Thoughts on Baptism
Baptism is one of the two only sacraments which “Christ has ordained in His Church.” It is declared by our Church Catechism to be “generally necessary to salvation.” The same Catechism. teaches us that there are two parts in a Sacrament, — the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace. In baptism the outward visible sign is said to be “water,” and the inward and spiritual grace, “a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.”
I offer the following pages to Churchmen, in the hope that they may assist those who read them to form some clear views about the sacrament of baptism. Unhappily, there is perhaps no subject in Christianity about which such difference of opinion exists. The very name recalls to one’s mind an endless list of strifes, disputes, heart burnings, controversies, and divisions.
I propose in this paper to offer a few remarks on this disputed subject. I am not bold enough to suppose that I can throw any light on a controversy which so many great and good men have handled in vain. But I know that every additional witness is useful in a disputed case. I want to strengthen the hands of those I agree with, and to show them that we have no reason to be ashamed
Ste of our opinions. I want to suggest a few things for the consideration of those I do not agree with, and to show them that the Scriptural argument in this matter is not, as some suppose, all on one side.
I. THE NATURE OF BAPTISM, — WHAT is IT?
(1) Baptism is an ordinance appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ, for the continual admission of fresh members into His visible Church. In the army every new soldier is formally added to the muster-roll of his regiment. In a school every new scholar is formally entered on the books of the school. And every Christian begins his Church-membership by being baptized. By baptism he is undoubtedly introduced into a state of great religious privilege. He is entitled to a place in the Christian congregation, to the use of means of grace, to the care and instruction of Christian ministers while he lives, and to be buried with Christian burial when he dies.
(2) Baptism is an ordinance of great simplicity. The outward part or sign is water, administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or in the name of Christ alone. The inward part, or thing signified, is that “death unto sin and new birth unto righteousness,” — that washing in the blood of Christ, and inward cleansing of the heart by the Holy Ghost, — without which no one can be saved. It is this death unto sin and new birth we must always remember, and not the baptismal water, which makes us children of grace. The word “hereby” in the Church catechism, about the inward part of baptism, is generally quite misunderstood. The 27th Article of the Church of England says rightly, — “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth.”
(3) Baptism is an ordinance on which we may confidently expect the highest blessings, when it is rightly used. It is unreasonable to suppose that the Great Head of the Church would solemnly appoint an ordinance which was to be as useless to the soul as a mere human enrolment or an act of civil registration. The sacrament we are considering is not a mere man-made appointment, but an institution appointed by the King of kings. When faith and prayer accompany baptism, and a diligent use of Scriptural means follows it, we are justified in looking for much spiritual blessing. Without faith and prayer baptism becomes a mere form.
(4) Baptism is an ordinance which is expressly named in the New Testament about eighty times. Almost the last words of our Lord Jesus Christ were a command to baptize: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt, xxvii. 19.) We find Peter saying on the day of Pentecost, — “Kepent and be baptized every one of you;” and in the house of Cornelius, — “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” (Acts ii. 38, x. 47.) We find St. Paul was not only baptized himself, but baptized disciples wherever he went. To say, as some do, in the face of these texts, that baptism is an institution of no importance, is to pour contempt on the Bible. To say, as others do, that baptism is only a thing of the heart, and not an outward ordinance at all, is to say that which it seems hard to reconcile with the Bible.
(5) Baptism is an ordinance which, according to Scripture, a man may receive, and yet get no good from it. Can any one doubt that Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira, Demas, Hymenseus,
Philetus, and Nicolas, were all baptized people? Yet what benefit did they receive from baptism? Clearly, for anything that we can see, none at all! Their hearts were “not right in the sight of God.” (Acts viii. 21.) They remained “dead in trespasses and sins,” and “dead while they lived.” (Eph. ii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 6.)
(6) Baptism is an ordinance which in Apostolic times went together with the first beginnings of a man’s religion. In the very day that many of the early Christians repented and believed, in that very day they were baptized. Baptism was the expression of their new born faith, and the starting-point in their Christianity. No wonder that in such cases it was regarded as the vehicle of all spiritual blessings. The Scriptural expressions, “buried with Christ in baptism” — “putting on Christ in baptism” — “baptism doth also save us” — would be full of deep meaning to such persons. (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 21.) They would exactly tally with their experience. But to apply such expressions indiscriminately to the baptism of infants in our own day is, in my judgment, unreasonable and unfair. It is an application of Scripture which, I believe, was never intended.
(7) Baptism is an ordinance which a man may never receive, and yet be a true Christian, and be saved. The case of the penitent thief is sufficient to prove this. Here was a man who repented, believed, was converted, and gave evidence of true grace, if any one ever did. We read of no one else to whom such marvellous words were addressed as the famous sentence, — “To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” (Luke xxiii. 43.) And yet there is not the slightest proof that this man was ever baptized at all! Without baptism and the Lord’s Supper he received the highest spiritual blessings while he lived, and was with Christ in paradise when he died.
To assert, in the face of such a case, that baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation is something monstrous. To say that baptism is the only means of regeneration, and that all who die unbaptized are lost for ever, is to say that which cannot be proved by Scripture, and is revolting to common sense.
(8) Baptism is an ordinance which ought to be followed up in the case of infants when they come to years of discretion, by public reception into the congregation. Such reception is provided by the Church of England in the excellent and useful rite of Confirmation. Young persons who were baptized at an age when they were passive and unconscious, should be carefully taught “what a solemn promise” was made for them in baptism, and urged to come forward and take that promise on themselves. Confirmation, no doubt, is not a sacrament, and was not ordained by Christ, and cannot be called “necessary to salvation.” But confirmation rightly used, and preceded by sound Scriptural instruction, is a most valuable ordinance, and has been most wisely adopted in the Church of England.
I leave this part of my subject here. I commend the eight propositions which I have laid down to the serious consideration of all who wish to attain clear views about baptism. In considering the two Sacraments of the Christian religion I hold it to be of primary importance to put away from us the vagueness and mysteriousness with which too many surround them. After all, let us be careful that we believe neither more nor less about them than we can prove by plain texts of Scripture.
