Still Waters Revival Books - Baptism - Puritan
Hard Drive
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 mine house and
abide there."
Acts 16:15
As a man has a body was well as a soul, it has pleased infinite wisdom to
appoint something in religion adapted to both parts of our nature: something to
strike the senses, as well as to impress the conscience and the heart; or
rather, something which might, through the medium of the senses, reach and
benefit the spiritual part of our constitution. For, as our bodies in this
world of sin and death often become sources of moral mischief and pain, so, by
the grace of God, they are made inlets to the most refined moral pleasures, and
means of advancement in the divine life.
But while the outward senses are to be consulted in religion, they are not
to be invested with unlimited dominion. Accordingly the external rites and
ceremonies of Christianity are few and simple, but exceedingly appropriate and
significant. We have but two sacraments, the one emblematical of that spiritual
cleansing, and the other of that spiritual nourishment, which we need both for
enjoyment and for duty. To one of these sacramental ordinances there is a
pointed reference in the original commission given by their Master to the
apostles: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Mark
16:15; Matt. 28:19-20). And, accordingly, wherever the gospel was received, we
find holy baptism reverently administered as a sign and seal of membership in
the family of Christ. Thus on the occasion to which our text refers, "a
certain woman," we are told, "named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
city of Thyatira," heard Paul and Silas preach in the city of Philippi;
and the Lord opened her heart, so "that she attended unto the things which
were spoken of Paul. 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" (Acts 16:14-15).
I propose, my friends, from these words, to address you on the subject of Christian
baptism. You are sensible that this is a
subject on which much controversy has existed, in modern times, among
professing Christians. It shall be my endeavour, by the grace of God, with all
candour and impartiality, to inquire what the scriptures teach concerning this
ordinance, and what appears to have been the practice in regard to it in the
purest and best ages of the Christian church, as well as in later times. May I
be enabled to speak, and you to hear, as becomes those who expect in a little
while to stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
There are two questions concerning baptism to which I request your special
attention at this time: namely, "Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance? And in what manner ought it to be administered?" To the first of
these questions our attention will be directed in the present and the ensuing discourse.
I. Who are to be considered as the proper subjects of Christian baptism?
That baptism ought to be administered to all adult persons, who profess
faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and who have not been baptized in their
infancy, is not doubted by any. In this all who consider baptism as an
ordinance at present obligatory are agreed. But it is well known that there is
a large and respectable body of professing Christians among us who believe, and
confidently assert, that baptism ought to be confined to adults; who insist,
that when professing Christians bring their infant offspring, and dedicate them
to God, and receive for them the washing of sacramental water in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they entirely pervert and
misapply an important Christian ordinance. We highly respect the sincerity and
piety of many who entertain these opinions; but we are perfectly persuaded that
they are in error, nay in great and mischievous error; in error which cannot
fail of exerting a most unhappy influence on the best interests of the church
of God. We have no doubt that the visible church is made up, not only of those
who personally profess the true religion, but also of their children; and that
we are bound not only to confess Christ before men for ourselves, but also to
bring our infant seed in the arms of faith and love, and present them before
the Lord, in that ordinance which is at once a seal of God's covenant with his
people, and an emblem of those spiritual blessings which, as sinners, we and
our children equally and indispensably need.
Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, with entire confidence, are the
following:
1. Because in all Jehovah's covenants with his professing people, from
the earliest ages, and in all states of society, their infant seed have been
included. That this was the case with
regard to the first covenant made with Adam in paradise, is granted by all
certainly by all with whom we have any controversy concerning infant baptism.
And indeed the consequences of the violation of that covenant to all his
posterity, furnish a standing and a mournful testimony that it embraced them
all. The covenant made with Noah, after the deluge, was, as to this point, of
the same character. Its language was, "Behold, I establish my covenant
with you and with your seed"
(Gen. 9:9). The covenant with Abraham was equally comprehensive.
"Behold," says Jehovah, "my covenant is with thee." Behold,
"I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:4,7)
The covenants of Sinai and of Moab, it is evident, also comprehended the
children of the immediate actors in the passing scenes, and attached to them,
as well as to their fathers, an interest in the blessings or the curses, the
promises or the threatenings which those covenants respectively included.
Accordingly, when Moses was about to take leave of the people, he addressed
them as "standing before the Lord their God, with their little ones, and
their wives, to enter into covenant with the LORD their God" (Deut.
29:10-12). And when we come to the New Testament economy, still we find the
same interesting feature not only retained, but more strikingly and strongly
displayed. Still the promise, it is declared, is "to us and our children,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39).
Now, has this been a feature in all Jehovah's covenants with his people in
every age? And shall we admit the idea of its failing in that New Testament or
Christian covenant, which, though the same in substance with those which
preceded it, excels them all in the extent of its privileges, and in the glory
of its promises? It cannot be. The thought is inadmissible. But further,
2. The close and enduring connection between parents and children affords a strong argument in favour of the
church-membership of the infant seed of believers. The voice of nature is
lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in behalf of our cause. The thought of
severing parents from their offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations
in which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to place them, is
equally repugnant to Christian feeling, and to natural law. Can it be, my
friends, that when the stem is in the church, the branch is out of it? Can it
be that when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Redeemer, his
offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, have no connection with
it?
It is not so in any other society that the great moral Governor of the world
ever formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born citizens of the
state in which their parents resided at the time of their birth. In virtue of
their birth they are plenary citizens, bound by all the duties, and entitled to
all the privileges of that relation, whenever they become capable of exercising
them. From these duties they cannot be liberated. Of these privileges they
cannot be deprived, but by the commission of crime. But why should this great
principle be set aside in the church of God? Surely it is not less obvious or
less powerful in grace than in nature. The analogies which pervade all the
works and dispensations of God are too uniform and striking to be disregarded
in an inquiry like the present. But we hasten to facts and considerations still
more explicitly laid down in holy scripture.
3. The actual and acknowledged church membership of infants under the Old
Testament economy is a decisive index of
the divine will in regard to this matter.
