01.007. Jesus and the Little Ones
Jesus and the Little Ones.
"Of that reference to, infant baptism which it is so common to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not the slightest trace to be found." --Olshausen, Matthew 19:13-14.
There is a common fallacy which logicians call ignoratio elenchi, which includes cases of "proving the wrong point." Often if a man is asked to justify a certain statement of which proof is very difficult, if not impossible, he will defend instead another proposition for which the former may be mistaken. Mr. Madsen evidently is a believer in the skillful use of this fallacy in support of a feeble cause. For, when asked to prove his position that Jesus wishes infants baptized, he seeks to prove instead, what no one denies, that Jesus cares for them. We have already seen how Christ’s general attitude of benevolence towards little children is advanced in support of, not our benevolence towards, but baptism of, infants. The underlying assumptions of this argument are preposterous; it is foolish to suggest that baptism must accompany benevolence; and it is an unworthy insinuation that they who do not baptize infants are not so well-disposed towards them as the most ardent Pedobaptists are. There is, in The Question of Baptism, an absurd parade of the care of and benevolence towards children which infant baptism shows. Such a parade is no new thing in this connection. Some readers will remember Keble’s lines on " Holy Baptism," with their outrageous suggestion: "Where is it mothers learn their love? In every Church a fountain springs O’er which th’ eternal Dove Hovers on softest wings." Now, Keble no more needed to be reminded that mothers do not require to have their children baptized in order to love them, than Mr. Madsen stands in need of a reminder that to decline to baptize unconscious infants whose baptism the Lord has not warranted is a very different thing from being ill-disposed towards them. Benevolence is not a reason for baptism. We should be well- disposed towards all men; Christ had a heart of love for all: but this is no reason for baptizing non-believers. In a later chapter we hope to show how infant baptism has been associated with the doctrine of original sin. Even John Wesley declared: "Infants need to be washed from original sin: therefore they are proper subjects of baptism." We might retort, then, that they who deny that infants need baptism are more benevolent towards them than are those amongst the Pedobaptists, who have believed or do now believe that infants need remission of sins. We agree most profoundly with the statement of J. A. Beet, a Methodist divine, that "there is not one word in the New Testament which even suggests in the slightest degree that spiritual blessings are, or may be, conveyed to an infant by a rite of which he is utterly unconscious." This, coupled with the fact that there is no hint in the Scriptures of infant baptism, surely should prevent people from suggesting that they who do not baptize infants somehow neglect them, love them little, or are not benevolently disposed towards them. In this article we have to treat of some passages about children which are not statements as to baptism at all, but which are alleged to contain "allusions which make it very difficult to refuse" infants Christian baptism.
"OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM."
Mr. Madsen refers to Matthew 19:14 and Matthew 18:1-10. Jesus said: "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." and "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."
Now there is not a word about baptism in these verses. Mr. Madsen would not venture to assert that the children were baptized on this occasion. The disciples were rebuked; but there is not a syllable to show that the blessing desired by the parents involved baptism, or that the disciples were rebuked because they objected to such baptism. If so--and of course any reader will see that it is so,--how can this Scripture rightfully be used to rebuke us for declining to practice infant baptism? With what semblance of fairness can Mr. Madsen approvingly quote another Pedobaptists to the effect that on the Baptist theory the disciples’ rebuke to the parents of the children was proper and righteous? The passage in question shows that if Christ were on earth it would be good to bring infants to him for his blessing. Since none of us deny this, how do we favor the original objectors or share with them the Saviour’s rebuke? Let me quote a few sentences from The Question of Baptism:
"’Of such’ clearly means children similar in age and condition." "In express terms, Jesus includes the little ones in the Kingdom of Heaven. If, therefore, by Christ’s own language a baby belongs to the Kingdom, how can it be refused the outward and visible sign of the Kingdom, which is baptism" (p. 51).
It is not correct to say that "in express terms, Jesus includes the little ones in the Kingdom of Heaven." The Lord definitely said, "Except a man he born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (John 2:3; John 2:5). The kingdom, then, consists of twice-born people. None are in the kingdom who have only been born once by a natural birth.
Again, "of such" does not mean "of these," or mean "children of similar age and condition." Let a few Pedobaptists answer their Victorian representative. A. Plummer, after pointing out that Jesus’ word is "of such," not "of these," says: "Not those particular children, nor all children, but those who are childlike in character, are possessors of the Kingdom; it specially belongs to them."--On Matthew 19:13-15.