II. IN WHAT WAY OUGHT BAPTISM TO BE ADMINISTERED?
This is a point on which a wide difference of opinion prevails. Some Christians maintain strongly that complete immersion in water is absolutely necessary and essential, in order to make a valid baptism. They hold that no person is really baptized unless he is entirely “dipped,” and covered over with water. Others, on the contrary, maintain with equal firmness that immersion is not necessary at all, and that sprinkling or pouring a small quantity of water on the person baptized fulfils all the requirements of Christ.
My own opinion is distinct and decided that Scripture leaves the point an open question. I can find nothing in the Bible to warrant the assertion that either dipping or sprinkling is essential to baptism. — I believe it would be impossible to prove that either way of baptizing is exclusively right, or that either is downright wrong. So long as water is used in the name of the Trinity, or in the name of Christ, the precise mode of administering the ordinance is left an open question.
This is the view adopted by the Church of England. The baptismal service expressly sanctions “dipping” in the most plain terms. To say, as many Baptists do, that the Church of England is opposed to baptism by immersion is a melancholy proof of the ignorance in which many dissenters live! Thousands, I am afraid, find fault with the Prayer-book without having ever examined its contents. If any one wishes to be baptized by “dipping” in the Church of England, let him understand that the parish clergyman is just as ready to dip him as the Baptist minister, and that “immersion” may be had in Church as well as in Chapel.
There is a large body of Christians, however, who are
1 The rubric of the Prayer-book service for the public baptism of infants says, — “If the godfather and godmother shall certify to the priest that the child may well endure it, he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily.”
not satisfied with this moderate view of the question. They will have it that baptism by dipping or immersion is the only Scriptural baptism. They say that all the persons whose baptism we read of in the Bible were “dipped.” They hold, in short, that where there is no immersion there is no baptism.
I fear it is almost waste of time to attempt to say anything on this much-disputed question. So much has been written on both sides without effect during the last two hundred years, that I cannot hope to throw any new light on the subject. The utmost that I shall try to do is to suggest a few considerations to any whose minds are in doubt. I only ask them to remember that I do not say that baptism by “dipping” is positively wrong. All I say is, that it is not absolutely necessary, and is not absolutely commanded in Scripture.
(a) I ask, then, any doubting mind to consider whether it is in the least probable that all the cases of baptism described in Scripture were cases of complete immersion? The three thousand baptized in one day at the feast of Pentecost (Acts ii. 41), — the jailor at Philippi suddenly baptized at midnight in prison (Acts xvi. 33) — is it at all likely or probable that they were all “dipped “? To my own mind, trying to take an impartial view, it seems in the highest degree improbable. Let those believe it who can.
(V) I ask any one to consider, furthermore, whether it is at all probable that a mode of baptism would have been enjoined as necessary, which in some climates is impracticable? At the north and south poles, for example, the temperature, for many months, is many degrees below freezing-point. In Tropical countries, on the other hand, water is often so extremely scarce, that it is almost impossible to find enough for common drinking purposes. Now will any maintain that in such climates there can be no baptism without immersion? Will any one tell us that in such climates it is really necessary that every candidate for baptism should be completely “dipped “? Let those believe it who can.
(c) I ask any one to consider, further, whether it is at all probable that a mode of baptism would have been enjoined which, in some conditions of health, is simply impossible. There are thousands of persons whose lungs and general constitution are in so delicate a state that total immersion in water would be death to them. Now will any maintain that such persons ought to be debarred from baptism unless they are “dipped “? Let those believe it who can.
(d) I ask any one to consider, further, whether it is probable that a mode of baptizing would be enjoined which in many countries would practically exclude women from baptism. The sensitiveness and strictness of Eastern nations about the treatment of their wives and daughters are notorious facts. There are many parts of the world in which women are so completely separated and secluded from the other sex that there is the greatest difficulty in even speaking to them about religion. To talk of such an ordinance as baptizing them by “immersion” would, in hundreds of cases, be perfectly useless. The feelings of fathers, husbands, and brothers, however personally disposed to receive Christian teaching, would be revolted by the mention of it. And will any one maintain that such women are to be left unbaptized altogether because they cannot be dipped? Let those believe it who can.
I believe I might well leave the subject of the mode of baptism at this point. But there are two favourite arguments which the advocates of immersion are constantly bringing forward, about which I think it righb to say something.
One of these favourite arguments is based on the
P meaning of the Greek word in the New Testament, which we translate “to baptize.” It is constantly asserted that this word can mean nothing else but dipping or complete “immersion.” The reply to this argument is short and simple. The assertion is utterly destitute of foundation. Those who are best acquainted with New Testament Greek are decidedly of opinion that to baptize means “to wash or cleanse with water,” but whether by immersion or not must be entirely decided by the context. We read in St. Luke (xi. 38), that when our Lord dined with a certain Pharisee, “the Pharisee marvelled that He had not first washed before dinner.” It may surprise some readers, perhaps, to hear that these words would have been rendered more literally, “that He had not first been baptized before dinner.” Yet it is evident to common sense that the Pharisee could not have expected our Lord to immerse or dip Himself over head in water before dining! It simply means that he expected Him to perform some ablution, or to pour water over His hands before the meal. But if this is so, what becomes of the argument that to baptize always means complete “immersion “? It is cut from under the feet of the advocate of “dipping,” and to reason further about it is mere waste of time.
Another favourite argument in favour of baptism by immersion is drawn from the expression “buried with Christ in baptism,” which St. Paul uses on two occasions. (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12.) It is asserted that going down into the water of baptism, and being completely “dipped” under it, is an exact figure of Christ’s burial and coming up out of the grave, and represents our union with Christ, and participation in all the benefits of His death and resurrection. But, unfortunately for this argument, there is no proof whatever that Christ’s burial was a going down into a hole dug in the ground, On the contrary, it is far more probable that His grave was a cave cut out of the side of a rock, like that of Lazarus, and on a level with the surrounding ground. Such, at least, was the common mode of burying round Jerusalem. At this rate there is no resemblance whatever between going down into a bath, or baptistry, and the burial of our Lord. The actions are not like one another. That by profession of a lively faith in Christ at baptism a believer declares his union with Christ, both in His death and resurrection, is undoubtedly true. But to say that in “going down into the water” he is burying his body just as His Master’s body was buried in the grave, is to say what cannot be proved.