Whatever else may be doubtful, it is certain that infants were, in fact,
members of the church under the former dispensation; and as such, were the
regular subjects of a covenant seal. When God called Abraham, and established
his covenant with him, he not only embraced his infant seed, in the most
express terms, in that covenant, but he also appointed an ordinance by which
this relation of his children to the visible church was publicly ratified and
sealed, and that when they were only eight days old. If Jewish adults were
members of the church of God, under that economy, then, assuredly, their infant
seed were equally members, for they were brought into the same covenant
relation, and had the same covenant seal impressed upon their flesh as their
adult parents.
This covenant, moreover, had a respect to spiritual as well as temporal blessings.
Circumcision is expressly declared, by the inspired apostle, to have been
"a seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:11). So far was it
from being a mere pledge of the possession of Canaan, and the enjoyment of
temporal prosperity there, that it ratified and sealed a covenant in which
"all the families of the earth were to be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). And
yet this covenant seal was solemnly appointed by God to be administered, and
was actually administered, for nearly two thousand years, to infants of the
tenderest age, in token of their relation to God's covenanted family, and of
their right to the privileges of that covenant.
Here then, is a fact a fact
incapable of being disguised or denied, nay, a fact acknowledged by all on
which the advocates of infant baptism may stand as upon an immovable rock. For
if infinite wisdom once saw that it was right and fit that infants should be
made the subjects of"a seal of the righteousness of faith," before
they were capable of exercising faith, surely a transaction the same in
substance may be right and fit now. Baptism, which is, in like manner, a seal
of the righteousness of faith, may, without impropriety, be applied equally
early. What once, undoubtedly, existed in the church, and that by divine appointment,
may exist still, without any impeachment of either the wisdom or benevolence of
him who appointed it. But,
4. As the infant seed of the people of God are acknowledged on all hands to
have been members of the church, equally with their parents under the Old
Testament dispensation, so it is equally certain that the church of God is
the same in substance now that it was then;
and, of course, it is just as reasonable and proper, on principle, that the
infant offspring of professed believers should be members of the church now, as
it was that they should be members of the ancient church.
I am aware that our Baptist brethren warmly object to this statement, and
assert that the church of God under the Old Testament economy and the New, is
not the same, but so essentially different, that the same principles can by no
means apply to each. They contend that the Old Testament dispensation was a
kind of political economy, rather national than spiritual in its character;
and, of course, that when the Jews ceased to be a people, the covenant under
which they had been placed, was altogether laid aside, and a covenant of an
entirely new character introduced. But nothing can be more evident than that
this view of the subject is entirely erroneous.
The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, and, of consequence, the identity
of the church under both dispensations, is so plainly taught in scripture, and
follows so unavoidably from the radical scriptural principles concerning the
church of God, that it is indeed wonderful how any believer in the Bible can
call in question the fact. Everything essential to ecclesiastical identity is
evidently found here. The same divine Head, the same precious covenant, the
same great spiritual design, the same atoning blood, the same sanctifying
Spirit, in which we rejoice, as the life and the glory of the New Testament
church, we know, from the testimony of scripture, were also the life and the
glory of the church before the coming of the Messiah. It is not more certain
that a man, arrived at mature age, is the same individual that he was when an
infant on his mother's lap, than it is that the church, in the plenitude of her
light and privileges, after the coming of Christ, is the same church which,
many centuries before, though with a much smaller amount of light and
privilege, yet, as we are expressly told in the New Testament, enjoyed the
presence and guidance of her divine Head "in the wilderness" (Acts
7:38). The truth is, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Galatians, formally
compares the covenanted people of God, under the Old Testament economy, to an
heir under age. "Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child,
differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all, but is under tutors
and governors, until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were
children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the
fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:1-6).
Hence, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, referring to the
children of Israel, says, "Unto us was the gospel preached, as well as
unto them" (Heb. 4:2). Again, in writing unto the Corinthians, he
declares, "They did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the
same spiritual drink: for they drank it of that spiritual Rock that followed
them: and that Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:3). "Abraham," we are
told, "rejoiced to see Christ's day; he saw it, and was glad" (John
8:56). And, of the patriarchs generally, we are assured that they saw gospel
promises afar off, and embraced them. The church under the old economy, then,
was not only a church a true church, a divinely constituted church but it
was a gospel church, a church of Christ, a church built upon the "same
foundation as that of the apostles."
But what places the identity of the church, under both dispensations, in the
clearest and strongest light, is that memorable and decisive passage, in the
11th chapter of the epistle to the Romans, in which the church of God is held
forth to us under the emblem of an olive tree. Under the same figure had the
Lord designated the church by the pen of Jeremiah the prophet. In the 11th chapter
of his prophecy, the prophet, speaking of God's covenanted people under that
economy, says, "The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair and of
goodly fruit" (Jer. 11:6). But concerning this olive tree, on account of
the sin of the people in forsaking the Lord, the prophet declares: "With
the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches of
it are broken." Let me request you to compare with this, the language of
the apostle in the 11th chapter of the epistle to the Romans: "For if the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving
of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is
also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches
be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them,
and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not
against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the
root thee. Thou wilt say, then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest
by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness
and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness,
if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be broken off. And
they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is
able to graft them in again. For if thou
wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted,
contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be
the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" (Rom.
11:15-24).
That the apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament church, under the
figure of a good olive tree, cannot be doubted, and is, indeed, acknowledged by
all; by our Baptist brethren as well as others. Now the inspired apostle says
concerning this olive tree, that the natural branches, that is the Jews, were
broken off because of unbelief. But what was the consequence of this excision?
Was the tree destroyed? By no means. The apostle teaches directly the contrary.
It is evident, from his language, that the root and trunk, in all their
"fatness," remained; and Gentiles, branches of an olive tree
"wild by nature," were "grafted into the good olive tree"
the same tree from which the natural
branches had been broken off. Can anything be more pointedly descriptive of identity than this?
But this is not all. The apostle apprises us that the Jews are to be brought
back from their rebellion and wanderings and to be incorporated with the
Christian church. And how is this restoration described? It is called
"grafting them in again into their own olive tree." In other words, the "tree" into
which the Gentile Christians at the coming of Christ were "grafted,"
was the "old olive tree," of which the ancient covenant people of God
were the "natural branches;" and, of course, when the Jews shall be
brought in, with the fullness of the Gentiles, into the Christian church, the
apostle expressly tells us they shall be "grafted again into
their own olive tree." Surely, if the
church of God before the coming of Christ, and the church of God after the
advent, were altogether distinct and separate bodies, and not the same in their
essential characters, it would be an abuse of terms to represent the Jews, when
converted to Christianity, as grafted again into their own olive
tree.