"Of such--i.e., of childlike souls who come trustfully and unassumingly to receive (Matthew 18:2-4)."--E. E. Anderson, on Matthew 19:14.
"One of such little children. The child meant by our Lord is not a child in years, but in spirit, a person possessed of the childlike quality." Prof. E. P. Gould, on Mark 9:37, in International Critical Commentary.
"ton, toiouton denotes those possessing the childlike spirit of docility and humility." Cf. Matthew 18:4."--Ibid, on Mark 10:14.
We call attention to the striking words of olshausen quoted at the head of this article. Olshausen was an able Pedobaptists, who, it will be remembered, was formerly shown to have been misrepresented by Mr. Madsen (see chapter on The Commission). In the light of the foregoing, it is curiously interesting to read in The Question of Baptism:
"Yet Baptists, after their manner, say this has nothing to do with infant baptism--’Jesus was referring to the childlike qualities which His followers should possess,’ etc."--Page 52. These Baptists are in very good Pedobaptists company. But Mr. Madsen believes that such a view leaves Christ’s rebuke without point; and he continues:
"It is utterly incredible that Jesus made such an ado over nothing. If this does not mean that parents are to bring their babies to Him in baptism, we require the Baptists to inform us in what other way babies can be brought to Christ, and so satisfy the express requirements involved in our Lord’s language" (p. 52). With pleasure, we at last acknowledge a sentence with which we can agree. The first sentence in the above is correct. The ado was not over nothing; for the Scripture says it was about the unwarranted inhibition of the disciples. The rebuke they got for doing an unwarranted thing should make us all careful about doing unwarranted things (which is why we ask,--yet, alas! in vain--for Scriptural warrant for baby baptism). No; the ado was not over nothing; but does that prove it was over baptism? Has infant baptism become such an obsession to Mr. Madsen that it is, in his mind, the only possible antithesis to "nothing"? Of the rest of the quotation, it may suffice to say that the children in question were evidently "brought to Christ" in some "other way" than baptism. Again, it is not hinted that Jesus baptized them; but it is definitely said that he "took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them" (Mark 10:16). If Mr. Madsen will only imitate the Lord Jesus in this, and not seek to go beyond the Saviour’s example, few will find fault with him; they will only discount the efficacy to the extent in which the disciple must perforce be less than his Lord.
"BABES AND SUCKLINGS."
Mr. Madsen makes use of Matthew 21:15-16 : "But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were moved with indignation, and said unto him, Hearest thou what these are saying? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?"
One asks in wonder, What has "the perfection of praise as issuing from ’babes and sucklings’ to do with baptism? Mr. Madsen asks: "Would this incident dispose them [the apostles] to ignore the babes and sucklings in carrying out their commission?" No, it could not dispose them to ignore anybody; but neither could it dispose them to baptize anybody whose baptism the Lord did not ask. We could apply the question to other things than baptism;
"Would this incident dispose them to ignore the babes and sucklings" in the Lord’s Supper? Whatever cogency would be in Mr. Madsen’s answer to this second question will tell against the former one. As a fact, when infant baptism came in, infant communion also came in; and there is as much reason or want of reason in the one practice as in the other. But Mr. Madsen has another curious sentence under this same heading. He thinks that the later command to disciple the nations; would be interpreted in the light of the fact, as he deems it, that the "babes and sucklings" of Matthew 21:16 are themselves in Scripture called "disciples." He says:
"In Luke’s narrative of the same incident, the children are included in the term ’disciples.’ Thus:--’The whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice,’ while the call for suppression ran:--’ Master, rebuke Thy disciples.’ Luke 19:37-39."--Pages 54, 55. This is interesting. We have but one objection to the statement that Luke includes the "babes and sucklings " (which Matthew alone mentions) in the term "disciples" (alone used by Luke). That objection is that the statement is demonstrably incorrect. The interested reader is asked to peruse Matthew 21:1-17 and Luke 19:29-46. He will learn that there were two occasions on which, according to Matthew, people cried " Hosanna to the son of David." "The multitudes" did it on the way from Bethphage to Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8-9); and, later, in the temple, the children did it (Matthew 21:15-16). It was regarding the second or temple incident that the Saviour used the quotation concerning "babes and sucklings." Now Luke’s statement about the "disciples" refers to Matthew’s former incident, and not to the latter or temple one at all; for he says, "As he was drawing nigh, even at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice" (Luke 19:37). From Mark we learn that the temple cleansing and conflict with the chief priests and scribes took place on the day after the triumphal entry, Jesus on the day of entry having merely entered the temple and "looked round about upon all things" (see. Mark 11:1-18). Anyone who reads can see that in Luke 19:45-46, there is a very much abridged account of what happened in the temple, i.e., of the second incident recorded by Matthew. Mr. Madsen has simply made a confusion which a child in the intermediate division of a Sunday School should blush at making. Thus another argument in the book praised by our Methodist friends for its "convincing" nature and "judicious" references lies shattered in the dust.
