10. Lecture IX; Farther Presumptions

LECTURE IX.

FARTHER PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM.

Another presumption against infant baptism, arises from the Scriptures rejecting the principles on which it rests. The right of the infant to baptism is derived from different sources by Pedo-baptists. Some found it on the commission, alleging that men are to be made disciples by means of baptism. The fallacy of this appears by comparing the commission as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Disciples or believers — for the terms are synonymous — can only be made by instruction, and consequently our right to baptism is founded on our faith; in other words, our knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

Others found the infant’s right to baptism on an imaginary grace supposed to be common to all men. But this principle is disproved by the arguments which disprove Arminianism. The most popular opinion is, that the right to baptism runs in blood, — the title being derived from the parents or ancestors. Infants descended more immediately or more remotely from believers, are considered as infants of a privileged order. Some maintain that all infants ought to be baptized or sprinkled, because of our common descent from believing Noah. Some refer the right to the faith of the immediate father or mother; others take a different view. But the very basis of the popular practice is the supposition that the souls of infants derive benefit or injury from their carnal descent. The Scriptures reject this principle; and if this assertion be proved, so far as this principle is concerned, infant baptism must fall with its foundation. But I must open the way for my proof by a few preliminary remarks.

1st, The chain of reasoning here will be short and strong; but, however strong, I would never have opposed it to the slightest intimation of fact. Had God taught us to baptize infants, either by precept, by example, or in any other way, it would have been my duty to subject all my reasoning to revelation. But if I am told, without any other intimation of the will of God, that the child by its descent from a believing parent, is entitled to spiritual privileges, because the Israelites, by their descent from Abraham, were entitled to typical privileges, I am obliged to examine this principle; and if it appear that till Christ came, descent, by Divine appointment, gave the descendant from Abraham a right to circumcision, but that descent, by the same authority, now confers no spiritual privilege, the principle must be rejected, and along with it the consequent practice.

2dly, "We by no means assert that children may not be profited or hurt by means of their parents. A child may inherit a constitution healthy or diseased; he may be born to a great estate, or to personal labor; he may be trained to every species of wickedness, or brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The effects of education, good or bad, are universally allowed to be very great. We assert, only, that the soul of a child is not immediately affected by carnal descent.

3dly, We do not suppose that infant grace would prove infant baptism, any more than infant communion. Though grace were possessed, yet the possessor could not be admitted either to baptism or the Lord’s-supper, until he professed his faith, and could exercise grace; so much at least as to answer the design of these ordinances. It is a very common, though a very palpable mistake, to confound grace, — and what is still more absurd, the mere possibility of having grace — with the exercise and profession of it. Though grace did run in blood, infants, or even children, could not be admitted either to baptism or the supper, until they professed their faith, and gave evidence of understanding these acts of worship. This is essential to its being a reasonable service.

4thly, It is not to be expected that the Scriptures should specify and refute every particular error. Error is infinite. It is sufficient that the truth be stated; whatever opposes truth is error. The duty of restricting baptism to those who are capable of professing their faith, is fully and plainly revealed. Infant baptism, if not specially enjoined, is opposed to truth, and must be discontinued.

5thly, It is, however, not a little remarkable, that the kindness of the prescient Spirit of our heavenly Father has put us on our guard here by more than ordinary instruction. He has not only, by stating the truth, furnished us with the means of detecting error, but particularly has taught us to reject it, by rejecting the principle on which it rests.

Let us take some examples of the doctrine of Scripture on the subject of carnal descent. Mat 3:7-12, “But when he (John the Baptist), saw many of the Pharisees and Saducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. In this passage, we may observe the following things:— 1st, According to the Sinai covenant, a male descendant from Abraham, when circumcised, became a member of the typical community; grace was not necessary. The Pharisees and Saducees, though a generation of vipers, were legitimate members of that community. John tells them that the antitype differed from the type; that personal religion, fruits meet for repentance, were requisite in the subjects of the kingdom of heaven. Repent, he preached, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 2dly, He tells them, that under the Gospel, carnal descent would profit them nothing. The subjects of the kingdom of heaven were, in this respect, not like branches in a tree, but like separate trees, each growing on its own root, to be preserved, or cut down, according to its fruits. 3dly, He tells them, in particular, that their descent from Abraham would profit them nothing, ver. 9. 4thly, He tells them that the axe was now laid to the root of the trees; that Christ’s fan was in his hand; that every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire; that the wheat must be gathered into the garner, but the chaff burned up with unquenchable fire. The language is figurative, but the meaning is plain. Christ will judge men according to their personal character; this judgment is announced in his doctrine, and represented in his ordinances, and in the constitution and discipline of his churches. From these observations, it appears that the religion of the Gospel is personal, not hereditary. If their descent from Abraham would not profit the Jews, much less can their descent from Noah, or their immediate parents, profit the Gentiles. Grace does not run in blood; and baptism cannot be administered on what does not exist.

