04 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Falsifies

Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Falsifies the Doctrine of Universal Depravity.

Statement of the subject; nature of alleged infant claims; their conflict with the doctrine of depravity; incompatibility of these sentiments. THE children of those parents “who profess the true religion,” are born, it is alleged, in the covenant, and church of our Lord Jesus Christ! On this ground mainly, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other Calvinists, maintain their right to baptism. A glimmering of the same doctrine runs through the teachings of all the other sects. It is true as Bushel justly remarks: - That “no settled opinions of the grounds, or import of infant baptism has ever been attained to” by them all. 1 In this, however, they agree as nearly as they do in any other doctrine regarding that ordinance. It is my purpose in the present chapter, to show that this aspect of the subject develops prominently, another of its evils, since it falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity.

Pedobaptists claim that the infant offspring of believers enjoy hereditary rights to the covenant of grace, and their attendant privileges of baptism, and membership in the visible church. The truth of this statement I shall now certify in such a manner as to render it in, disputable. “It is an important inquiry, ” says a distinguished writer upon the Symbols and Rubric of the English church, “to what infants that title belongs. For not all even in the sight of man, can be considered as fit subjects for that holy rite,” baptism. “Are the children of infidels fit subjects?” “Baptism administered to them is not warranted by our church.” 2 Bishop Jewell says - “ No person which will profess Christ’s name ought to be restrained or kept back therefrom, no not even the babes of Christians, for asmuch as they” “do pertain unto the people of God.” 3 Nowell, Beveridge, and the other British fathers, teach the same doctrine. “We see then,” says Mr.

Goode, “the necessity of inquiring whether the child [brought to be baptized] is the offspring of parents who are at least professed Christians.” “Here is a question not decided by the church.” More unscrupulous ministers will baptize any child for whom sponsors can be procured. “But it is at least reasonable to think that our church, administering baptism on the grounds stated by Jewell and Nowell, administers it on the supposition” that the parents are believers. “The faith of the parent is to the infant, as an infant,” “mercifully reckoned by God as imputable to the infant, and on the strength of this it is baptized; faith and baptism together, as in the case of adults, perfecting the work of infantine regeneration. 4 We have in these passages, the doctrine on the subject of the more evangelical of the English church, and her doctrine in the premises is the doctrine of the Methodist church, and of the Episcopal church in the United States. Dr. A. Clarke therefore confidently says: - “Though infants have not, and cannot have actual faith, yet they are sanctified by being born of religious parents. They are already in some sense, within the limits of the church and covenant of promise.” 5 The Westminster Confession, however, is definite. Its language is: - “The visible church, which is also Catholic, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God.” 6 The Directory is still more explicit. It is there affirmed that the children of believers are “Born within the church, have by their birth inheritance in the covenant, and right to [baptism] the seal of it;” “that they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized.” On this subject Mr. Baxter remarks: - God hath made, and offered to the world a covenant of grace, and in it the pardon of sin to all true penitent believers, and power to become the sons of God, and heirs of heaven. This covenant is extended also to the seed of the faithful to give them the benefits suitable to their age, the parents dedicating them to God, and entering them into the covenant, and so God in Christ will be their God, and number them with his people.” Mr. Baxter further says - “As children are made sinners and miserable by their parents without any act of their own, so they are delivered out of it by the free grace of Christ, not through their own faith, but upon conditions performed by their parents.” 7 And still further. “Of those baptized in infancy, some do betimes receive the secret seeds of grace, which by the blessing of a holy education is stirring in them according to their capacity… so that they never were actual ungodly persons ” The late Dr. Miller says: - “The children of professing Christians are already in the church. They are born members. They are baptized because they were members. They receive the seal of the covenant because they are already in the covenant by virtue of their birth.” From these expositions we learn that, according to our Pedobaptist brethren, the children of believers are born in the covenant of grace, and have, by right of birth, the enjoyment of all its blessings; are born members of the church, and by hereditary descent are entitled to the privileges of membership in the house of God, and to the promises of salvation. These are prerogatives arising exclusively from their hereditary relations. Their parents are holy. Therefore their children are holy. Of all such Dr. Hopkins says: - “The church receive and look upon them as holy. So they are as visibly holy, or as really holy in their view, as their parents are.” With these doctrines distinctly before us we turn to consider the subject of universal depravity, that we may ascertain to what extent these two principles harmonize with each other. Depravity, I remark, consists essentially in a state of mind the opposite of that which is required by the law of God. The law commands, and the obligation is imperative upon every human being, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:37.) The want of this love on the one hand, and the love of the world on the other, places the soul in that moral position known as depravity. By nature, men prefer the world and its sinful gratifications, to the love of God and of their neighbor. The creature usurps in their affections the place of the Creator. The moral powers are perverted, and turned aside from God. This is depravity. And I now remark that it is universal. It attaches to every human being. All are naturally affected by it in the same manner, and to the same extent. In this respect no material original difference exists between the children of the rich and the poor, the free and the bond, the holy and the unholy, the believer and the unbeliever. In subsequent life their characters are often very different. But this arises not from any difference in moral qualities, but in constitutional temperament, in instruction, in discipline, and in associations. These facts are apparent to every intelligent observer. We see in the children of all classes, the same inclination to evil, and the same estrangement from God, more or less strongly developed. But they are fully confirmed by the word of God. “The lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life,” all by nature pursue in preference to “the things of the Spirit” of God. The children of religious parents are involved in this depravity, to an extent fully as great as the children of others, who occupy with them the same social position. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12) “The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Galatians 3:10-12.) Than this what language can be more conclusive? It is therefore undeniably true that all are corrupt; that all are alike depraved. Our brethren themselves, notwithstanding their doctrine of the holiness of the children of believers, maintain, and emphatically teach universal depravity. The Episcopal church thus expresses herself - “Original sin” is the fault, or corruption of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby every man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil.” 10 The Methodist church says: - Original sin “is the corruption of the nature of every man that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.” 11 Calvinism in all its sects speaks thus: - Our first parents by sin “fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are naturally indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all acts of transgression.” 12 All other evangelical denominations hold the same principles. They all teach universal depravity. Every man, therefore, descended of Adam, all the posterity of our first parents, are naturally indisposed to good, wholly inclined to evil and that continually.

