01.09 - Lecture 9

LECTURE IX. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM continued.

WE have now travelled over nearly the whole of the sacred record in so far as it bears on the question as to the Subjects of Baptism. We have carefully considered every point that is claimed to favour the Baptist view of this question. We have allowed every Baptist argument that can be advanced to have the full weight it registers when tested in the balance of the sanctuary. And the result is that we have failed to discover, in the Word of God, so much as a single trace of support for the distinctive position of the Baptists in relation to this matter.

Neither in the teaching of our Lord Himself, nor in the teaching of the inspired expositors of His will, have we found anything that can even be tortured into a pretext for excluding the infant children of Church members from the fellowship of the Church. On the other hand, we have met with many statements of our Lord and His Apostles which affirm or imply that the status of the children has not been reduced, and that the privileges of the children have not been restricted, under the broader and more comprehensive regime that Christianity has inaugurated. Our position in reference to this question has been vindicated up to the point of demonstration by the testimony of God’s Word, and we might, at this stage, take leave of this aspect of the subject, with convictions firmly rooted in the groundwork of the truth, and perfectly proof against the fallacies and superficialities of specious error.

However, there are still a few Scripture passages that must be considered as bearing upon the question in hand, and to these we shall briefly refer.

HOLY CHILDREN. The first of these is 1 Corinthians 7:14, “ 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.” The Apostle was replying to a question which had been put to him regarding marriages in which one partner was a believer and the other an unbeliever. He had been asked to declare whether, in such a case, the union should continue, and whether the believer could, consistently with the principles of Christianity, remain in the married relation with the unbeliever. The union of a Jew with a heathen, while sometimes tolerated, especially in the cities of the Dispersion, was always regarded with disfavour, and was, in fact, a direct violation of one of the Old Testament precepts. After the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity such mixed marriages came to be quite common, and Ezra gave orders that they should be dissolved, for “ the seed of holiness” must not mingle with the unholy. And it may have occurred to some Christians of the Jewish section of the Church at Corinth that possibly the marriage law of the Old Economy was still in force, and that the union of a Christian and a non-Christian was thus prohibited. At any rate the question had been raised and the matter was submitted to Paul for his decision. The Apostle decides that the issue rests with the unbeliever. Where the unbeliever desires to separate, let there be separation, but where the unbeliever consents to remain the union is to continue. The reason for this decision in favour of the continuance of the married relation, with the consent of the unbelieving party, is given in the passage under consideration. You will see that it applies equally to the case in which the unbeliever is the husband and to the case in which the unbeliever is the wife. For the sake of clearness, let us take the case in which the wife is the believer. Then “ the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” That is to say, there is no defilement in such a union. The Christian partner is not defiled. The non Christian partner is sanctified. The believing wife is not dragged down toward the level of the unbelieving husband. The unbelieving husband is lifted up somewhat toward the level of the believing wife. Her status does not suffer while his status is improved. It is the unbelief and not the belief that is overborne. The family as a whole takes its character from the believing parent. Her sanctity imparts a kind of sanctity to all who are bound up with her in family relationship. The piety of the wife is the predominating element in the family life, and thus the order of nature has been modified by the operation of grace, and, from the Christian standpoint, the wife, and not the husband, is the head of the household, and the children are reckoned to the believing mother and not to the unbelieving father, and so are holy. If this were not so if the married state were not elevated and purified by the piety of the believing wife, and if the husband were not, in some sense, sanctified through her faith, then the children should be unclean; but they are not unclean; they are holy; and therefore the sanctification of the husband and the purification of the marriage bond have been effected.

You will, of course, understand that the word “ holy “ is used in Scripture in two different senses.

It is used to describe purity of moral character, as when we speak of the holiness of God, or of the comparative holiness of a saintly man. But it is also used to describe what has been consecrated to God. Anything that was separated from a common use and devoted to the service of God was said to be holy. In this sense the Sabbath was holy; that is to say, it was separated from other days and set apart for the service of God. In this sense the vessels of the Temple, the Temple itself, and even the land in which the Israelites lived were said to be holy. In this sense also the Jewish people were said to be holy. They had been separated from other people and called into the service of God. And the children of Jewish parents were considered holy. They were included with their parents in the Covenant, and so were consecrated to God, who had pledged Himself in the Covenant to be their God, and who claimed them as His, and insisted that they should receive the sign and seal of His Covenant. And it is said that the children of half Jewish marriages were treated as Jews, on the principle that the good is stronger than the evil. The case of Timothy will at once suggest itself. His mother was a Jewess and his father was a Gentile, and so the rite of Circumcision should have been administered at the proper time. For the sake of expediency, the omission was afterwards made good by direction of Paul. Now, when it is said that the children of Jewish parents were holy, it is not meant that they were free from sin, but simply that they were consecrated to God. And so in the case under consideration, when it is said that the children of believing parents and the children of one believing parent are holy, we are not to understand that they are holy in the sense of being free from sin, but simply in the sense of being consecrated to God. The Apostle takes over the language of the Old Economy, and uses it to describe the status of the children under the Gospel Dispensation, which he would not have done if the children had not continued to enjoy the status they had in the Old Testament Church. The children of God’s professing people were holy in the olden time under the Abrahamic Covenant, and we learn from the language of the Apostle, in this passage, that the children of God’s professing people are still holy under the same Covenant.