5. Having seen that the infant seed of the professing people of God were
members of the church under the Old Testament economy; and having seen also
that the church under that dispensation and the present is the same; we are evidently prepared to take another step, and
to infer, that if infants were once members, and if the church
remains the same, they undoubtedly are still members, unless some positive
divine enactment excluding them can be found.
As it was a positive divine enactment which brought them in, and gave them a
place in the church, so it is evident that a divine enactment as direct and
positive, repealing their old privilege, and excluding them from the covenanted
family, must be found, or they are still in the church. But can such an act of
repeal and exclusion, I ask, be produced? It cannot. It never has been, and it
never can be.
The introduction of infants into the church by divine appointment, is
undoubted. The identity of the church, under both dispensations, is undoubted.
The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, in which not merely the lineal
descendants of Abraham, but "all the nations of the earth were to be
blessed," is undoubted (Gen. 18:18;
22:18; 26:4). And we find no hint in the New Testament of the high privileges
granted to the infant seed of believers being withdrawn. Only concede that it
has not been formally withdrawn, and it remains of course. The advocates of
infant baptism are not bound to produce from the New Testament an express warrant
for the membership of the children of believers. The warrant was given most
expressly and formally, two thousand years before the New Testament was
written; and having never been revoked remains firmly and indisputably in
force.
It is deeply to be lamented that our Baptist brethren cannot be prevailed
upon to recognize the length and breadth, and bearing of this great
ecclesiastical fact. Here were little children eight days old, acknowledged as
members of a covenanted societya society consecrated to God for spiritual as
well as temporal benefits and stamped with a covenant seal, by which they
were formally bound, as the seed of believers, to be entirely and forever the
Lord's. Can infant membership be ridiculed, as it often is, without lifting the
puny arm against him who was with his "church in the wilderness"
(Acts 7:38), and whose ways are all wise and righteous?
6. Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the room of
circumcision, and therefore, that the
former is rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the latter.
When we say this, we mean, not merely that circumcision is laid aside in the
church of Christ, and that baptism has been brought in, but that baptism
occupies the same place, as the appointed initiatory ordinance in the church,
and that, as a moral emblem, it means the same thing.
The meaning and design of circumcision was chiefly spiritual. It was a seal
of a covenant which had not solely, or even mainly, a respect to the possession
of Canaan, and to the temporal promises which were connected with a residence
in that land; but which chiefly regarded higher and more important blessings,
even those which are conveyed through the Messiah, in whom "all the
families of the earth" are to be blessed. So it is with baptism. While it
marks an external relation, and seals outward privileges, it is, as
circumcision was, a "seal of the righteousness of faith," and has a
primary reference to the benefits of the Messiah's mission and reign.
Circumcision was a token of visible membership in the family of God, and of
covenant obligation to him. So is baptism. Circumcision was the ordinance which
marked, or publicly ratified, entrance into that visible family. So does
baptism. Circumcision was an emblem of moral cleansing and purity. So is
baptism. It refers to the remission of sins by the blood of Christ, and
regeneration by his Spirit; and teaches us that we are by nature guilty and
depraved, and stand in need of the pardoning and sanctifying grace of God by a
crucified Redeemer. Surely, then, there is the best foundation for asserting
that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. The latter, as all grant,
has been discontinued; and now baptism occupies the same place, means the same
thing, seals the same covenant, and is a pledge of the same spiritual
blessings. Who can doubt, then, that there is the utmost propriety, upon
principle, in applying it to the same infant subjects?
Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of circumcision, there are
points in regard to which the former differs materially from the latter. And it
differs precisely as to those points in regard to which the New Testament
economy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less ceremonial.
Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the eighth day, but may be
administered at any time and place. It is not confined to one sex; but, like
the glorious dispensation of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged
privilege, and is administered in a way which reminds us that "there is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female," in the Christian economy; but that we are all one in Christ
Jesus.
7. Again, it is a strong argument in favour of infant baptism, that we
find the principle of family baptism again and again adopted in the apostolic
age.
We are told, by men learned in Jewish antiquities, that, under the Old
Testament economy, it was customary, when proselytes to Judaism were gained
from the surrounding nations, that all the children of a family were invariably
admitted to membership in the church with their parents; and on the faith of
their parents; that all the males, children and adults, were circumcised, and
the whole family, male and female, baptized, and incorporated with the
community of God's covenanted people.[1] Accordingly, when
we examine the New Testament history, we find that under the ministry of the
apostles, who were all native Jews, and had, of course, been long accustomed to
this practice, the same principle of receiving and baptizing families on the
faith of the parents, was most evidently adopted and acted upon in a very
striking manner. When "the heart of Lydia was opened, so that she attended
to the things which were spoken by Paul," we are told that "she was
baptized and her household" (Acts 16:14-15). When the jailor at Philippi
believed, he was baptized, "he and all his, straightway" (Acts
16:33). Thus also we read of "the household of Stephanas" being
baptized (1 Cor. 1:16). Now, though we are not certain that there were young
children in any of these families, it is highly probable there were. At any
rate, the great principle of family baptism
of receiving all the younger members of households on the faith of
their domestic head, seems to be plainly
and decisively established. This furnishes ground on which the advocate of
infant baptism may stand with unwavering confidence.
And here let me ask, was it ever known that a case of family baptism
occurred under the direction of a Baptist minister? Was it ever known to be
recorded, or to have happened, that when, under the influence of Baptist
ministrations, the parents of large families were hopefully converted, they
were baptized, they and all theirs straightway? There is no risk in asserting
that such a case was never heard of. And why? Evidently, because our Baptist
brethren do not act in this matter upon the principles laid down in the New
Testament, and which regulated the primitive Christians.