"FEED MY LAMBS." So Jesus said to Peter (John 21:15), and Mr. Madsen uses the text as an argument in favor of infant baptism. Even if the "lambs" were infants, the text would obviously only furnish an argument for feeding them, and not for baptizing then. We have before pointed out how, in the absence of any text which contains within itself a reference to both babies and baptism, the Pedobaptists apologist gets one baptism text and another text with infants, and by a process akin to that of a skilled juggler with two balls makes such lightning changes and passes as to deceive the onlooker. But now we see a stranger thing. Our friend is so poverty-stricken in argument that he has to take a text in which neither babe nor baptism is to be found, and make it apply to both! Other people than Pedobaptists in our present opponent’s anxious case will remember that, even if we insist that the "lambs" of John 21:15 represent a different class front the "sheep" of John 21:16, there are "babes in Christ" who need feeding (1 Corinthians 2:1). A few quotations from believers in infant baptism will show that we need not apologize for declining to admit, in the absence of any attempted proof, that the "lambs" of John 21:1; John 21:5 were infants.
"Every spiritual shepherd of Christ has a flock, composed of LAMBS--young converts, and SHEEP--experienced Christians, to feed, guide, regulate and govern. "--ADAM CLARKE (Methodist) on John 21:15.
"The ’lambs’ there are probably neither Christian children, nor recent converts, but, like the ’sheep’ in John 21:16-17, Christians in general, the name being one of affection: cp. 1 Peter 5:2-3."-- Dummelow’s One Volume Bible Commentary on John 21:15.
Meyer says that by all three words ("lambs" "sheep," "little sheep") Jesus "means His believing ones in general (1 Peter 5:4), without making a separation between beginners and those who are matured, or even between clergy and laity.
TO YOUR CHILDREN (Acts 2:39). The same apostle Who received the injunction, "Feed my lambs," later said: "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:39). Mr. Madsen thinks that Pentecost bears witness to the impression which John 21:15 made on Peter’s mind; and evidently believes that "to your children" refers to infant baptism. What Mr. Madsen implies is frequently explicitly stated, For instance, Mr. F. Delbridge, B.A., Editor of the Tasmanian Recorder and Methodist, in an editorial on "Infant Baptism an Apostolic Practice," wrote on Acts 2:39 : "The particular word used for children in the passage (Gk. ’teknos’) apparently indicating that he meant, not posterity, as is claimed by some, but the children of those he was addressing. For ’posterity’ Peter uses a different word in the next chapter, viz., ’huios’ (Acts 2:25). Seeing, too, that these words were immediately preceded by an exhortation to baptism (Acts 2:38), it is not likely that Peter would exclude the children from that ordinance."