Again, Mark 3:31-35, “There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mary was a saint, and is now in heaven, but she is saved, not by her relation to our Lord as her son, but as her Savior. The word “ brethren" was used amongst the Jews in a sense more extended than amongst us; it was synonymous with the word “kindred." Some of our Lord’s kindred were believers. 1 Corinthians i10:5, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Some of our Lord’s kindred did not believe. John 7:5, “For neither did his brethren believe on him." Such of our Lord’s brethren as were saved, owe their salvation, not to their birth, but to their Savior. The difference between those who believed, and those who believed not, was not the effect of consanguinity. The importance of attending to this is indicated by the repetition of the narrative, which we find recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The truth which it inculcates is frequently stated. Gal 5:6, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision aveileth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Col 3:11, “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Again, Philip, 3:3, 4, "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh — though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more."

It is not possible to state the doctrine in stronger or plainer language than it is expressed by John 1:12-13, "But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." “That is, children by a generation spiritual and divine, which has nothing in common with natural generation." — Campbell.

"They who thus believed on Him were possessed of these privileges, not in consequence of their being born of blood, of their being descended from the loins of the holy patriarchs, or sharing in circumcision, and the blood of the sacrifices; nor could they ascribe it merety to the will of the flesh, or to their own superior wisdom and goodness, as if by the power of corrupted nature alone they had made themselves to differ; nor to the will of man, or to the wisest advice and most powerful exhortations which their fellow-creatures might address to them; but must humbly acknowledge that they were born of God, and indebted to the efficacious influences of his regenerating grace, for all their privileges, and for all their hopes." — Doddridge.

"We are born sons, not by virtue of the blood of circumcision, by which the Jews entered into covenant with God, and became his sons; not by reason of that carnal generation, which makes us sons by nature; not by the will of man, adopting another for his son for want of natural issue; but this sonship ariseth from the good pleasure of God, receiving us for his sons, through faith in Christ Jesus." — Whitby.

Other expositors agree with those quoted in explaining the words as referring our spiritual birth, not to our natural descent, but unto God.* To assert, in the face of this testimony, that infants derive spiritual benefit from natural descent, is rather to contradict than to explain the doctrines of revelation. Again, John 3:5-6, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." This testimony to the spiritual inutility of natural descent, though more full and more plain, exactly coincides with that of the baptist. Nicodemus, no doubt, like the Pharisees and Saducees, founded his hope on his Abrahamic blood: out Lord undeceives him. The expectant of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven (he tells him) must have another and better birth than that derived from the patriarchs. We must be born of the Spirit. Flesh, not spirit, is the product of natural birth: what is spiritual must be derived from the Spirit, not from carnal descent. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." “In plain terms, whosoever would become a subject of the kingdom of God, must not only be baptized, but must experience the renewing and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit on his soul. For were it possible for a man to be born again, by entering a second time into his mother’s womb, such a second birth would do no more to qualify him for the kingdom of God than the first; for that which is born of the flesh is only flesh, and what proceeds and is produced from parents that are sinful and corrupt, is sinful and corrupt as they are; but that which is born of the Spirit is formed to a resemblance of that blessed Spirit, whose office it is to infuse a Divine life into the soul." — Doddridge.

Other expositors give precisely the same explanation of the passage. Children, then, derive nothing spiritual from carnal descent. Again: Rom 9:7-8, "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Ver. 13, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Esau and Jacob had the same blood, but a different spirit: both were the descendants of believing Isaac; and as descended from him, both were equally corrupt. The difference arose, not from descent, but from the promise. The apostle generalizes the doctrine, “They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God." We have already seen, and shall soon see more fully, that the maxim is of universal application. This passage, then, bears additional testimony to the truth, that nothing spiritual is derived from carnal descent. Again, 2Co 5:16, “Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." “For this reason (that Christ died ’as the substitute of sinners of all nations,’ ver. 15), therefore we, the ministers of the gospel of reconciliation, think ourselves bound to preach it to all nations, without regarding any man as better or worse on account of his pedigree and external privileges, or of his being circumcised in the flesh or not." — Cruise.