8. Another consideration possesses much weight here. We cannot imagine that
the privileges and the sign of infant membership, to which all the first
Christians had been so long accustomed, could have been abruptly withdrawn, without
wounding the hearts of parents, and producing in them feelings of revolt and
complaint against the new economy. Yet we
find no hint of this recorded in the history of the apostolic age. Upon our
principles, this entire silence presents no difficulty. The old principle and
practice of infant membership, so long consecrated by time, and so dear to all
the feelings of parental affection, went on as before. The identity of the
church under the new dispensation with that of the old, being well understood,
the early Christians needed no new warrant for the inclusion of their infant seed
in the covenanted family. As the privilege had not been revoked, it, of course,
continued. A new and formal enactment in favour of the privilege would have
been altogether superfluous, not to say out of place; especially as it was well
understood, from the whole aspect of the new economy, that, instead of
withdrawing or narrowing the privileges, its whole character was that it rather
multiplied and extended them.
But our Baptist brethren are under the necessity of supposing that such of
the first Christians as had been Jews, and who had ever been in the habit of
considering their beloved offspring as included, with themselves, in the
privileges and promises of God's covenant, were given to understand, when the
New Testament church was set up, that these covenant privileges and promises
were no longer to be enjoyed by their children; that they were, henceforth, to
be no more connected with the church than the children of the surrounding
heathen; and this under an economy distinguished, in every other respect, by
greater light, and more enlarged privilege I say, our Baptist brethren are
under the necessity of supposing that the first Christians were met on the
organization of the New Testament church, with an announcement of this kind,
and that they acquiesced in it without a feeling of surprise, or a word of
murmur! Nay, that this whole retrograde change passed with so little feeling of
interest, that it was never so much as mentioned or hinted at in any of the
epistles to the churches. But can this supposition be for a moment admitted? It
is impossible. We may conclude, then, that the acknowledged silence of the New
Testament as to any retraction of the old privileges, or any complaint of its
recall, is so far from warranting a conclusion unfavourable to the church
membership of infants, that it furnishes a weighty argument of an import
directly the reverse.
9. Although the New Testament does not contain any specific texts, which, in
so many words, declare that the infant seed of believers are members of the
church in virtue of their birth; yet it abounds in passages which cannot
reasonably be explained but in harmony with this doctrine. The following are a specimen of the passages to
which I refer.
The prophet Isaiah, though not a New Testament writer, speaks much, and in
the most interesting manner, of the New Testament times. Speaking of the
"latter day glory," of that day when "the wolf and the lamb
shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock," and
when there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all God's holy mountain;
speaking of that day, the inspired prophet declares, "Behold, I create new
heavens, and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into
mind.... For as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect
shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor
bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and
their offspring with them" (Isa.
65:25; 11:9; 65:17, 22-23).
The language of our Lord concerning little children can be reconciled with
no other doctrine than that which I am now endeavouring to establish,
"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 to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such
is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands upon them, and departed
thence" (Matt. 19:13-15). On examining the language used by the several
evangelists in regard to this occurrence, it is evident that the children here
spoken of were young children, infants, such as the Saviour could "take in
his arms." The language which our Lord himself employs concerning them is
remarkable. "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." That is, theirs is
the kingdom of heaven, or, to them belongs the kingdom of heaven. It is
precisely the same form of expression, in the original, which our Lord uses in
the commencement of his sermon on the mount, when he says, "Blessed are
the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;" "Blessed
are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3, 10).
This form of expression, of course, precludes the construction which some
have been disposed to put on the passage, in order to evade its force: namely,
that it implies, that the kingdom of heaven is made up of such as resemble
little children in spirit. We might just as well say, that the kingdom of
heaven does not belong to those who are "poor in spirit," but only to
those who resemble them; or, that it does not belong to those who are
"persecuted for righteousness sake," but only to those who manifest a
similar temper. Our Lord's language undoubtedly meant that the kingdom of
heaven was really theirs of whom he spake; that it belonged to them; that they
are the heirs of it, just as the "poor in spirit," and the
"persecuted for righteousness sake," are themselves connected in
spirit and in promise with that kingdom.
But what are we to understand by the phrase "the kingdom of
heaven," as employed in this place? Most manifestly, we are to understand
by it, the visible church, or the visible kingdom of Christ, as distinguished
both from the world, and the old economy. Let any one impartially examine the evangelists
throughout, and he will find this to be the general import of the phrase in
question. If this be the meaning, then our Saviour asserts, in the most direct
and pointed terms, the reality and the divine warrant of infant church
membership. But even if the kingdom of glory be intended, still our argument is
not weakened, but rather fortified. For if the kingdom of glory belongs to the
infant seed of believers, much more have they a title to the privileges of the
church on earth.
Another passage of scripture strongly speaks the same language. I refer to
the declaration which we find in the sermon of the apostle Peter, on the day of
Pentecost. When a large number of the hearers, on that solemn day, were
"pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the
apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" The reply of the inspired
minister of Christ was, "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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:37-38). The apostle is here evidently
speaking of the promise of God to his covenant people; that promise in which he
engages to be their God, and to constitute them his covenanted family. Now this
promise, he declared to those whom he addressed, extended to their children as
well as to themselves, and, of course, gave those children a covenant right to
the privileges of the family. But if they have a covenant title to a place in
this family, we need no formal argument to show that they are entitled to the
outward token and seal of that family.
I shall adduce only one more passage of scripture, at present, in support of
the doctrine for which I contend. I refer to that remarkable, and, as it
appears to me, conclusive declaration of the apostle Paul, concerning children,
which is found in the seventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians,
in reply to a query addressed to him by the members of that church respecting
the Christian law of marriage: "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" (1 Cor. 7:14).
The great question in relation to this passage is, in what sense does a
believing parent "sanctify" an unbelieving one, so that their
children are "holy?" It certainly cannot mean, that every pious
husband or wife that is allied to an unbelieving partner, is always
instrumental in conferring on that partner true spiritual purity, or, in other
words, regeneration and sanctification of heart; nor that every child born of
parents of whom one is a believer, is, of course the subject of gospel holiness,
or of internal sanctification. No one who intelligently reads the Bible, or who
has eyes to see what daily passes around him, can possibly put such a
construction on the passage. Neither can it be understood to mean, as some have
strangely imagined, that where one of the parents is a believer, the children
are legitimate: that is, the offspring of parents, one of whom is pious, are no
longer bastards, but are to be considered as begotten in lawful wedlock! The
word "holy" is no where applied in scripture to legitimacy of birth.