In saying all this I should be very sorry to be mistaken. God forbid that I should wound the feelings of any brother who has conscientious scruples on this subject, and prefers baptism by dipping to baptism by sprinkling. I condemn him not. To his own Master he stands or falls. He that conscientiously prefers dipping may be dipped in the Church of England, and have all his children dipped if he pleases. What I contend for is liberty. I find no certain law laid down as to the mode in which baptism is to be administered, so long as water is used in the name of the Trinity. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. He that sprinkles in baptism has no right to excommunicate him that dips, — and he that dips has no right to excommunicate him that sprinkles. Neither of them can possibly prove that the other is entirely wrong.
I leave this part of my subject here. Whatever some may think, I am content to regard the precise mode of baptizing as a thing indifferent, as a thing on which every one may use his liberty. I firmly believe that this liberty was intended of God. It is in keeping with many other things in the Christian dispensation. I find nothing precise laid down in the New Testament about ceremonies, or vestments, or liturgies, or Church music, or the shape of Churches, or the hours of service, or the quality of bread and wine to be used at the Lord’s Supper. On all these points I see a liberal discretion allowed to the Church of Christ. So long as things are “done to edifying,” the principle of the New Testament is to allow a wide liberty.
I hold firmly myself that the validity and benefit of baptism do not depend on the quantity of water employed, but on the state of heart in which the sacrament is used. Those who insist on every grown-up person being plunged over head in a baptistry, and those who insist on pouring an immense handful of water in the face of every tender infant they receive into the Church at the font, are both alike, in my judgment, greatly mistaken. Both are attaching far more importance to the quantity of water used than I can find warranted in Scripture. It has been well said by a great divine, — “A little drop of water may serve to seal the fulness of Divine grace in baptizing, as well as a small piece of bread and the least tasting of wine in the Holy Supper.” (Witsius, Econ. Fed. 1. 4, ch. xvi. 30.) To that opinion I entirely subscribe.
III. TO WHOM OUGHT BAPTISM TO BE ADMINISTERED?
It is impossible to handle this branch of the subject without coming into direct collision with the opinions of others. But I hope it is possible to handle it in a kindly and temperate spirit. At any rate it is no use to avoid discussion for fear of offending Baptists. Disputed points in theology are never likely to be settled unless men on both sides will say out plainly what they think, and give their reasons for their opinions. To avoid the subject because it is a controversial one, is neither honest nor wise. A clergyman has no right to complain that his parishioners become Baptists, if he never instructs them about infant baptism.
I begin by laying it down as a point almost undisputed, that all grown-up converts at Missionary stations among the heathen ought to be baptized. As soon as they embrace the Gospel and make a credible profession of repentance and faith in Christ, they ought at once to receive baptism. This is the doctrine and practice of Episcopal, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Independent Missionaries, just as much as it is the doctrine of Baptists. Let there be no mistake on this point. To talk, as some Baptists do, of “believer’s baptism,” as if it was a kind of baptism peculiar to their own body is simply nonsense. “Believer’s baptism” is known and practised in every successful Protestant Mission throughout the world.
But I now go a step further. I lay it down as a Christian truth, that the children of all professing Christians have a right to baptism, if their parents require it, as well as their parents. Of course the children of professed unbelievers and heathen have no title to baptism, so long as they are under the charge of their parents. But the children of professing Christians are in an entirely different position. If their fathers and mothers offer them to be baptized, the Church ought to receive them in baptism, and has no right to refuse them.
It is precisely at this point that the grave division of opinion exists between the body of Christians called Baptists and the greater part of Christians throughout the world. The Baptist asserts that no one ought to be baptized who does not make a personal profession of repentance and faith, and that as children cannot do this they ought not to be baptized. I think that this assertion is not borne out by Scripture, and I shall proceed to give the reasons why I think so. I believe it can be shown that the children of professing Christians have a right to baptism, and that it is a complete mistake not to baptize them.
Let me remind the reader at the outset, that the question under consideration is not the Baptismal Service of the Church of England. Whether that Service is right or wrong, — whether it is useful to have godfathers and godmothers, are not the points in dispute. It is mere waste of time to say anything about them. The question before us is simply whether infant baptism is right in principle. That it is right is held by Presbyterians, Independents, and Methodists, who use no Prayer-book, just as stoutly as it is by Churchmen. To the consideration of this one question I shall strictly confine myself. There is not the slightest necessary connection between the Liturgy and infant baptism. I heartily wish that some people would remember this. To insist on dragging in the Liturgy, and mixing it up with the abstract question of infant baptism, is neither good logic, nor fairness, nor common sense.
Let me clear the way furthermore, by observing that I will not be drawn away from the real point at issue by the ludicrous descriptions which some people give of the abuse of infant baptism. No doubt it is easy for popular writers and preachers to draw a vivid picture of an ignorant, prayerless, couple of peasants, bringing an unconscious infant to be sprinkled at the font by a care less sporting parson! It is easy to finish off the picture by saying, “What good can infant baptism do?” —
1 Readers who wish to examine the true meaning of the Baptismal Service are requested to read a tract of mine, called “A Guide to Church men about Baptism and Regeneration.”
Such pictures are very amusing perhaps, but they are no argument against the principle of infant baptism. The abuse of a thing is no proof that it ought to be disused and is wrong. Moreover, those who live in glass houses had better not throw stones. Strange pictures might be drawn of what happens sometimes in Baptist Chapels at adult baptisms! But I forbear. I want the reader to look not at pictures but at Scriptural principles.