Whatever else may be doubtful in the interpretation of this verse one thing is certain, and that is that the children of believing parents or of one believing parent are holy in the sense already explained. That is the admitted fact on which the argument is based. Anything that leads to the contradiction of that fundamental truth is untrue. Thus, if the unbelieving husband is not sanctified in the believing wife, then the children are unclean outside the Covenant and on the same level with the children of the heathen. But they are not unclean; they are holy; therefore the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing wife. That is the Apostle’s argument fully stated in logical form. Or we might put it in this way. The belief does not prevail against unbelief so as to give character to the whole family, then the children cannot be reckoned to belief, and are unclean. But they are holy; therefore belief dominates and gives character to the family, and there is a sense in which it is a sanctified family, and, therefore, a sense in which the unbelieving husband is sanctified.

It is to be observed that there is a distinction between the holiness of the children and the sanctification of the husband. The word in the original translated “ holy “ is a great deal stronger and more positive in its significance than the word translated “ is sanctified.” The children are holy under the Covenant through their relation to their believing mother. The husband is sanctified, apart from the Covenant, through his relation to his believing wife. It is practically certain that the young children, under the Christian training of the mother, will come to accept for themselves the profession which she has made on their behalf; but while it is possible that the husband may come to accept the faith, it is not by any means certain that he shall attain to that position. Hut he is sanctified, so far, through his consent to live with his believing wife, and to allow her to mould the life of the children, that he has, to an extent, become separated from heathen influences, and, to an extent, yielded to the influence of Christianity, although that influence has not operated with sufficient effectiveness to carry him forward from the region of unbelief into the region of faith. He is not a member of the Church, and yet he is not in the same position in relation to the Church as the heathen. While he stands outside the circle of Church-membership, his relation to his believing wife forms a kind of connecting link between him and the Church. In a criticism of the “ Ministry and Methods of Church Work,” from the pen of Noah Davis, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, the writer says:

“ As a rule, I only hear the sermons of a single minister Dr. John Hall of whose church (by reason of my wife’s membership) I am a brother-in-law.” 1

Now, while I do not mean for a moment to compare the distinguished writer of the article referred to with the unbelieving husband of a believing wife, still I think the striking form of expression he uses to describe his relation to a particular Church sheds some light on the relation which the unbelieving husband sustained to the Church through his union with a believing wife.

Commentators are not quite agreed as to whether there is a reference to Infant Baptism in this pas sage. A few of the German critics of a past generation, by a curious process of reasoning, arrived at the conclusion that the passage is op posed to the practice of Infant Baptism, but this conclusion has not been accepted by the ablest 1 Homiletic Monthly, March 1884, p. 353. and most recent expositors. Beet shows conclusively that the verse cannot be accepted as proof or presumption that Infant Baptism was not practised at the time. 1 Principal Edwards says that if we accept the obsignatory theory of Baptism (that is that Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant) the principle on which Infant Baptism rests is contained in this verse. 2 Dr. Godet, who is, perhaps, the foremost living expositor, says he does not find Paul’s expressions intelligible, except on the supposition that the practice of Infant Baptism existed. 3 We are obviously warranted in accepting the position of Principal Edwards, and in taking it that the principle of Infant Baptism is involved in the holiness of the children. As they are in the Covenant and have their holiness under the Covenant, there is no reason why the sign and seal of the Covenant should be withheld. But Baptists say, “ If you baptize the children which are holy, why not baptize the unbelieving husband who is sanctified? “ For two reasons; because, in the first place, his sanctification is, as we have seen, different from the holiness of the children, and, in the second place, because he, as an adult, cannot be baptized apart from a profession of faith. When Baptists come to interpret the term 1 Commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 118.

2 Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 173.

3 Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p 346.

“ holy,” as applied in this passage to the children, they find themselves in a difficulty. They contend, for the most part, that the word is to be understood in the sense of legitimate. But there are at least two fatal objections to this view.