The advocates of this construction may be challenged to produce a single
example of such an application of the term. And as to the suggestion of piety
in one party being necessary to render a marriage covenant valid, nothing can be
more absurd. Were the marriages of the heathen in the days of Paul all illicit
connections? Are the matrimonial contracts which take place every day, among
us, where neither of the parties are pious, all illegitimate and invalid?
Surely it is not easy to conceive of a subterfuge more completely preposterous,
or more adapted to discredit a cause which finds it necessary to resort to such
aid.
The terms "holy" and unclean," as is well known to all
attentive readers of scripture, have not only a spiritual, but also an
ecclesiastical sense in the word of God. While in some cases they express that
which is internally and spiritually conformed to the divine image; in others,
they quite as plainly designate something set apart to a holy or sacred use;
that is, separated from a common or profane, to a holy purpose. Thus, under the
Old Testament economy, the peculiar people of God, are said to be a "holy
people," and to be "severed from all other people, that they might be
the Lord's" (Lev. 20:26); not because they were all, or even a majority of
them, really consecrated in heart to God; but because they were all his
professing people his covenanted people; they all belonged to that external
body which he had called out of the world, and established as the depository of
his truth, and the conservator of his glory. In these two senses, the terms
" holy" and "unclean" are used in both Testaments, times
almost innumerable. And what their meaning is, in any particular case, must be
gathered from the scope of the passage. In the case before us, the latter of
these two senses is evidently required by the whole spirit of the apostle's
reasoning.
It appears that among the Corinthians, to whom the apostle wrote, there were
many cases of professing Christians being united by the marriage tie with
pagans; the former, perhaps, being converted after marriage; or being so
unwise, as, after conversion, deliberately to form this unequal and unhappy
connection. What was to be deemed of such marriages, seems to have been the
grave question submitted to this inspired teacher. He pronounces, under the
direction of the Holy Spirit, that, in all such cases, when the unbeliever is
willing to live with the believer, they ought to continue to live together,
that their connection is so sanctified by the character of the believing
companion, that their children are "holy," that is, in covenant with
God; members of that church with which the believing parent is, in virtue of
his profession, united: in one word, that the infidel party is so far, and in
such a sense, consecrated by the believing party, that their children shall be
reckoned to belong to the sacred family with which the latter is connected, and
shall be regarded and treated as members of the church of God.[2]
"The passage thus explained," says an able writer,
"establishes the church membership of infants in another form. For it
assumes the principle, that when both parents are reputed believers, their
children belong to the church of God as a matter of course. The whole
difficulty proposed by the Corinthians to Paul, grows out of this principle.
Had he taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents believers
or unbelievers, are to be accounted members of the church, the difficulty could
not have existed. For if the faith of both parents could not confer upon the
child the privilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly
could not. The point was decided. It would have been mere impertinence to tease
the apostle with queries which carried their own answers along with them. But
on the supposition that when both parents were members, their children were
also members; the difficulty is very natural and serious. 'I see,' would a
Corinthian convert exclaim, 'I see the children of my Christian neighbours,
owned as members of the church of God; and I see the children of others, who
are unbelievers rejected with themselves. I believe in Christ myself; but my
husband, my wife, believes not. What is to become of my children? Are they to
be admitted with myself? Or are they to be cast off with my partner?'
"'Let not your heart be troubled,' replies the apostle, 'God reckons
them to the believing, not to the unbelieving parent. It is enough that they
are yours. The infidelity of your partner shall never frustrate their interest
in the covenant of your God. They are holy because you are so.'
"This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us know that one of
the reasons, if not the chief reason of the doubt, whether a married person
should continue, after conversion, in the conjugal society of an infidel
partner, arose from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children
from the church of God. Otherwise, it is hard to comprehend why the apostle
should dissuade them from separating by such an argument as he has employed in
the text. And it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have entered
their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of believing parents, been
undisputed, and esteemed a high privilege, so high a privilege, that the
apprehension of losing it, made conscientious parents at a stand whether they
ought not rather to break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from an
unbelieving husband or wife. Thus the origin of this difficulty, on the one
hand, and the solution of it, on the other, concur in establishing our
doctrine, that by the appointment of God himself, the infants of believing
parents are born members of his church."[3]
10. Finally, the history of the Christian church, from the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force in
favour of the divine authority of infant baptism.
I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candour and confidence, after
much careful inquiry on the subject, that, for more than fifteen hundred years
after the birth of Christ, there was not a single society of professing
Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on anything like the grounds
which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical history
under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Germany, in the year 1522, were
the very first body of people, in the whole Christian world, who rejected the
baptism of infants, on the principles now adopted by the Antipædobaptist body.
This, I am aware, will be regarded as an untenable position by some of the
ardent friends of the Baptist cause; but nothing can be more certain than that
it is even so. Of this a short induction of particulars will afford conclusive
evidence.
Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first
man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against
infant baptism; and he, while he recognizes the existence and prevalence of the
practice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not
likely to survive the period of infancy; yet advises that, where there is a
prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. But
what was the reason of this advice? The moment we look at the reason, we see
that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which it is sometimes
produced.
Tertullian adopted the superstitious idea, that baptism was accompanied with
the remission of all past sins; and that sins committed after baptism were
peculiarly dangerous. He, therefore, advised that not merely infants, but young
men and young women (and even young widows and widowers) should postpone their
baptism until the period of youthful appetite and passion should have passed.
In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death was not likely to
intervene, baptism be postponed, until the subjects of it should have arrived
at a period of life, when they would be no longer in danger of being led astray
by youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after the age of
Tertullian, we find some of the most conspicuous converts to the Christian
faith, postponing baptism till the close of life. Constantine the Great, we are
told, though a professing Christian for many years before, was not baptized
till after the commencement of his last illness. The same fact is recorded of a
number of other distinguished converts to Christianity, about and after that
time. But, surely, advice and facts of this kind make nothing in favour of the
system of our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, their historical
bearing is strongly in favour of our system.
The next persons that we hear of as calling in question the propriety of
infant baptism, were the small body of people in France, about twelve hundred
years after Christ, who followed a certain Peter de Bruis, and formed an
inconsiderable section of the people known in ecclesiastical history under the
general name of the Waldenses. This body maintained that infants ought not to
be baptized, because they were incapable of salvation. They taught that none
could be saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long course of
self-denial and labour. And as infants were incapable of thus "working out
their own salvation" (Phil. 2:12), they held that making them the subjects
of a sacramental seal, was an absurdity. But surely our Baptist brethren cannot
be willing to consider these people as their predecessors, or to adopt their
creed.