We would in reply call attention to a few things. (i) The word teknon (for teknos is either a misprint or a slip on Mr. Delbridge’s part) does not show that literal children are meant; for it is repeatedly used in the New Testament in another sense than that of actual and immediate descendants (cf. Matthew 2:18; John 8:39; Romans 8:16-17; 1 Timothy 1:2). (2) Does Peter by using huios for posterity in Acts 2:25 show that he limits the meaning of teknon to the literal children of those addressed? This is impossible, for in his epistle Peter writes to Christian women: "As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children [tekna] ye now are" (1 Peter 2:6). (3) Both huios and teknon are used of a literal child and of posterity. (4) Even if Mr. Delbridge’s assertion were as true as it is demonstrably incorrect, and we were to grant that the "children" of Acts 2:39 were the immediate offspring of those addressed by Peter, would that fact prove they were infants? Not at all. It is an almost constant vice of Pedobaptists advocates that they confuse children with infants. Teknon is often found of those who are of mature age, or far beyond the period of infancy. (See Matthew 21:28; Luke 15:31; 1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:18; Titus 1:6; etc.) (5) Can we learn from the account in Acts 2:1-47 who were the subjects of baptism? Yes. In the first place, consider what was "the promise" which was offered to the children with others: it was, "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). That is the only promise stated in this connection. That promise was conditioned by Peter on two things, repentance and baptism; for he said: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Now this promise, with its antecedent conditions, was declared to be to the children" (Acts 2:39). These children must have been folk who could fulfill the expressed conditions of Acts 2:38. It is illegitimate to seek to transfer to one who cannot fulfill the conditions a promise expressly made on certain conditions: Again, it is sand that the promise was for "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39). The promise then is surely for those who can hear and obey God’s call rather than for those who cannot do this. Yet once more: We are not left in doubt as to the people who were baptized on Pentecost. Were they infants? No; for Luke says: "They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:41-42). Clearly all who were baptized were hearers and receivers of the apostle’s words. Our Methodist friends "baptize" folk who cannot be so described. In addition, "they" of Acts 2:42 are those who in Acts 2:41 are said to have received the word and been baptized. So they were old enough for Christian instruction and church fellowship. The baptized persons of Acts 2:41 are the communicants of Acts 2:42.
Methodists retain infant baptism, but reject the practice of infant communion which came in with it.
Lambert, although a Pedobaptists, declines to admit the cogency of the argument often drawn from Acts 2:39. Of the contention that "children" means not posterity but immediate offspring, he says: "This view does not seem to be in harmony with the balance of the apostles thoughts." Then he continues in the following interesting fashion: "But even if this particular point were conceded, and it were held that it is the sons and daughters of his hearers to whom the apostle refers, it cannot be said that his words contain any suggestion that infant children should be baptized. His call to those men was a call to repentance, repentance specifically for the sin of rejecting Jesus (Acts 2:23, Acts 2:26, Acts 2:37), and to baptism as a sign of their repentance on the one hand, and of God’s forgiveness on the other. There is nothing to lead us to believe that he was urging them to have their young children baptized as well as themselves. In point of fact, it seems evident that there were no infants among the three thousand persons to whom the rite was administered on the day of Pentecost, since those who were baptized are expressly described as they that gladly received his word’ (Acts 1:1)."--The Sacraments in the New Testament, p. 197. In a later chapter, Mr. Madsen refers to Acts 2:38, and, in his zeal to make a point against the Baptists, writes: "Repentance is the title to baptism in this passage, but Baptists say, not repentance, but the evidence of it—faith—is the only valid title. Would a Baptist minister baptize a Pagan or a Jew on the same day as the man heard the gospel for the first time and before his repentance was assured?" (p.67). In a footnote on the same page Neander is quoted as follows: "At the beginning, when it was important that the Church should rapidly extend itself, those (among the Jews) who confessed their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, or (among the Gentiles) their belief in one God and Jesus as the Messiah, were, as appears from the New Testament, immediately baptized."
Mr. Madsen is quite right in citing evidence to disprove an unscriptural probationary theory, and both Acts 2:1-47 and Acts 16:1-40 are against that. But yet our author trips. He overlooks that Acts 2:1-47 does not make repentance, and dispense with faith as, "the title to baptism:" Had the people who cried out "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:27), and to whom Peter said, "Repent and be baptized," not faith? The apostle had by most cogent reasoning convinced them that the murdered Jesus was Lord and Christ. It was because they believed this testimony that they were "pricked in their heart" and asked for direction. Plummet, in his article on " Baptism" in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, states the position exactly. Of Acts 2:38, he says: " Here repentance is expressed, and faith in Jesus Christ is implied." Again, even if we were to allow that Acts 2:1-47 made repentance and not faith "the title to baptism," show would that fact help the Pedobaptists cause? Are we to understand that the infants baptized by Mr. Madsen have repentance but not "the evidence of it, faith"? In the third place, there is a discrepancy between Mr. Madsen’s stated position and the quotation from Neander. Mr. Madsen finds fault with the Baptists for making faith the title, and yet he quotes Neander, who says that they who confessed that faith were immediately baptized.
