a Christian be desirous to keep the ordinances of the Lord blameless, and, at the same time, earnestly long after inward conformity to the Savior? What if baptism is an "external rite"? Is it not enjoined by him who says, [154] "If ye love me, keep my commandments?" [John 14:15]. And is not every command of Christ of equal authority? May you select certain of his commands, and yield them obedience, while you neglect others? Or must you keep all his statutes? What if baptism be "not essential to salvation?" Will you observe only those precepts, the neglect of which would ruin your soul? Can you not act from love to the Savior? and will you do nothing in obedience to him, unless you are certain disobedience will be punished with everlasting destruction? Admit that, in comparison with faith and repentance, baptism is as the mint, anise, and cummin, compared with the weightier matters of the law [Matthew 23:23]; yet it deserves to be remembered that the tithes of these small herbs must be paid as truly as the tenths of the larger; and under the old dispensation, the wilful omission to present these before the Lord would have been visited with the divine judgments. "BRING," then, my brethren, "BRING ALL THE TITHES INTO THE STOREHOUSE" [Malachi 3:10], and see what God will do for your souls. And now, "Who is on the Lord’s side?"
"Arise and be baptized for the remission of sins." But do you still plead, "I am too far [155] advanced in years to trouble myself respecting this matter?" Too old to obey your Savior? Many venerable men, and women too, have not thought themselves too old to be tortured on the rack, or to be burnt at the stake, rather then break the commandments of the Savior they loved.
"I should dishonor the memory of my parents, if I were to renounce the baptism of my infancy." If you are satisfied that the direction of our Savior is to all, "Believe and be baptized," you are now dishonoring HIM by refusing publicly to avow your attachment to him, according to the methods prescribed in his word. "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me" [Matthew 10:37]. "And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me" [Matthew 10:38].
[And now, in reviewing the argument as a whole for the immersion of a believer as the only scriptural baptism, attention is called to the following facts:
1. That to baptize is to immerse. This is the very word used in the New Testament. It is a Greek word with an English ending. It never literally means "to sprinkle, to pour, to moisten, to dye." It means only "to immerse."
2. This word is so defined by all [156] lexicographers and learned men. No one ever affirms that it means "to sprinkle, or pour."
3. It is translated in the Bible to dip.
4. Greek authors use it in this sense, and never in the sense of sprinkle.
5. The grammatical construction of every sentence of its known use requires immersion.
6. The practice of Greek-speaking Churches has always been immersion.
7 The places selected for baptism and the whole narratives as found in the New Testament require immersion.
7. The figurative uses of baptizo indicate immersion to be its meaning.
8. All these facts are admitted by pedo-baptist writers of the highest scholarship.
9. The history of the church for centuries proves immersion to have been the mode or action of baptism, according to the testimony of pedo-baptist writers of unquestioned authority.
10. The requirement of faith as a condition previous to baptism is clear evidence that infants were not baptized.
11. There is no evidence in the New Testament that any other persons than believers were baptized.
12. The alleged baptism of the children of [157] proselytes, and proselyte baptism itself, are incapable of proof.
13. Pedo-baptist writers admit that in the so-called baptism of households there is no proof of infant baptism.
14. There is no intimation in the Scriptures that baptism was instituted to take the place of circumcision under the old covenant.
15. The symbolic significance of baptism is proof that it is an ordinance only for believers.
16. The Commission clearly indicates that the subjects of baptism are those who had been taught, been made disciples, heard the preaching of the gospel and believed.
17. The practice of the Apostles was to baptize only such.
18. The objections to the immersion of believers as Christian baptism can not be sustained as against the practice in the time of Christ and the Apostles.
19. No objection can now stand against apostolic practice under the great Communion. If Christ was immersed, as must be conceded, and if his baptism was immersion, and if the Apostles immersed believers, the conclusion is incontrovertible that immersion of believers only. is scriptural baptism.--EDITOR.] [158] p Manuscript Lectures on Galatians iii.
q Manuscript Lectures.
r Neander.
s Christian Review.
t Carson.
u Prof. Chase’s Sermon.
v "The Baptized Child." By Nehemiah Adams, Pastor of Essex Street Church, Boston, 1836.
[MSB 89-158]