We hear no more of any society or organized body of Antipædobaptists, until
the sixteenth century, when they arose, as before stated, in Germany, and for
the first time broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethren. As far as
I have been able to discover, they were absolutely unknown in the whole
Christian world, before that time.
But we have something more than mere negative testimony on this subject. It
is not only certain, that we hear of no society of Antipædobaptists resembling
our present Baptist brethren, for more than fifteen hundred years after Christ;
but we have positive and direct proof that, during the whole of that time,
infant baptism was the general and unopposed practice of the Christian church.
To say nothing of earlier intimations, wholly irreconcilable with any other
practice than that of infant baptism, Origen, a Greek father of the third
century, and decidedly the most learned man of his day, speaks in the most
unequivocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice of the
church in his time, and as having been received from the apostles. His
testimony is as follows: "According to the usage of the church, baptism is
given even to infants; when if there were nothing in infants which needed
forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous"
(Homil. 8 in Lev. ch. 12). Again: "Infants are baptized for the
forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or, when have they sinned? Or, can there be
any reason for the laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense
which we have mentioned above: namely, that no one is free from pollution,
though he has lived but one day upon earth? And because by baptism native
pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized" (Homil. in Luke
14). Again: "For this cause it was that the church received an order from
the apostles to give baptism even to infants."[4]
The testimony of Cyprian, a Latin father of the third century, contemporary
with Origen, is no less decisive. It is as follows.
In the year 253 after Christ, there was a council of sixty-six bishops or
pastors held at Carthage, in which Cyprian presided. To this council, Fidus, a
country pastor, presented the following question, which he wished them, by
their united wisdom, to solve: namely, whether it was necessary, in the
administration of baptism, as of circumcision, to wait until the eighth day; or whether a child might be baptized at an earlier
period after its birth? The question, it will be observed, was not whether
infants ought to be baptized? That
was taken for granted. But simply, whether it was necessary to wait until the eighth
day after their birth? The council came unanimously to the following decision, and transmitted it in a
letter to the inquirer.
"Cyprian and the rest of the bishops who were present in the council,
sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting:
"As to the case of infants: whereas you judge that they must not be
baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of
circumcision is to be observed, that no one should be baptized and sanctified
before the eighth day after he is born; we were all in the council of a very
different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of
your mind; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be
denied to no human being that is born. 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 to us all. And this rule, as it holds
for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even
to those newly born" (Cyprian, Epist. 66).
Surely no testimony can be more unexceptionable and decisive than this. Lord
Chancellor King, in his account of the primitive church, after quoting what is
given above, and much more, subjoins the following remark: "Here, then, is
a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as can possibly be
expected; which being the judgment of a synod, is more authentic and cogent
than that of a private father; it being supposable that a private father might
write his own particular judgment and opinion only; but the determination of a
synod (and he might have added, the unanimous determination of a synod of sixty-six members) denotes the common
practice and usage of the whole church."[5]
The famous Chrysostom, a Greek father who flourished towards the close of
the fourth century, having had occasion to speak of circumcision, and of the
inconvenience and pain which attempted its dispensation, proceeds to say:
"But our circumcision, I mean the
grace of baptism, gives cure
without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the
grace of the Spirit; and it has no determinate time, as that had; but one that is in the very
beginning of his age, or one that is in the
middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made
without hands; in which there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off
the load of sins, and to receive pardon for all past offences" (Homil. 40
in Genesis).
Passing by the testimony of several other conspicuous writers of the third
and fourth centuries, in support of the fact that infant baptism was generally
practiced when they wrote, I shall detain you with only one testimony more in
relation to the history of this ordinance. It is that of Augustine, one of the
most pious, learned and venerable fathers of the Christian church, who lived a
little more than three hundred years after the apostles taken in connection
with that of Pelagius, the learned heretic, who lived at the same time.
Augustine had been pleading against Pelagius, in favour of the doctrine of
original sin. In the course of this plea, he asks, "Why are infants
baptized for the remission of sins, if they have no sin?" at the same
time intimating to Pelagius, that if he would be consistent with himself, his
denial of original sin must draw after it the denial of infant baptism.
The reply of Pelagius is striking and unequivocal. "Baptism," says
he, "ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words
which are used in the case of adult persons." "Men slander me as if I
denied the sacrament of baptism to infants." "I never heard of
any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants; for who can be so impious as to hinder infants from
being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom
of God?"
Again, Augustine remarks, in reference to the Pelagians: "Since they
grant that infants must be baptized, as not being able to resist the
authority of the whole church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and
his apostles; they must consequently grant
that they stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator; that being offered by
the sacrament, and by the charity of the faithful, and so being incorporated
into Christ's body, they may be reconciled to God," etc.
Again, speaking of certain heretics at Carthage, who, though they
acknowledged infant baptism, took wrong views of its meaning, Augustine
remarks: "They, minding the scriptures, and the authority of the whole
church, and the form of the sacrament
itself, see well that baptism in infants is for the remission of sins."
Further, in his work against the Donatists, the same writer, speaking of
baptized infants obtaining salvation without the personal exercise of faith,
says: " which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants
baptized; who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto righteousness, or
confess with the mouth unto salvation; nay, by their crying and noise while the
sacrament is administering, they disturb the holy mysteries: and yet no
Christian man will say that they are
baptized to no purpose." Again, he says: "The custom of our mother
the church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted
needless, nor believed to be anything else than an ordinance
delivered to us from the apostles."