Acts 21:4-5. This passage, although it does not refer to baptism at all, is referred to by Mr. Madsen. The reader of it would wonder how even the neediest Pedobaptists controversialist could use such a Scripture. The Question of Baptism puts the argument thus: "In Acts 21:4-5, there is a description of Paul’s farewell to the ’disciples’ at Tyre, in which it is shown that men, women, and children took part in the prayer meeting on the sea beach. Had the children not been expressly mentioned as included in the company of disciples, on Baptist principles we might conclude that the Apostles had positively ignored Christ’s peremptory words concerning the little ones. But here are married men, with their wives and families denominated as ’disciples’." (pp. 55, 56). The most certain way of refuting an attempted biblical proof of infant baptism is to quote the Scripture passage involved. In Acts 21:4-5, Luke says: "And having found the disciples we tarried there seven days: and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem. And when it came to pass that we had accomplished the days, we departed and went on our journey; and they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way, till we were out of the city: and kneeling down on the beach, we prayed." A few remarks will show the emptiness of fine argument stated above. Many modern disciples take their children both to beach and to prayer meeting. That fact does not begin to suggest that they believe in infant baptism. Again, Mr. Madsen assumes that the word rendered "children" implies that those so designated were infants. That assumption cannot be proved; for we have shown that the same word (in singular or plural) is used of grown-up persons. (Matthew 21:28; Luke 15:31; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 2:6, etc.). But Mr. Madsen’s strong point is that "the children" (in the sense of "infants," else the proof vanishes) are "expressly mentioned as included in the company of disciples:" So if infants are "disciples," they must have been baptized, since baptism has already been referred to by Mr. Madsen as the method of making disciples. The answer is that the children are not mentioned as included in the disciples. Read the passage again. The words "they all" in Acts 21:5 refer to the "disciples" of Acts 21:4. The disciples with their wives and children accompanied Paul’s party. Now, if I say that certain Methodists went with me to a certain place, shall I fairly be represented as having been "expressly mentioned as included in the company of’ Methodists? Surely not. So, whether infants were there or not, it has yet to be proved that the children of Tyre are called "disciples."
PAULS LETTERS.
"Paul," writes Mr. Madsen, "inserts references to children as church members in his letters." Mr. Tait, in his book on Baptism, refers more specifically to Ephesians 6:14, and Colossians 2:20. This is another instance of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. Mr. Madsen has to show Scriptural warrant for baptizing infants, instead of doing which he shows that children were in the church.
We cordially agree that children were in the apostolic church. There are today in our congregations hundreds to whom we pass on the apostle’s exhortation: "Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord." But how does this prove infant baptism or membership? Did Mr. Madsen ever gravely admonish his infant candidate in such language? The very fact that many children are to be found to-day in congregations not practicing infant baptism should keep our Pedobaptists friends from seeking to support their cause by suggestions that children are ignored or neglected when not baptized as infants. "Children properly trained may he brought savingly to know and love the Saviour. When they do so they are fit subjects for baptism, and should then intelligently take their place in the church, to be henceforth exhorted to obey their parents and to serve the Lord in everything. The proper subjects, then, for baptism, are not then, women or children, as such; but persons who confess repentance towards God and faith in Christ."
2 JOHN.
Here is one of the gems in Mr. Madsen’s book: "John thought it worth while to send a private letter (the Second Epistle) to a mother and her children, which he concludes with salutations from their little cousins. How very remarkable this reads in the light of the Baptist theory, which boldly affirms that when children are referred to in Church terms, they must necessarily be old enough to be believers, in the evangelical sense of the word" (p. 56).
Mr. Madsen’s own words give such an appropriate comment that we requote them: "How very remarkable this reads"! The man who argues from greetings between cousins in "a private letter" to the baptism of unconscious infants is proclaiming how hard pressed he is. A cause which needs such support is surely weak. We had better beware! If in our next letter we say, "Johnny sends his love to his cousins," we shall be cited as being on the Pedobaptists side! But how did Mr. Madsen know they were "little cousins"? The word "children" will not prove it, for reasons previously given (see Matthew 21:28; also, the word tekna is often used of men who are children of God). It is assumption that any of the "children" to whom the salutation was sent or of those who gave it were infants. As one reads The Question of Baptism, one often thinks, If only assumption were argument, how powerful a disputant Mr. Madsen would be! Surely it ought to be clear to the most casual reader that if the children were old enough to be interested in apostolic epistles, they were not of the age of the babies whose baptism Mr. Madsen seeks to justify. Otherwise we can only say they were "very remarkable" infants. Again, in 2 John 1:4 we have mention of the fact that John found certain of the "children" of the elect lady "walking in truth." If these could do so, it is foolish imagination to suppose that those of verses 1 and 13 could not or did not do likewise.