Let me now supply a few simple reasons why I hold, in common with all Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Independents throughout the world, that infant baptism is a right thing, and that in denying baptism to children the Baptists are mistaken. The reasons are as follows.
(a) Children were admitted into the Old Testament Church by a formal ordinance, from the time of Abraham downwards. That ordinance was circumcision. It was an ordinance which God Himself appointed, and the neglect of which was denounced as a great sin. (Gen. xvii. 13, 14.) It was an ordinance about which the highest language is used in the New Testament. St. Paul calls it “a seal of the righteousness of faith.” (Rom. ii. 4.) Now, if children were considered to be capable of admission into the Church by an ordinance in the Old Testament, it is difficult to see why they cannot be admitted in the New. The general tendency of the Gospel is to increase men’s spiritual privileges, and not to diminish them. Nothing, I believe, would astonish a Jewish convert so much as to tell him his children could not be baptized! “If they are fit to receive circumcision,” he would reply, “why are they not fit to receive baptism?” And my own firm conviction has long been that no Baptist could give him an answer. In fact I never saw an argument against infant baptism that might not have been equally directed against infant circumcision. No man, however, in his sober senses, would presume to say that infant circumcision was wrong.
(b) The baptism of children is nowhere forbidden in the New Testament. There is not a single text from Matthew to Revelation, which either directly or indirectly hints that infants should not be baptized. Some, perhaps, may see little in this silence. To my mind it is a silence full of meaning and instruction. The first Christians, be it remembered, were many of them by birth Jews. They had been accustomed in the Jewish Church, before their conversion, to have their children admitted into church-membership by a solemn ordinance, as a matter of course. Without a distinct prohibition from our Lord Jesus Christ, they would naturally go on with the same system of proceeding, and bring their children to be baptized. But we find no such prohibition! That absence of a prohibition, to my mind, speaks volumes. It satisfies me that no change was intended by Christ about children. If He had intended a change, He would have said some thing to teach it. But He says not a word! That very silence is, to my mind, a most powerful and convincing argument. As God commanded Old Testament children to be circumcised, so God intends New Testament children to be baptized.
(c) The baptism of households is specially mentioned in the New Testament. “We read in the Acts that Lydia was baptized “and her household,” and that the jailor of Philippi “was baptized, he and all his.” (Acts xvi. 1 5, 33.) Now what meaning would any one attach to these expressions if he had no theory to maintain, and could view them dispassionately? Would he not explain the “household” to include the young as well as old, — children as well as grown-up people? Who doubts when he reads the words of Joseph in Genesis, — “take food for the famine of your households” (Gen. xlii. 33); or, — “take your father and your households and come unto me” (Gen. xlv. 18), that children are included? Who can possibly deny that when God said to Noah, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark,” He meant Noah’s sons? (Gen. vii. 1.) For my own part, I cannot see how these questions can be answered without establishing the principle of infant baptism. Admitting most fully that it is not directly said that St. Paul baptized little children, it seems to my mind the highest probability that the “households” he baptized comprised children as well as grown-up people.
(d) The behaviour of our Lord Jesus Christ to little children, as recorded in the Gospels, is very peculiar and full of meaning. The well-known passage in St. Mark is an instance of what I mean. “They brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.” (Mark x. 13-16.)
Now I do not pretend for a moment to say that this passage is a direct proof of infant baptism. It is nothing of the kind. But I do say that it supplies a curious answer to some of the arguments in common use among those who object to infant baptism. That infants are capable, of receiving some benefit from our Lord, — that the conduct of those who would have kept them from Him was wrong in our Lord’s eyes, — that He was ready and willing to bless them, even when they were too young to understand what He said or did, — all these things stand out as clearly as if written with a sunbeam! A direct argument in favour of infant baptism the passage certainly is not. But a stronger indirect testimony it seems to me impossible to conceive.
I might easily add to these arguments. I might strengthen the position I have taken up by several considerations which seem to me to deserve very serious attention.
I might show, from the writings of old Dr. Lightfoot, a master of Jewish literature in the l*7th century, that the baptism of little children was a practice with which the Jews were perfectly familiar. When Gentile proselytes were received into the Jewish Church by baptism, before our Lord Jesus Christ came, their infants were received, and baptized with them as a matter of course.
I might show that infant baptism was uniformly practised by all the early Christians. Every Christian writer of any repute during the first 1500 years after Christ, with the single exception perhaps of Tertullian, speaks of infant baptism as a custom which the Church has always sanctioned.
I might show that the vast majority of eminent Christians, from the period of the Protestant Reformation down to the present day, have maintained the right of infants to be baptized. Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, and all the Continental Reformers, — Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and all the English Reformers, — the great body of all the English Puritans, — the whole of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, and Methodist Churches of the present day, — are all of one mind on this point. They all hold infant baptism.
But I will not weary the reader by going over this ground. I will proceed to notice two arguments which are commonly used against infant baptism, and are thought by some to be unanswerable. Whether they really are so I will leave the reader to judge.
(1) The first favourite argument against infant baptism is the entire absence of any direct text or precept in its favour in the New Testament. “Show me a plain text,” says many a Baptist, “commanding me to baptize little children. Without a plain text the thing ought not to be done.”
I reply, for one thing, that the absence of any text about infant baptism is, to my mind, one of the strongest evidences in its favour. That infants were formerly admitted into the Church by an outward ordinance, for 1800 years before Christ came, is a fact that cannot be denied. Now if He had meant to change the practice, and exclude infants from baptism, I should expect to find some plain text about it. But I find none, and therefore I conclude that there was to be no alteration and no change. The very absence of any direct command, on which the Baptists lay such stress, is, in reality, one of the strongest arguments against their view of baptism.
But I reply, for another thing, that the absence of some plain text or command is not a sufficient argument against infant baptism. There are not a few things which can be proved and inferred from Scripture, though they are not plainly and directly taught. Let the Baptist show us a single plain text which directly warrants the admission of women to the Lord’s Supper. — Let him show us one which directly teaches the keeping of the Sabbath on the first day of the week instead of the seventh. — Let him show us one which directly forbids gambling. — Any well-instructed Baptist knows that it cannot be done. But surely, if this is the case, there is an end of this famous argument against infant baptism! It falls to the ground.
