06. Lecture IV; Practice Determined By Direct Passages
LECTURE IV. OUR PRACTICE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THOSE PASSAGES WHICH MORE DIRECTLY TREAT OF THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.
Position III. Those passages of Scripture which treat of baptism more directly and more fully, must determine our judgment, in distinction from such passages as refer to the subject more indirectly, or not at all. This position needs no proof; it shines in its own light. In the New Testament there are many passages which fully and directly treat of baptism: there are some which merely refer to it, and many which do not refer to it at all. One would expect that in directing the student of baptism, teachers would follow the course which common sense suggests; that they would recommend special attention to those passages which directly and fully treat on the subject, and would advise the student to form his judgment by them. The reverse of this, however, has been, and still is the plan followed by the teachers of Pedo-baptism. When our Lord commissioned the Apostles to evangelize the nations, He gave them particular instructions on the subject of baptism. Mat 28:19. The manner in which they executed their instructions is exemplified in a great variety of instances. I shall quote some of them: Acts 2:38-41, “Then Peter said unto them, ’ Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." Acts 8:12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women." Acts 8:36-38, “And as they went on their way they came to a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou may est. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." Acts 9:18, “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Acts 10:47-48, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 16:15, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." Ver. 33, 34, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway, — believing in God with all his house." Acts 18:8, “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." In these scriptures the subject is fully and distinctly taught. But is it to these, or scriptures like these, that the teachers of Pedo-baptism direct our attention? Quite otherwise. For proof of infant baptism, we are directed to passages which speak of baptism, but not of infants; or which speak of infants, but not of baptism; and often to scriptures which speak neither of infants nor baptism. That a course so preposterous should be either adopted or encouraged, nothing but the fact could persuade us to believe. Yet such the fact unquestionably is; and it may, therefore, be useful to quote the scriptures offered in evidence of infant baptism.
We are now on the subject of evidence; and the mere quotation of the scriptures referred to, will satisfy the candid inquirer that it is not from such, but from scriptures which expressly treat of the subject, that he must form his judgment on the doctrine of baptism. Mat 19:13, "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. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." Here is mention of infants, and the kingdom of heaven; but none, of their admission to baptism. They were brought, not to be baptized, but that our Lord should put his hands on them, and pray. He did not baptize them; he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
(The practice is continued to the present day. The writer of this note witnessed, in a synagogue in London, children brought to the Rabbi, when the service was concluded — who laid his hands on them, and appeared to offer a short prayer. There is no evidence that those who brought little children to Jesus, were believers. Many were filled with admiration of him who spake as never man spake, wondering at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, who were still the slaves of Satan. Luk 4:22-29 — Ed.) The next in order is Acts 2:39, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Here is mention of children, and a promise, but none of infants, or their baptism. The word children is here taken in the sense of descendants, of age sufficient for prophesying and being called. Their capacity for prophesying appears from comparing with the text the prediction quoted by Peter. You will find it in Joe 2:1-32. That these descendants were capable of being called appears from the text. “For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [infants? Nay,] even as many as the Lord your God shall call." Therefore I said, here is no mention of infants, or of the baptism of infants; but if the inquirer examine the whole context, he will find that men, after gladly receiving the word, ought to be baptized, and that infants ought not to be baptized.
We are next referred to Acts 16:1-40 for the baptism of the household of Lydia and of the jailor. But in this chapter not a word occurs of either the baptism or the sprinkling of infants. The scripture next adduced is Rom 4:11, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." The Apostle is here treating of justification without the works of the law; and in proof of his doctrine, he refers to the history of Abraham and his circumcision. He does not mention either infants or baptism. In Gal 3:29, it is written, ’’ If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." It is evident from the context, that by “Abraham’s seed" is meant, partakers of like precious faith with Abraham. This passage cannot, therefore, apply to infants.
Rom 11:16, “For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." This is another example of pleading for infant baptism, from a text treating neither of infants, nor of sprinkling, nor of baptism. The apostle is treating of the conversion of the Jews, and the figures refer to them and the patriarchs.
1Co 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." The Corinthians had consulted Paul whether a believing might live with an unbelieving spouse. He acquaints them with the law on the passages treating on the subject which sanctified the relation. He is not treating of baptism, nor does he mention, in any way, the sprinkling of infants.
Eph 6:1-5, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh." In this paragraph we have children, but not infants. The children are capable of receiving this address, and of judging what commands of their parents were, or were not, in the Lord. And let it be particularly observed, that children are addressed on the same ground on which servants are addressed, namely, their relation to Christ, and not on the ground of grace derived to them either from their parents or masters. If these addresses prove that children ought to be baptized or sprinkled on account of their connection with their parents, they also prove that servants ought to be baptized on account of their connection with their masters. But the fact is, that the apostle is not treating of baptism, nor speaking of the baptism or sprinkling either of infants or of servants. To save time, I omit similar exhortations to children and servants; the remarks just made apply to them all.
Col 2:10-13, "And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead: and you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." In these words we have baptism, but no infants. The Colossians are described as saints, and faithful brethren in Christ; and in this place, as believers, both justified and sanctified. Observe, they possess faith of the operation of God, — God has forgiven them all their trespasses, — they have the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision made without hands, viz. the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. It will be recollected that it is with facts, and not with inferences, that we are at present concerned. The apostle, in this place, speaks nothing of infants. His object is to dissuade the Colossians from subjecting themselves to the institutions of philosophy, or of the law. He tells them, that having believed in Christ, they were complete, — justified and sanctified; and that their union with him, and participation of these benefits, were signified in their baptism. The whole is an example, not of the baptism of infants, but of the necessity of regeneration and of faith, in those who are baptized.