"Wherefore, since Christ died for all, we, the apostles of Christ, from this time forth, in the exercise of our ministry, show respect to no man more than to another, on account of his being a Jew, according to the flesh, and even if we have formerly esteemed Christ on account of his being a Jew, yet now we esteem him no more on that account." — Macknight. The sum of these comments is: — The apostles made no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, because the atonement was made for Gentiles as well as Jews. Judaism was founded in descent from the patriarchs. Christianity is not founded in carnal relation of any kind. It is not on carnal relation that its privileges depend; it is not on account of carnal relation that men are admitted to its ordinances; it is not in consequence of carnal relation that men are bound by its laws. There is no exception. No man is respected for his carnal descent. This passage does not indeed assert, in as many words, that children, infant or adult, are inadmissible to baptism from their relationship to their parents; it is, however, plainly implied. If we state the doctrine in an interrogatory form, this immediately appears. To whom should we have respect on account of carnal descent? A. To none; by consequence, not to children, whether infant or adult. In what concerns of Christianity are we to have respect to carnal descent? A. In none; by consequence, not in baptism.

I leave it to all to judge whether, in the passages now quoted, it be not plainly implied, that children, whether infant or adult, cannot be baptized in consequence of their relation to their parents. Again, Heb 8:8, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand, to lead them Out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." The doctrine of this passage is summary and conclusive. That this description belongs not to all the infants of believers, the wicked lives of many of them give decisive proof. The unavoidable consequence is, they are not introduced into the new covenant by their carnal descent. All the infants of believers are not taught of God, — all the subjects of this covenant are taught of God. It is not, therefore, on their relation to believers, but on their spiritual relation to Christ, that they are entitled to the benefits or ordinances of the Gospel.

Again, 1Pe 1:23-24, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass wither eth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto vou." These verses, almost in as many words, teach the doctrine for which we contend. Peter is treating of the cause of regeneration. He denies that it is by corruptible seed; he asserts that it is by the incorruptible seed of the word. The corruptible seed is carnal descent; it is corruptible, because all flesh is grass. The incorruptible is the word of God or the Gospel; it is incorruptible, because it liveth and endureth for ever. Repeat these words I may, but 1 cannot make them plainer. Two or three quotations from friends of infant baptism may satisfy the inquirer that there is nothing peculiar in this explanation. “The temper and conduct which I recommend may justly be expected from you, considering your relation to God and to each other: as having been regenerated, not by corruptible seed, not by virtue of any descent from human parents, but by incorruptible; not laying the stress of your confidence on your pedigree from Abraham, if ye had the honor to descend from that illustrious patriarch, for that descent could not entitle you to the important blessings of the Gospel. It is by means of the efficacy of the word of God upon your hearts, even that powerful word, which lives and endures for ever, that you are become entitled to these glorious evangelical privileges." — Doddridge.

"In this expression, the apostle insinuated to the Jews, that they were not the children of God and heirs of immortality, by their being begotten of Abraham, nor by their obeying the law of Moses, but by their being begotten of the incorruptible seed of the preached word of the living God." — Macknight. This testimony, then, almost in words, proves that infants cannot be baptized on account of their descent. Again, under the Old Dispensation, the temporal interests of the child were judicially affected by the conduct of the patient. Of this we have an example in Exo 20:5, “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

It is perhaps implied in the words quoted, but certainly often and plainly predicted by the prophets, that under the Gospel this constitution of things should be altered. Under that dispensation, the temporal interests, and much less the spiritual interests of the child, are in no judicial way affected by the conduct of the parent. Both directly and indirectly, the prophecies confirm the truth, that the child derives no spiritual privilege from his lineage. Jer 31:29-31, “In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Eze 18:2, “What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any move to use this proverb in Israel."

Thus it appears that the right to baptism does not run in blood, and we ought also to be satisfied, that infants cannot be baptized in consequence of their descent from their parents, whether more immediate or more remote.