(2) The second favourite argument against infant baptism is the inability of infants to repent and believe. “What can be more monstrous,” says many a Baptist, “than to administer an ordinance to an unconscious babe? It cannot possibly know anything of repentance and faith, and therefore it ought not to be baptized.” The Scripture says, — “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” and, “Repent, and be baptized.” (Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 38.)
In reply to this argument, I ask to be shown a single text which says that nobody ought to be baptized until he repents and believes. I shall ask in vain. The texts just quoted prove conclusively that grown-up people who repent and believe when Missionaries preach the Gospel to them, ought at once to be baptized. But they do not prove that their children ought not to be baptized together with them, even though they are too young to believe. The plain truth is, that the often-quoted texts, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” — and, “Repent ye, and be baptized,” will never carry the weight that Baptists lay upon them. To assert that they forbid any one to be baptized unless he repents and believes, is to put a meaning on the words which they were never meant to bear. They leave the whole question of infants entirely out of sight. The text, “Nobody shall be baptized except he repents and believes,” would, no doubt, have been a very conclusive one. But such a text cannot be found!
After all, will any one tell us that an intelligent profession of repentance and faith is absolutely necessary to salvation? Would even the most rigid Baptist say that because infants cannot believe, all infants must be damned? Yet our Lord said plainly, — “He that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark xvi. 16.) — Will any man pretend to say that infants cannot receive grace and the Holy Ghost? John the Baptist, we know, was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. (Luke i. 15.) — Will any one dare to tell us that infants cannot be elect, — cannot be in the covenant, — cannot be members of Christ, — cannot be children of God, — cannot have new hearts, — cannot be born again, — cannot go to heaven when they die? — These are solemn and serious questions. I cannot believe that any well-informed Baptist would give them any but one answer. Yet surely those who may be members of the glorious Church above, may be admitted to the Church below! Those who are washed with the blood of Christ may surely be washed with the water of baptism! Those who are capable of being baptized with the Holy Ghost, may surely be baptized with water! Let these things be calmly weighed. I have seen many arguments against infant baptism, which, traced to their logical conclusion, are the arguments against infant salvation, and condemn all infants to eternal ruin!
I leave this part of my subject here. I am almost ashamed of having said so much about it. But the times in which we live are my plea and justification. I do not write so much to convince Baptists, as to establish and confirm Churchmen. I have often been surprised to see how ignorant some Churchmen are of the grounds on which infant baptism may be defended. If I have done anything to show Churchmen the strength of their own position, I feel that I shall not have written in vain.
IV. WHAT POSITION BAPTISM OUGHT TO HOLD IN OUR
RELIGION.
This is a point of great importance. In matters of opinion, man is ever liable to go into extremes. In nothing does this tendency appear so strongly as in the matter of religion. In no part of religion is man in so much danger of erring, either on the right hand or the left, tut about the Sacraments. In order to arrive at a settled judgment about baptism, we must beware both of the error of defect, and of the error of OXCCHH.
(ft) We muHt beware, for one tiling, of despising ‘baptism, This is the error of defect. Many in the present day seem to regard it with perfect indifference. They pass it by, and give it no place, or position in their religion. Because, in many caseH, it seems to confer no benefit, they appear to jump to the conclusion that it can confer none. They care nothing if baptism is never named in the sermon. They dislike to have it publicly administered in the congregation. In short, they seem to regard the whole subject of baptism as a trouble-Home, question, which they are determined to hit alone.
Now, I only ask such persons to consider gravely whether their attitude of mind is justified by Scripture. Let them remember our Lord’s distinct and precise command to “baptize,” when He left His disciples alone in the world. Let thorn remember the invariable practice of the. Apostles, wherever they went preaching the Gospel. Let them mark the language used about baptism in several places in the Kpistles. Now is it likely, — is it probable, — is it agreeable to reason and common sense-, that baptism can be safely regarded as a dropped subject, and quietly laid on the shelf? Surely, 1 think these questions can only receive one answer.
It is utterly unreasonable to suppose that the Great Head of the Church would burden His people in all ages with an empty, powerless, unprofitable institution. It is ridiculous to suppose His Apostles would speak as they do about baptism, if in no case, and under no circumstances, could it be of any use or help to a man’s soul
Let these things he calmly weighed. Let us take hood, lest in fleeing from blind superstition, wo are found equally blind in another way, and pour contempt upon an appointment of Christ.
(b) Wo must beware, for another thing, of making an idol of baptism. This is the error of excess. Many in the present day exalt baptism to a position which nothing in Scripture can possibly justify. If they hold infant baptism, thoy will toll you that the grace of the Holy Ghost invariably accompanies the. administration of the ordinance, — that in every case a seed of Divine life is implanted in the heart, to which all subsequent religious movement must be traced, — and that all baptized children are as a matter of course born again, and made partakers of the Holy Ghost! — If thoy do not hold infant baptism, thoy will tell you that to go down into the water with a profession of faith and repentance is the very turning-point in a man’s religion, — that until wo have gone down into the water we are nothing, — and that when wo have gone down into the water, we have taken the first step toward heaven! It is notorious that many High Churchmen and Baptists hold these opinions, though not all. And I say that, although they may not mean it, they are practically making an idol of baptism.
I ask all persons who hold these exceedingly high and lofty views of baptism, to consider seriously what warrant they have in the Bible for their opinions. To quote texts in which the greatest privileges and blessings are cornier, ted with baptism, is not enough. What we. want
are plain texts which show that those blessings and privileges are always and invariably conferred. Tl 10 question to be settled is not whether a child ‘/////// bo born again and receive grace in baptism, but whether all children are born again, and receive grace when they arc baptized, — The question is not whether an adult may “put on Christ” when he goes down into the water, but whether all do as a matter of course. Surely these things demand grave and calm consideration! — It is positively wearisome to read the sweeping and illogical assertions which are often made upon the subject. To tell us, for example, that our Lord’s famous words to Nicodemus (John iii. 5) teach anything more than the general necessity of being “born of water and the Spirit” is an insult to common sense. Whether all persons baptized are “born of water and the Spirit” is another question altogether, and one which the text never touches at all! To assert that it is taught in the text is just as illogical as the common assertion of the Baptist, when he tells you, that because Jesus said, — “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” — therefore nobody ought to be baptized until he believes!