These are all the passages in the New Testament which, as far as I know, have been pleaded in support of infant baptism. None of them are pertinent; — in every one of them there is wanting something essential to make it conclusive. Minds practiced in reasoning, must be satisfied already that infant baptism cannot be admitted on evidence like this. According to the position before us, it must be received or rejected on the scriptures which treat of the subjects of baptism. An example may assist the young in reaching the same conviction. Suppose that, by a deed of entail, an estate was conveyed in succession to the eldest male in a certain lineage: suppose that an action for obtaining the estate is raised; suppose, farther, that the applicant is either not of the line described in the deed of entail, or not the eldest in the line, or a female: the rejection of the plea must necessarily follow. Yet this is the very kind of evidence on which infant baptism has been defended and practised. We have examined all the passages adduced. Some of them speak of infants, but nothing of baptism; all of them we have seen, are palpably deficient in the proof required. The importance and evidence of this position calls me, before I pass to another, to press the consideration of it on my readers, from their sense of consistency.
We have discontinued the observance of the seventh day Sabbath; but improperly, if the arguments for infant baptism be correct. The New Testament, indeed, says, that no man ought to judge us in respect of a Sabbath; but apply the arguments for sprinkling, and, according to them, we shall find that, notwithstanding this, and similar texts, we must still sanctify the seventh day of the week. In the epistle referred to, the apostle is reasoning on the doctrine of justification. The fourth commandment is not merely ceremonial, it stands in the first table of the decalogue. It is ranked with precepts moral and immutable. It was not of Moses, it was of the Fathers. It was more, it was Supralapsarian; it was observed in Eden, in innocence, and sanctioned by the example of its Author. Spread out these topics, and the plea becomes plausible, — incomparably more plausible than the plea for infant baptism. But what has been the conduct of the professing world in regard to the seventh day, and on what principles has that conduct been adopted and pursued? The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath has been discontinued. The grounds of the change are, shortly, two: first, The Old Dispensation is at an end; secondly, The scriptures of the New Testament, which more fully treat of the Lord’s-day, direct us to the first day of the week. This is the doctrine of our position; and the man who determines the first day of the week to be the day of worship, is hound, in consistency, also to determine, upon the same principle;, who shall he the subjects of baptism.
Permit me, by one example more, to illustrate and enforce my position. In this and other countries, originally connected with the Papacy, infants have been excluded from communion. This practice is scriptural: infants ought not to be admitted to the Lord’s Table. But admit them we must, on the pleas by which infant baptism is justified. The pleas for baptizing infants, and admitting them to the Supper, are the same: point for point they agree — together they must be admitted as conclusive, or together rejected as sophistical.
Let us run the parallel, and make the experiment. Docs baptism come in the place of circumcision? By the same kind of evidence, the Supper comes in place of the passover. Were children circumcised? Children likewise partook of the festal sacrifices, and most evidently of the passover. Was circumcision before the law, and of the Fathers? So were sacrifices: the passover, in particular, was instituted in Egypt previous to-the covenant at Sinai. Is the same truth represented by baptism and circumcision? Both the Supper and the passover exhibit the sacrifice of Christ.
Must the former state of things, that is, circumcision, determine the subjects of baptism? For the same reason, the former state of things, that is, the passover, must determine tbe subjects of the Supper. Children belong to the kingdom of heaven. If this privilege proves infant baptism, it proves also infant communion. Many prophecies connect parents with their seed. If these prophecies prove that infants should be baptized, they prove also that infants should be admitted to the Supper. The promise is to the Israelites, and to their children. If this warrants the baptism of infants, it warrants also their communion. The root and the branches are holy. If this establishes either infant baptism or infant communion, it establishes both. Children of believers are holy. The holiness that qualifies for Baptism, qualifies as effectually for the Supper. Households were baptized. Every one knows that the passover was eaten by households. Is the practice of baptizing infants of remote antiquity? Infant communion was as ancient as pedo-baptism, and much more ancient than sprinkling. Have pedo-baptism and sprinkling been practised by men of learning and piety? Infant communion has a like recommendation.
It is objected to infant communion, that infants can neither examine themselves, nor eat the Supper in remembrance of Christ. Against infant baptism there lies a similar objection. Infants can perform no baptismal duties, either antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. To the objection against infant baptism, it is answered, that faith, confessing the faith, and other baptismal duties, must be restricted to the adult, like the command which restricts eating to working. The answer is equally applicable to the objection against infant communion. It is as absurd to require his faith to his communion, as his work to his sustenance, or his confession to his baptism. On what grounds, let me now ask, ought infant communion to be rejected? On two, it will be answered: first, the Old Dispensation is at an end; and secondly, the Apostles’ doctrine in its obvious sense, restricts this communion to believers. But this is our position again, and again I repeat the consequence; the man who on it determines the subjects of the Supper, is in consistency bound also to determine the subjects of baptism. The sum of what has been said is this: — The scriptures which treat on the subject, and not other scriptures, must determine the question of baptism. It is on this principle that men proceed in the affairs of life; but the advocates for infant baptism reverse it. Two examples (out of many) have been produced, viz. discontinuing infant communion, and the observance of the seventh-day sabbath, in which the position, that we are to be guided by those passages which more directly treat of the subject of inquiry, is acted on; and thus the foundation of the arguments for infant baptism is reprobated by the professing world in general, and even by Pedo-baptists themselves.
Another stage, then, of the inquirer’s road is made plain: he will, depending on Divine teaching, collect and examine all the passages of the New Testament which treat of Baptism, and by them will determine all questions on this subject.