In short, those who will be at the trouble to consult the large extracts from
the writings of Augustine, among other Christian fathers, in the learned Wall's
History of Infant Baptism, will find
that venerable father declaring again and again that he never met with any
Christian, either of the general church, or of any of the sects, nor with any
writer, who owned the authority of scripture, who taught any other doctrine
than that infants were to be baptized for the remission of sin. Here, then,
were two men, undoubtedly among the most learned then in the world Augustine
and Pelagius; the former as familiar probably with the writings of all the
distinguished fathers who had gone before him, as any man of his time; the
latter also a man of great learning and talents, who had travelled over the
greater part of the Christian world; who both declare, about three hundred
years after the apostolic age, that they never saw or heard of any one who
called himself a Christian, not even the most impious heretic, no nor any
writer who claimed to believe in the scriptures, who denied the baptism of
infants (See Wall's History, Part
1, ch. 15-19). Can the most incredulous reader, who is not fast bound in the
fetters of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit: first, that these men
verily believed that infant baptism had been the universal practice of the
church from the days of the apostles; and, secondly, that, situated and
informed as they were, it was impossible that they should be mistaken.
The same Augustine, in his "Epistle to Boniface," while he
expresses an opinion that the parents are the proper persons to offer up their
children to God in baptism, if they be good faithful Christians; yet thinks
proper to mention that others may, with propriety, in special cases, perform
the same kind office of Christian charity. "You see," says he,
"that a great many are offered, not by their parents, but by any other
persons, as infant slaves are sometimes offered by their masters. And sometimes
when the parents are dead, the infants are baptized, being offered by any that
can afford to show this compassion on them. And sometimes infants whom their
parents have cruelly exposed, may be taken up and offered in baptism by those
who have no children of their own, nor design to have any."
Again, in his book against the Donatists, speaking directly of infant
baptism, he says: "If any one asks for divine authority in this matter,
although that which the whole church practices, which was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a
thing delivered by the authority of the apostles; yet we may besides take a
true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the
circumcision which God's ancient people received. For Abraham was justified
before he received circumcision, as Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit
before he was baptized. And yet the apostle says of Abraham, that he received
the sign of circumcision, 'a seal of the righteousness of faith,' by which he
had in heart believed, and it had been 'counted to him for righteousness' (Rom.
4:11). Why then was he commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the
eighth day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be
counted to them for righteousness; but for this reason, because the sacrament is,
in itself of great importance? Therefore, as in Abraham, 'the righteousness of
faith' went before, and circumcision, 'the seal of the righteousness of faith
came after;' so in Cornelius, the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the
Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of regeneration, by the laver of
baptism, came after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, the
seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of
his father's faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof had gone before
in his infancy, came after; so in infants baptized, the sacrament of
regeneration goes before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion)
conversion of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body, comes
after. By all which it appears, that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, and
conversion of the heart another."
So much for the testimony of the fathers. To me, I acknowledge, this
testimony carries with it irresistible conviction. It is, no doubt,
conceivable, considered in itself, that in three centuries from the days of the
apostles, a very material change might have taken place in regard to the
subject of baptism. But that a change so serious and radical as that of which
our Baptist brethren speak, should have been introduced without the knowledge
of such men as have been just quoted, is not conceivable. That the church should have passed from the practice
of none but adult baptism, to that of the constant and universal baptism of
infants, while such a change was utterly unknown, and never heard of, by the
most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that period, cannot, I
must believe, be imagined by any impartial mind. Now when Origen, Cyprian, and
Chrysostom declare, not only that the baptism of infants was the universal and
unopposed practice of the church in their respective times and places of
residence; and when men of so much acquaintance with all preceding writers, and
so much knowledge of all Christendom, as Augustine and Pelagius, declared that
they never heard of any one who claimed to be a Christian, either
orthodox or heretic, who did not maintain and practice infant baptism; I say, to suppose, in the face of such testimony,
that the practice of infant baptism crept in, as an unwarranted innovation,
between their time and that of the apostles, without the smallest notice of the
change having ever reached their ears is, I must be allowed to say, of all
incredible suppositions, one of the most incredible. He who can believe this,
must, it appears to me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical
evidence at the shrine of blind and deaf prejudice.
It is here also worthy of particular notice, that those pious and far-famed
witnesses for the truth, commonly known by the name of the Waldenses, did
undoubtedly hold the doctrine of infant baptism, and practice accordingly. In
their confessions of faith and other writings, drawn up between the twelfth and
sixteenth centuries, and in which they represent their creeds and usages as handed
down, from father to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation,
they speak on the subject before us so frequently and explicitly, as to
preclude all doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The following specimen of
their language will satisfy every reasonable inquirer.
"Baptism," say they, is administered in a full congregation of the
faithful, to the end that he that is received into the church may be reputed
and held of all as a Christian brother, and that all the congregation may pray
for him that he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed to be
a Christian. And for this cause it is that we present our children in
baptism, which ought to be done by those to
whom the children are most nearly related, such as their parents, or those to
whom God has given this charity."
Again, referring to the superstitious additions to baptism which the Papists
had introduced, they say, in one of their ecclesiastical documents: "The
things which are not necessary in baptism are: the exorcisms, the breathings,
the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant, the salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the
ears and nostrils, the unction of the breast, etc. From these things many take
an occasion of error and superstition, rather than of edifying and
salvation."
Understanding that their popish neighbours charged them with denying the
baptism of infants, they acquit themselves of this imputation as follows:
"Neither is the time nor place appointed for those who are to be
baptized. But charity and the edification of the church and congregation ought
to be the rule in this matter.
"Yet, notwithstanding, we bring our children to be baptized; which they ought to do to whom they are most nearly
related; such as their parents, or those whom God hath inspired with such a
charity."
"True it is," adds the historian, "that being, for some
hundreds of years, constrained to suffer their children to be baptized by the
Romish priests, they deferred the performance of it as long as possible,
because they detested the human inventions annexed to the institution of that
holy sacrament, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of it. And by
reason of their pastors, whom they called Barbes, being often abroad travelling
in the service of the church, they could not have baptism administered to their
children by them. They, therefore, sometimes kept them long without it. On
account of which delay, the priests have charged them with that reproach. To which
charge not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many of those
who have approved of their lives and faith in all other respects."[6]
It being so plainly a fact, established by their own unequivocal and
repeated testimony, that the great body of the Waldenses were Pædobaptists, on
what ground is it that our Baptist brethren assert, and that some have been
found to credit the assertion, that those venerable witnesses of the truth
rejected the baptism of infants? The answer is easy and ample. A small section
of the people bearing the general name of Waldenses, followers of Peter de
Bruis, who were mentioned in a preceding page, while they agreed with the mass
of their denomination in most other matters, differed from them in regard to
the subject of infant baptism. They held, as before stated, that infants were
not capable of salvation; that Christian salvation is of such a nature that
none can partake of it but those who undergo a course of rigorous self-denial
and labour in its pursuit. Those who die in infancy not being capable of this,
the Petrobrussians held that they were not capable of salvation; and, this
being the case, that they ought not to be baptized. This, however, is not the
doctrine of our Baptist brethren; and, of course, furnishes no support to their
creed or practice. But the decisive answer is, that the Petrobrussians were a
very small fraction of the great Waldensian body; probably not more than a
thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole. The great mass of the denomination,
however, as such, declare, in their Confessions of Faith, and in various public
documents, that they held, and that their fathers before them, for many
generations, always held, to infant baptism. The Petrobrussians, in this respect,
forsook the doctrine and practice of their fathers, and departed from the
proper and established Waldensian creed. If there be truth in the plainest
records of ecclesiastical history, this is an undoubted fact.