The right position of baptism can only be decided by a careful observation of the language of Scripture about it. Let a man read the New Testament honestly and impartially for himself. Let him come to the reading of it with an unprejudiced, fair, and unbiassed mind. Let him not bring with him preconceived opinions and a blind reverence for the judgment of any uninspired writing of any man, or of any set of men. Let him simply ask the question, — “What does Scripture teach about baptism, and its place in Christian theology?” — and I have little doubt as to the conclusion he will come to. He will neither trample baptism under his feet, nor exalt it over his head.
(a) He will find that baptism is frequently mentioned, and yet not so frequently as to lead us to think that it is the very first, chief, and foremost thing in Christianity. In fourteen out of twenty-one Epistles, baptism is not even named. In five out of the remaining seven, it is only mentioned once. In one out of the remaining two, it is only mentioned twice. In the two pastoral Epistles to Timothy, it is not mentioned at all. There is, in short, only one Epistle, viz., the First to the Corinthians, in which baptism is even named on more than two occasions. And singularly enough, this is the very Epistle in which St. Paul says, — “I thank God that I baptized none of you,” — and “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.” (1 Cor. i. 14, 17.)
(&) He will find that baptism is spoken of with deep reverence, and in close connection with the highest privileges and blessings. Baptized people are said to be “buried with Christ,” — to have “put on Christ,” — to “have risen again,” — and even (by straining a doubtful text) to have the “washing of regeneration.” But he will also find that Judas Iscariot, Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, and others, were baptized, and yet gave no evidence of having been born again. He will also see that in the First Epistle of John, people “born of God” are said to have certain marks and characteristics which myriads of baptized persons never possess at any period of their lives. (1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, v. 1, 4, 18.) And not least, he will find St. Peter declaring that the baptism which “saves” is “not the putting away the filth of the flesh” that is, not the mere washing of the body, but the “answer of a good conscience.” (1 Pet. iii. 21.)
(c) Finally, he will discover that while baptism is frequently spoken of in the New Testament, there are other subjects which are spoken of much more frequently. Faith, hope, charity, God’s grace, Christ’s offices, the work of the Holy Ghost, redemption, justification, the nature of Christian living — all these are points about which he will find far more than about baptism. Above all, he will find, if he marks the language of Scripture about the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision, that the value of God’s ordinances depends entirely on the
Q spirit in which they are received, and the heart of the receiver. “In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love, — or a new creature” (Gal. v. 6; vi. 15). “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. ii. 28, 29).
It only remains for me now to say a few words by way of practical conclusion to the whole paper. The nature, manner, subjects, and position of baptism have been severally considered. Let me now show the reader the special lessons to which I think attention ought to be directed.
(1) For one thing, I wish to urge on all who study the much-disputed subject of baptism, the importance of aiming at simple views of this sacrament. The dim, hazy, swelling words, which are often used by writers about baptism, have been fruitful sources of strange and unscriptural views of the ordinance. Poets, and hymncomposers, and Romish theologians, have flooded the world with so much high-flown and rhapsodical language on the point, that the minds of many have been thoroughly bewitched, dizzied, drugged, swamped, and confounded. Thousands have imbibed notions about baptism from poetry, without knowing it, for which they can show no warrant in God’s Word. Milton’s Paradise Lost is the sole parent of many a current view of Satan’s agency; and uninspired poetry is the sole parent of many a man’s views of baptism in the present day.
Once for all, let me entreat every reader of this tract to hold no doctrine about baptism which is not plainly taught in God’s “Word. Let him beware of maintaining any theory, however plausible, which cannot be supported by Scripture. In religion, it matters nothing who says a tiling, or how beautifully he says it. The only question we ought to ask is this, “Is it written in the Bible? What saith the Lord?”
(2) For another thing, I wish to urge on many of my fellow-churchmen the dangerous tendency of extravagantly high views of the efficacy of baptism. I have no wish to conceal my meaning. I refer to those Churchmen who maintain that grace invariably accompanies baptism, and that all baptized infants are in baptism “born again.” I ask such persons, in all courtesy and brotherly kindness, to consider seriously the dangerous tendency of their views, and the consequences which logically result from them.
They seem to me, and to many others, to degrade a holy ordinance appointed by Christ into a mere charm, which is to act mechanically, like a medicine acting on the body, without any movement of a man’s heart or soul. Surely this is dangerous!
They encourage the notion that it matters nothing in what manner or spirit people bring their children to be baptized. It signifies nothing whether they come with faith, and prayer, and solemn feelings, or whether they come careless, prayerless, godless, and ignorant as heathens? The effect, we are told, is always the same in all cases! In all cases, we are told, the infant is “born again” the moment it is baptized, although it has no right to baptism at all, except as the child of Christian parents. Surely this is dangerous!
They help forward the perilous and soul-ruining delusion that a man may have grace in his heart, which never can be seen in his life. Multitudes of our worshippers have not a spark of religious life or grace about them. And yet we are told that they must all be
244 PRINCIPLES FOtt CHURCHMEN.
addressed as regenerate, or possessors of grace, because they have been baptized! Surely this is dangerous!
Now I firmly believe that hundreds of excellent Churchmen have never fully considered the points which I have just brought forward. I ask them to do so. For the honour of the Holy Ghost, for the honour of Christ’s holy sacraments, I invite them to consider seriously the tendency of their views. Sure am I that there is only one safe ground to take up in stating the effects of baptism, and that is the old ground stated by our Lord: “Every tree is known by his own fruit” (Luke vi. 44). When baptism is used profanely and carelessly, we have no right to expect a blessing to follow it, any more than we expect it for a careless recipient of the Lord’s Supper. When no grace can be seen in a man’s life, we have no right to say that he is “regenerate,” and has received grace in baptism.