We may add that it is still keenly debated whether the "elect lady" was a church or a Christian matron. Allowing the latter, we point out that Mr. Madsen has shown neither infants nor baptism to be involved in the epistle.
CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS HOLY (1 Corinthians 7:14).
Mr. Madsen employs the usual argument drawn from this passage. He says: "The remarkable statement of Paul to the Corinthian converts has to be reckoned with by the advocates of the Baptist exclusive theory. ’For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.’ (1 Corinthians 7:14.) To contend that this reference has to do with the question of the legitimacy of marriage and its issue, is a convenient way of getting rid of a difficult passage in the path of the Baptist theory. Sound exegesis, however, lends such interpretation no support. It is manifestly special pleading with the intention of removing an awkward text" (The Question of Baptism, pp. 57, 58)
If anyone will read 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, he will find that the apostle was discussing the question of marriage. The question was raised, Should a believing wife depart from her heathen husband, or the Christian husband from his pagan wife? Paul replied that there was no need to do so, since the unbelieving partner was "sanctified" by the believing spouse. See 1 Corinthians 7:10-14. So it is not "a convenient way of getting rid of a difficult passage" to see its reference, not to baptism, but to marriage. Paul adds a word to enforce his point: If in such a marriage the believer was desecrated by intercourse with a heathen, then the children would be unclean; as it is, they are holy. Paul, says G. G. Findlay in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, "appeals to the instinct of the religious parent; the Christian father or mother cannot look on children, given by God through marriage, as things unclean."
Now, does this argument of Paul’s imply, as Mr. Madsen quotes Godet as affirming, that the custom of infant baptism existed? We shall see.
We first ask the reader to note that Paul does not speak merely of holy children, he speaks also of a hallowed parent. The word translated "sanctified" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is the verb cognate with the adjective translated "holy" in the same verse. The unbelieving husband is "sanctified" by the wife. Findlay puts it that "the sanctification of the one includes the other so far as their wedlock is concerned." We never heard of anybody suggesting that the unbelieving husband should be baptized because of his holiness as expressed in this passage; yet the holiness of the children is no more clearly stated. In the second place, whatever others may do consistently, some of our Methodist friends cannot get much in favor of their practice from 1 Corinthians 7:14. If Mr. Madsen seeks to get an argument from the children’s holiness, he should notice that Paul’s words only refer to children of whom one parent at least is a believer. "Else were your children unclean," Paul says. Now, Mr. Madsen’s book begins with a quotation from the Methodist Book of Laws: "All children, by virtue of the Universal Atonement of Christ, are members of the Kingdom of God, and arc entitled to be received into the visible Church of Christ by baptism." Whatever other Scriptures may be referred to in support of this statement, it is quite evident that the "holy" of 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot so be used; for holiness in the sense in which Paul here uses it is definitely limited to children of a believing parent and is predicated also of the unbeliever married to a Christian. Thirdly, we would like to point out that such a view of the passage as we have given is not peculiar to ourselves. Many Pedobaptists state their conviction that 1 Corinthians 7:14, so far from proving the existence of infant baptism in Paul’s day, definitely disproves it.
Dean Stanley, one of the finest scholars produced by the Church of England, wrote thus: "The passage, on the one hand, is against the practice of infant baptism in the Apostle’s time. For (1) he would hardly have founded an argument on the derivation of the children’s holiness from their Christian parent or parents, if there had been a distinct act by which the children had themselves been admitted formally into the Christian society; and (2) he would not have spoken of the heathen partner as being ’holy’ in the same sense as the children were regarded as ’holy,’ viz., by connexion with a Christian household, if there had been so obvious a difference between the conditions of the two, as that one was, and the other was not baptized."--Commentary on Corinthians.
Neander refers to the passage as "rather evidence against the existence of infant baptism."
H. M. Gwatkin, in his Early Church History, implies that here "St. Paul disproves the institution."
Albert Barnes, the well-known Presbyterian commentator, and a most strenuous Pedobaptists advocate, has some helpful remarks on the subject. We can only quote a few sentences. "It is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connexion; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified in regard to the subject under discussion; that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not." Of the argument from this passage that "children are ’federally holy,’ and that they are entitled to the privilege of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents," Barnes has same hard things to say, among them being this: "It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; nor one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotes degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not."