First: The word translated “ holy “ never has the meaning legitimate. Dr. Wilson tells us that it occurs over five hundred times in the Septuagint and Apocrypha, and about two hundred and forty times in the Greek Testament, but in not one of these instances does it mean legitimated Second, This interpretation would make all heathen marriages illegitimate, a view which is manifestly untenable. So that while the Baptists may try to formulate objections to our interpretation of this passage objections which are easily disposed of they cannot put forward an interpretation of their own that will bear to be looked at in the light of scholarship and common sense. One thing this passage makes perfectly clear whatever interpretation may be adopted, and that is that there is a distinction between the children of parents who are in the membership of the Church and those of parents who are outside the Church. This distinction is not generally or adequately recognised by the Baptist denomination.

1 Infant Baptism, p. 513.

APOSTOLIC RECOGNITION OF THE CHURCH STANDING! OF CHILDREN.

We notice in the next place two New Testament references from which the Church-member ship of young children in the Apostolic age is a necessary inference. The Epistle to the Ephesians is addressed “ to the saints which are at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1), and in Ephesians 6:1, we read: “ Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” There fore, young children were in the membership of the Church at Ephesus. Similarly the Epistle to the Colossians is addressed to “ the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse” (Colossians 1:2), and in Colossians 3:20, we read: “Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing in the Lord.” So that there were young children in the membership of the Church at Colosse also. It is evident that there were young children in all the Churches of the Apostolic age, and if they were in the membership of the Church their membership must have been recognised in the ordinance of Baptism. This fact has so impressed itself on the minds of the Baptists that I believe they are now in the habit of baptizing not only adults, but even young children who make a profession of faith. In some cases they are willing to baptize children as young as nine years of age. Thus far they have been driven Chapter 15: Thou in Me and I in Theeoward our position by the undeniable influence of the truth.

INFANT DEDICATION. Nor is this all. It has been borne in upon some of the leading Baptists (Revs. Dr. John Clifford and F. B. Meyer, for example) that there is something after all in the statement of the Apostle that the children of believing parents or of one believing parent are “ holy,” and that there is something after all in the words which our Lord used regarding the little children, and that there ought to be some way by which the Church should recognise the infant children of its members. Thus there has come to be in some Baptist Churches what is called a Dedication Service for infants. I have a Form of Service which has been prepared for use on such occasions, and it differs from a baptismal service only in this that no water is used, and that the baptismal formula is not pronounced. The parents publicly dedicate their child to God, and publicly undertake to train him in the knowledge and fear of God. That is another step in the direction of the Scriptural position for which we contend, the position which the Church is bound to take up in relation to the children of its members, and, in this connection, the position which we are convinced no Church can refuse to take without serious injury to its highest interests.

We have now traversed the whole of the Scripture ground that can be regarded as having any bearing on the question as to the Subjects of Baptism, and we have not only failed to find any support for the Baptist view that infants should be excluded from the ordinance, but we have found that ever since the Church began to exist in a continuous visible form, the infant children of Church members were included in its membership and were entitled to the ordinance in which membership was recognised. That is our reading of the Word of God. That, as we take it, is the mind of the Spirit in reference to this matter. That is the decision of the Judge whose ruling for us is final, because we cannot allow that there is any appeal from the deliverance of “ the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

It has been contended that the history of the Church in the post-Apostolic age is opposed to the practice of Infant Baptism, but this contention, like so many of the other contentions we have had occasion to notice in the course of this investigation, is absolutely destitute of foundation.

We give a few quotations from some of the early Fathers which will serve to illustrate and substantiate this statement. Justin Martyr, who was born about A.D. 100, and who was, therefore, a contemporary of Polycarp, who was a disciple and friend of the Apostle John, says: “ With us arc many, both men and women, sixty and seventy years of age, who were discipled to Christ from child hood and do continue uncorrupted, and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men.” l

There is obviously a reference here to the words of our Lord’s Commission, “ Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them.” Taking it that Justin’s First Apology, from which this quotation is given, was written A.D. 150 and it may have been written as early as A.D. 140 (some say it was written about A.D. 1.38) the aged Christians of whom he speaks must have been discipled to Christ by Baptism in infancy in the Apostolic age. It is worthy of note that Justin Martyr in common with all the early Christian writers speaks of Baptism as regeneration. Thus he says:

“ Then we bring them to some place where there is water and they are regenerated (baptized) by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated.” 2 Irenaus, born about A.D. 120 or 125, says:

“ For He (Christ) came to save all persons by Himself; all, 1 mean, who by Him are regenerated (baptized) unto God; infants and little ones, and children and youths, and older persons.” 3 The next writer we come to is Tertullian, who was born about A.D. 160. He says:

“ Therefore according to every one’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of Baptism is more profit able, especially in the case of little children.” 4 1 Apol. I. c. 15:

2 Apol. I. c. 61.

3 Contra Haereses, Lib. II. C. 22, s. 4.

4 De Baptismo, c. 18. The date of the work from which this quotation is taken is about A.D. 200. Tertullian is usually cited by Baptist writers as opposing Infant Baptism. But he did not oppose it in the case of infants who were sickly and not likely to live. And he did not oppose it in other cases on the ground that it was unscriptural, but only on the ground that it was inexpedient. And why inexpedient? Because he held that Baptism was accompanied by the remission of all past sins and that sins committed after Baptism were peculiarly dangerous. Therefore lie maintained that Baptism should be delayed as long as possible, not only in the case of infants, but also in the case of grown-up people who were sup posed to be in circumstances of special temptation. His idea was that the longer Baptism is delayed the better, provided it be administered before the close of life. This idea seems to have commended itself to a considerable number of Christians for more than a century after his time. The Emperor Constantine the Great, although a professing Christian for many years before, was not baptized till after the commencement of his last illness. Tertullian does not speak of Infant Baptism as an innovation, and if he could have branded it as an innovation he would doubtless have done so, for no argument would have carried greater weight, or would have proved more effective at the time. His way of speaking about Infant Baptism is sufficient to show that it was the common practice of the Church in his day. And he does not oppose it on Baptist grounds. There fore, his testimony does not in the very least serve the Baptist cause. And he is the only Christian writer in the early centuries who has a word to say against Infant Baptism. He made his protest in the interest of his peculiar theory of Baptismal Regeneration, but, as Dr Schaff says:

“Tertullian’s opposition had no influence, at least no theoretical influence, even in North Africa.” 1

Then we come to Origen, who was one of the greatest of the early Fathers, and the most learned man of his time. He was born about A.D. 185, of Christian parents. He says “ Infants also are by the usage of the Church baptized.” 2 Again, “ Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” 3 And again:

“ The Church had an order from the Apostles to give Baptism even to infants.” 4

We come next to Cyprian, who was born about A.D. 200. In the year 253 there was a Council of sixty-six bishops or pastors held at Carthage, in which Cyprian presided. To this council Fidus, a country pastor, submitted the question whether 1 Ante-Nicene Christianity, vol. 1, p. 261.

2 Homilia 8 in Levit, c. 3:

3 Honnlia 14 in Lucam, 4 Comment, in Epist, ad Romanos, Lib. V. c. 9, an infant before it was eight days old might be baptized if need required, or whether it was necessary, as in the case of Circumcision, to wait till the eighth day. The reply of the Council was unanimous, and the concluding paragraph, which sets forth the decision, begins as follows:

“This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council, that we ought not to hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. And this rule, as it holds for all, so we think it more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born.” 1

We pass on to the testimony of Augustine, born A.D. 354. In the course of a controversy with Pelagius, who denied original sin, he points out that infants are baptized for the remission of sins, and he goes on to show that Pelagius to be consistent must deny Infant Baptism as well as original sin.

Pelagius replied:

“ Baptism ought to be administered to infants with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons.” 2

“ Men slander me as if I denied the Sacrament of Baptism to infants.”...” I never heard of anyone, not even the most impious heretic, who denied Baptism to infants.” 3 Again, Augustine says in reference to the Pelagians:

1 Cypriani Epist. Ad Fidum.

2 Quoted by Augustine, De Gratia Christi, cap. 32, and elsewhere.

3 Quoted by Augustine, De Peccato Originali cap.. 17, 18,

“ Since they grant that infants must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority of the whole Church, which was, doubtless, given by our Lord and His Apostles, they must consequently grant that they stand in need of the benefits of the Mediator.” l

Here, then, were two of the most learned men of the time, who lived about three hundred years after the close of the Apostolic age, and who were, doubtless, well acquainted with the writings of those who had preceded them, and yet neither of them had ever heard of anyone calling himself a Christian who denied Baptism to infants.

Now if Infant Baptism had been, as the Baptists say, an innovation that arose in the Church about the end of the second century, it is a curious thing that not one of the early Christian writers has a single word to say about such an innovation.

Supposing it to have been an innovation, it could not have crept into the Church without serious opposition. And it is certain that at least some trace of the struggle, to which it must have given rise, would have appeared in the writings of the early Fathers. The fact that there is no reference in any of the Fathers to Infant Baptism as an unscriptural innovation is proof that it was not an innovation, but a practice that was handed down from the Apostolic age. The doctrine of Infant Baptism was never called in question, in the Bap- 1 De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione et de Baptismo Parculoram, Lib. 1., c. 26. list sense, till about the year 1522, when the Anabaptists arose in Germany. In the thirteenth century a Frenchman named Peter de Bruis and a handful of followers called, after him, Petrobrusians, opposed Infant Baptism on the ground that infants were incapable of salvation. But that is not Baptist ground. So that the Baptist view on this question has not only no footing in Scripture, but no footing in history until you come to the sixteenth century.