(3) In the last place, I wish to urge on all Christians the immense importance of giving to each part of Christianity its proper proportion and value, but nothing more. Let us beware of wresting things from their right places, and putting that which is second first, and that which is first second. Let us give all due honour to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as sacraments ordained by Christ Himself. But let us never forget that, like every outward ordinance, their benefit depends entirely on the manner in which they are received. Above all, let us never forget that while a man may be baptized, like Judas, and yet never be saved, so also a man may never be baptized, like the penitent thief, and yet may be saved. The things needful to salvation are an interest in Christ’s atoning blood, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in the heart and life. He that is wrong on these
1” In such only as worthily receive the sacraments they have a wholesome effect or operation.” — 25th Article of the Church of England.
two points will get no benefit from his baptism, whether he is baptized as an infant or grown up. He will find at the last day that he is wrong for evermore.
It only remains for me now to wind up all I have said with a few words of solemn appeal to every one into whose hands this tract may happen to fall.
I say “solemn appeal,” and I say it advisedly. I feel strongly the immense importance of sound and Scriptural views of the whole question I have been considering. I feel it especially as respects that part of it which touches the doctrine of the Church of England. Men sometimes say it makes no difference whether we think all baptized persons are regenerate or not. They tell us it all comes to the same thing in the long run. I cannot say so. To my humble apprehension it seems to make an immense difference. If I tell a man that he has grace in his heart, and only needs to “stir up a gift” already within him, it is one thing. If I tell him that he is dead in sins, and must be born again, it is quite another. The moral effect of the two messages must, on the very face of it, be widely different. The one, I contend, is calculated, by God’s blessing, to awaken the sinner. The other, I contend, is calculated to lull him to sleep. — The one, I maintain, is likely to feed sloth, check self-examination, and encourage an easy self-satisfied state of soul. He has got some grace within him whenever he likes to use it; why should he be in a hurry, why be afraid? The other, I maintain, is likely to rouse convictions, drive him to self-inquiry, and frighten him out of his dangerous security. He has nothing within him to rest upon, — he must find a refuge and remedy, — he is lost and perishing; what must he do to be saved? — The one message, I affirm, is likely to keep men natural men, the other to make them spiritual men j the one to have no effect upon the conscience,, the other to lead to Christ. — Let men say what they will, I for one dare not say I think it all conies to the same thing.
I. see fresh reason continually for dreading the doctrine that all baptized persons are regenerate. I hear of lay men who once did run well, losing their first love, and appearing to make shipwreck of their faith. I hear of ministers, who once bade fair to be pillars in the Church, stumbling at this stumbling-stone, and marring all their usefulness. I see the doctrine leavening and spoiling the religion of many private Christians, and insensibly paving the way for a long train of unscriptural notions. I see it interfering with every leading doctrine of the Gospel. It encourages men to believe that election, adoption, justification, and the indwelling of the Spirit are all conferred on them in baptism; and then, to avoid the difficulties which such a system entails, the fulness of all these mighty truths is pared down, mutilated, and explained away, or else the minds of congregations are bewildered with contradictory and inconsistent statements. I see it ultimately producing in some minds a mere sacramental Christianity, — a Christianity in which there is much said about union with Christ; but it is a union begun only by baptism, and kept up only by the Lord’s Supper, — a Christianity in which the leading doctrines that the Apostle Paul dwells on in almost all his epistles, have nothing but a subordinate position, — a Christianity in which Christ has not His rightful office, and faith has not its rightful place. I see all this, and mourn over it unfeignedly. I cannot think that the subject I am urging on the reader’s attention is one of secondary im portance. And once more I say, I cannot leave him without a solemn appeal to his conscience, whoever he may be, into whose hands this tract may fall.
I appeal, then, to all men who love the Bible, and make it their standard of truth and error; and in saying this, I address myself especially to all members of the Church of England. I ask you to observe the manner of living of multitudes of baptized persons on every side of you; I ask you to observe how their hearts are entirely set on this world, and buried in its concerns. And I then ask you, Are they born of God? If you say Yes! I answer, How can that be, when your Bible expressly says, “He that is born of God doeth righteousness, and doth not commit sin!” (1 John ii. 29; iii. 9). Are they children of God? If you say Yes! I answer, How can that be, when the Bible says expressly, “In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1 John iii. 10). Are they sons of God? If you say Yes! I answer, How can that be, when the Bible says expressly, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. viii. 14). What will you say to these things? Surely you will not turn your back upon the Bible.
I appeal next to all who love the good old rule of the Bible, “Every tree is known by his own fruit” (Luke vi. 44). I ask you to try the great bulk of professing Christians by the fruits they bring forth, and to say what kind of fruits they are. Is it not perfectly true that many baptized persons know little or nothing of the fruits of the Spirit, and much, only too much, of the works of the flesh? Is it not certain that they are destitute of those marks of being born of God which the Bible describes? What will you say to these things? Surely if you abide by your old principle you will hardly say that all baptized people have within them the Holy Spirit.
I appeal next to all who love the Church Catechism, and profess to be guided by its statements about the sacraments. You are aware that the inward and spiritual grace of baptism is there said to be “a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.” I ask you, as in the sight of God, to say whether any evidence whatever of this grace can be seen in the lives of many baptized persons. Where is there deadness to sin? They live in it. It is their element. Where is their new birth unto righteousness? They are habitual “servants of sin, and free from righteousness” (Kom. vi. 20). Sin reigns and rules in their mortal bodies. They are enemies of all righteousness. What will you say to these things? Surely you will not tell us, that the outward and visible sign is always attended by the inward and spiritual grace. If so, grace and no grace are the same thing.