Such words effectively turn the edge of Mr. Madsen’s suggestion that only Baptists in the support of a losing cause do not agree with his view of 1 Corinthians 7:14. We could pass on to the modern champions of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches in Victoria--Messrs. Madsen and Tait, who both use this text as an argument--the following admonition from their Pedobaptists brother: "I believe infant baptism to be proper and right, and an inestimable privilege to parents and to children. But a good cause should not be made to rest on feeble supports, nor on forced and unnatural interpretations of the Scriptures. And such I regard the usual interpretations placed on this passage."
Most readers will think this is cogent enough, but we must notice another point. Mr. Madsen writes: "Dummelow, in his recent commentary, remarks that the passage enunciates the principles which lead to infant baptism, viz., that the child of Christian parents shall be counted as a Christian."
Dummelow does quote Lightfoot to this effect. We have already asked how this could support the view that "all children. ... are entitled to be received into the visible Church of Christ by baptism."
Other Pedobaptists plead that while 1 Corinthians 7:14 does not favor the view that infant baptism existed, yet it sets forth the principles which justify the practice. Stanley, already quoted, says, "The passage asserts the principle on which infant baptism is founded."
Neander remarks:
"In the point of view here chosen by Paul, we find (although it testifies against the existence of infant baptism) the fundamental idea from which infant baptism was afterwards necessarily developed, and by which it must be justified to agree with Paul’s sentiments."
Gwatkin has an interesting word:
"St. Paul’s argument--’else were your children unclean, whereas in fact they are holy’--is a two-edged sword. On one side, he could not well put the holiness of the child on the same footing as that of the unbelieving parent; if one was baptized and the other not. But conversely, if the child of even a mixed marriage is holy, surely it is a fit subject for baptism. If St. Paul disproves the institution, he approves its principle." As against these men who admit that the practice was not in existence when Paul wrote, while yet Paul’s principle justifies the practice, we simply say that the intelligence of the inspired apostle was the equal of that of any Pedobaptists. Paul surely knew the implications of his own words! If his words "disprove the practice," as these men allow, why, then, in Paul’s opinion (else his belief and practice were out of harmony) his words did not carry with them an approval of infant baptism. I would rather believe in the consistency of the Apostle Paul than in that of Stanley, Neander and Gwatkin.
Again, readers of church history know that the early justification of infant baptism generally was not that the child was holy, but that it was guilty of original sin which must he washed away in baptism. We have already quoted John Wesley as giving this as his first reason in favor of infant baptism. Many Pedobaptists today thus teach. Our Roman Catholic friends do so. The Church of England Prayer Book refers to: "the baptizing of this child, who being born in original sin, and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of regeneration in baptism, received into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life."
These are more in harmony with the early views on the need and the benefit of infant baptism than is the statement that the principle of infant baptism is the holiness of the infant. Meyer thus decides against the right of our friends to get from Paul’s words either institution or principle: "Had the baptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have drawn this inference, because in that case the [holiness] of such children would have had another basis. That the passage before us does not even contain an exegetical justification of infant baptism, is shown in the remarks on Acts 16:15. ... Neither is it the point of departure, from which, almost of necessity, pedobaptism must have developed itself. ... such a point is rather to be found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin(s)."--Commentary, 1 Corinthians 7:14.
BABES IN HEAVEN. A few lines may be spared for this question. Mr. Madsen criticizes us for holding that one dying in infancy is saved, while yet we do not admit it to baptism. He writes: "If the infant should die it is fit for Heaven as Christ’s ’purchased possessionbut if it lives, it is not a proper subject for baptism into the membership of Christ’s Church" (p. 60). "Is it easier for an infant to enter Heaven than to find admission into the Church? This is apparently what the Baptist position amounts to when treated by analysis" (p. 81).
We only notice this because some person might be found who would mistake pleasantry for argument. We would be glad to hear from Mr. Madsen as to whether any adults who die unbaptized will be in heaven. We shall not do him the discredit of supposing that he would give a negative reply. But, if so, Mr. Madsen could hardly recognize them as being in the Methodist Church. Shall we retort as a reductio ad absurdum, that it must be easier to get into Heaven than into the Methodist Church? I presume Mr. Madsen will allow that more folk will be in heaven than there are in the Methodist Church. If so, it would seem that the former place is the more easily entered. No; jests however sharp they may be, should not be put forth as arguments-especially if they are as much against your own position as that of your opponent.