In short, the real state of this case may be illustrated by the following
representation. Suppose it were alleged that the Baptists in the United States
are in the habit of keeping the seventh day of the week as their sabbath? Would
the statement be true? By no means. There is, indeed, a small section of the
Anti pædobaptist body in the United States, usually styled "Seventh-day
Baptists" probably not a thirtieth part of the whole body who observe
Saturday in each week as their sabbath. But, notwithstanding this, the proper
representation, no doubt is (the only representation that a faithful historian
of facts would pronounce correct) that the Baptists in this country, as a
general body, observe "the Lord's day" as their sabbath. You may rest
assured, my friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real fact
with regard to the Waldenses as Pædobaptists. Twenty-nine parts, at least, out
of thirty, of the whole of that body of witnesses for the truth, were
undoubtedly Pædobaptists. The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith
of their fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles altogether
unlike those of our modern Baptist brethren.
I have only one fact more to state in reference to the pious Waldenses, and
that is, that soon after the opening of the Reformation by Luther, they sought
intercourse with the Reformed churches of Geneva and France; held communion
with them; received ministers from them; and appeared eager to testify their
respect and affection for them as "brethren in the Lord." Now it is
well known that the churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the
habitual use of infant baptism. This
single fact is sufficient to prove that the Waldenses were Pædobaptists. If
they had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid the same stress
on it with them, it is manifest that such intercourse would have been wholly
out of the question.
If these historical statements be correct and that they are so, is just as
well attested as any facts whatever in the annals of the church the amount of
the whole is conclusive, is demonstrative,
that for fifteen hundred years after Christ the practice of infant baptism was
universal; that to this general fact there was absolutely no exception, in the
whole Christian church, which, on principle, or even analogy, can countenance
in the least degree, modern Anti-pædobaptism; that from the time of the
apostles to the time of Luther, the general, unopposed, established practice of
the church was to regard the infant seed of believers as members of the church,
and, as such, to baptize them.
But this is not all. If the doctrine of our Baptist brethren be correct
that is, if infant baptism be a corruption and a nullity then it follows,
from the foregoing historical statements, most inevitably, that the ordinance
of baptism was lost for fifteen hundred years: yes, entirely lost, from the
apostolic age till the sixteenth century. For there was manifestly, "no
society, during that long period of fifteen centuries, but what was in the
habit of baptizing infants." God had no church, then, in the world for
so long a period! Can this be admitted?
Surely not by anyone who believes in the perpetuity and indestructibility of
the household of faith.
Nay, if the principle of our Baptist brethren be correct, the ordinance of
baptism is irrecoverably lost altogether; that is, irrecoverably without a
miracle. Because if, during the long tract of time that has been mentioned,
there was no true baptism in the church; and if none but baptized persons were
capable of administering true baptism to others; the consequence is plain:
there is no true baptism now in the world! But can this be believed? Can we
imagine that the great Head of the church would permit one of his own precious
ordinances to be banished entirely from the church for many centuries, much
less to be totally lost? Surely the thought is abhorrent to every Christian
feeling.
Such is an epitome of the direct evidence in favour of infant baptism. To
me, I acknowledge, it appears nothing short of demonstration. The invariable character of all Jehovah's dealings
and covenants with the children of men; his express appointment, acted upon for
two thousand years by the ancient church; the total silence of the New
Testament as to any retraction or repeal of this privilege; the evident and
repeated examples of family baptism in the apostolic age; the indubitable
testimony of the practice of the whole church on the pædobaptist plan, from the
time of the apostles to the sixteenth century, including the most respectable
witnesses for the truth in the dark ages; all conspire to establish on the
firmest foundation, the membership, and the consequent right to baptism of the
infant seed of believers. If here be no divine warrant, we may despair of
finding it for any institution in the church of God.
Footnotes for Discourse 1
1. I consider the Jewish baptism of proselytes as an
historical fact well established. I am aware that some Pædobaptists, whose
judgment and learning I greatly respect, have expressed doubts in reference to
this matter. But when I find the Jews asking John the Baptist, "Why
baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ?" etc., I can only account
for their language by supposing that they had been accustomed to that rite, and
expected the Messiah, when he came, to practice it. We have the best evidence
that they baptized their proselytes as early as the second century; and it is
altogether incredible that they should copy it from the Christians. And a great
majority of the most competent judges in this case, both Jewish and Christian,
from Selden and Lightfoot down to Dr. Adam Clarke, have considered the
testimony to the fact as abundant and conclusive.
2. It is worthy of notice that this interpretation of the
passage is adopted, and decisively maintained, by Augustine, one of the most
pious and learned divines of the fourth century. De Sermone Domini in Monte, ch. 27.
3. "Essays on the Church of God" by Dr. J. M.
Mason. Christian's Magazine, II:49-50.
4. Comment. in Epist. ad Romanos, Lib. 5
5. Inquiry into the Constitution, etc., Part 2, Chap. 3.
6. See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and
Order of the Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir
Samuel Morland's do.; and also Leger's Histoire Generale des Eglises
Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones, a Baptist, in
a work entitled A History of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, professes to give a full
account of the faith and order of these pious witnesses of the truth; but, so
far as I have observed, [he] carefully leaves out of all their public
formularies, and other documents everything which would disclose their
pædobaptist principles and practice! On this artifice comment is unnecessary.
Copyright ©1997 by Kevin Reed