I appeal, lastly, to all who dread antinomianism and licentious doctrine. You have heard of those wretched persons who profess to glory in Christ and free grace, and yet think it no shame to live immoral lives, and continue in wilful sin. You think such conduct horrible, an insult to the Lord Jesus, and a disgrace to Christianity. And you are right to think so. But what will you say to the doctrine, that a man may have the Holy Spirit, and yet not bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; — may have grace in his heart, and yet show no sign of it in his life? What will you say to these things? Surely, if you are consistent, you will recoil from the idea of dishonouring the Third Person of the blessed Trinity, no less than you do from dishonouring the Lord Himself. Surely you will shrink from saying that all baptized persons have the Holy Ghost.
And now I leave this subject in the hands of my readers, and I heartily pray God to guide them by His Spirit to a right understanding of it. I ask you to compare what I have said with the Bible, and I invite you to give the whole question your calm consideration and your earnest prayers. If in the course of this paper I have said anything that hurts your feelings, I am sorry for it. If I have said anything contrary to the truth as it is in Jesus, I hope the Lord will make me see it. But I think I can say with a good conscience, that I have stated nothing about baptism which I do not honestly believe to be the doctrine of the Bible, and the doctrine of the Church of England.
NOTES.
The following quotations bearing on the subject discussed in thispaper,are drawn from writers, of whom some are the greatest and most learned divines the world has ever seen. They are specially commended to the attention of members of the Church of England.
“In baptism those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ.”
“All that be washed with water be not washed with the Holy Spirit.” — Archbishop Cranmer. 1553.
“Good and evil, clean and unclean, holy and profane, must needs pass by the sacrament of baptism, except you will indeed, in more ample and large measure, tie the grace of God unto it than ever did the Papists, and say that all be baptized be also saved.” — Archbishop Whitgift. 1583.
“Are all they that are partakers of the outward washing of baptism, partakers also of the inward washing of the Spirit? Doth this sacrament seal up their spiritual ingrafting into Christ to all who externally receive it? Surely no! Though God hath ordained these outward means for the conveyance of grace to our souls, yet there is no necessity that we should tie the working of God’s Spirit to the sacraments more than to the word.” — Archbishop Usher. 1624.
“In baptism, as the one part of that holy mystery is Christ’s blood, so is the other part, the material water. Neither are these parts joined together in place, but in mystery; and therefore they be oftentimes severed, and the one is received without the other.” — Bishop Jewell. 1 559.
“Christ said, ‘Except a man be born again from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Ye must have a regeneration: and what is this regeneration? It is not to be christened in water as these firebrands (the Roman Catholics) expound it, and nothing else.” — Bishop Latimer. 1540
•’’ All receive not the grace of God which receive the sacraments of His grace.” — Richard Hooker. 1597.
“Not all are regenerated who are washed with the baptismal water.” — Dr. Whittaker, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. 1590.
“What is the advantage or benefit of baptism to the common Christian? The same as was the benefit of circumcision to the Jew outward (Rom. ii. 28). There is a general grace of baptism which all the baptized partake of as a common favour; and that is their admission into the visible body of the Church; their matriculation and outward incorporation into the number of the worshippers of God by external communion. And so as circumcision was not only a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, but as an overplus, God appointed it to be a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile: so is baptism a badge of an outward member of the Church, a distinction from the common sort of the brethren. And God thereby seals a right upon the party baptized to His ordinances, that He may use them as His privileges, and wait for an inward blessing by them. Yet this is but the porch, the shell, and outside. All that are outwardly received into the visible Church are not spiritually ingrafted into the mystical body of Christ. Baptism is attended upon always by that general grace, but not always by that special.” — Archbishop Usher. 1624.
“All that receive baptism are called children of God, regenerate, justified: for to us they must be taken for such in charity, until they show themselves other. But Bishop Montague (a friend of Archbishop Laud) affirmeth that this is not left to men’s charity, as you, saith he, do inform the world, because we are taught in the service-book of our Church earnestly to believe that Christ hath favourably received these infants that are baptized, that He hath embraced them with the arms of His mercy, that He hath given them the blessing of everlasting life; and out of that belief and persuasion we are to give thanks faithfully and devoutly for it. All this we receive and make no doubt of it; but when we have said all we must come to this, that all this is the charity of the Church, and what more can you make of it?” — George Carleton, Bishop of Chichester. 1619.
“The office for baptizing infants carries on the supposition of an internal regeneration.” — Bishop Burnet. 1689.
” There is justification for that prayer in our public liturgy, when the congregation gives thanks to God for the child baptized, that it hath pleased Him to regenerate this infant by His Holy Spirit, etc. For it cannot be denied but that the holy ordinance of baptism, the seal of our sanctification, doth take effect many times immediately in the infusion of present grace into the infant’s soul, though many times also it hath not its effect till many years after. But seeii)g it is questionably true in many, we may and must charitably suppose it in every one, for when we come to particulars whom dare we exclude? And this we may do without tying the grace of regeneration necessarily to baptism, as some complain that we do.” — William Pemble, Magdalen Hall, Oxford. 1635.
“The Apostles always, when they descend to particular men or Churches, PRESUME every Christian to be elect, sanctified, justified, and in the way of being glorified, until he himself shall have proved himself to be wicked, or an apostate.” — Bishop Davenant. 1627.
“As to what he says, that no one can be a minister of the Church of England, who is noc certainly persuaded of the regeneration of every infant baptized, neither also is that true. The minister truly gives God thanks after each infant has been baptized, that it has pleased God to regenerate him with His Holy Spirit. But it does not then follow that he ought to be certain of the regeneration of every infant baptized. For it is sufficient, if he is persuaded of the regeneration of some only — for instance, of elect infants, or, if you like, even of some only of their number — that on that account he may be able, nay ought, to give God thanks for each and all baptized. Since who is elect he knows not: and it is but just that he should by the judgment of charity presume that as many as he baptizes are elect, and if any are regenerated, in baptism (which none but a Socinian or other Catabaptist will deny) regenerated*’1 — Dr. Durel, Dean of Windsor t and Chaplain to the King. 1677.