Let the doctrine of infant baptism, as based upon hereditary claims of the children of believers to the covenant of grace, be now compared with the doctrine of universal depravity. We take them both as set forth by pedobaptists themselves. On the one hand they earnestly teach that the children of believers “are sanctified by being born of religious parents,” are “born within the church, and have by their birth inheritance in the covenant,” “are federally holy,” and for these and like reasons, are baptized. Persons cannot have, at birth, all these endowments, and be at the same time wholly corrupt. Therefore the infant offspring of believers are not naturally depraved. On the other hand, they all earnestly teach that “every one ” is wholly depraved. “Every man ” descended of Adam, is “defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body,” all “are naturally indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. ” With this corrupt nature “all that are naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam” are born. The children of believing parents are not excepted, but fully included, since they too “are naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam,” and are a part of “all men. ” Are such corrupt and depraved persons holy? Are they born members of the church? Are they naturally inheritors of all the benefits of the covenant of grace? It is impossible. They cannot at the same time be holy and corrupt, sanctified and depraved, in the gospel covenant and “naturally indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” Both these propositions cannot be true. The one falsifies the other. But that all are born in sin, and are by nature, depraved, is true. The word of God emphatically declares it. The whole doctrine of hereditary claims to the covenant of grace, therefore, upon which our brethren so confidently predicate infant baptism, falsities the doctrine of universal depravity; his baseless in itself, and upon their own principles; and it is fraught with mischief, “full of deadly evil.”

There are at least, I may now add, two other, and collateral disastrous consequences which arise from this aspect of infant baptism, and which must here be briefly noticed. The former is the absurdity that religion is hereditary; and the latter that the children of believers have no need of the regenerating influences of the Spirit of God! In the first place, if children are “holy, ” are “in the covenant of grace,” are “members of the church” “by being born of religious parents, ” then these children inherit “by their birth, ” all the blessings of religion, and of course, become religious by natural generation. The infant children of believers are in the covenant and church of Christ, because their parents are in the covenant and church of Christ. The infant children of unbelievers are not in the covenant and church of Christ, because their parents are not in the covenant and church of Christ. Religion and irreligion therefore are results of natural generation. Paul the apostle declares this whole hypothesis untrue. “The children of the flesh, ” he affirms, “are not [therefore] the children of the covenant.” (Galatians 3:12-20.) But Pedobaptists allege, that the children of the flesh of believers, are the heirs of the covenant, and for the very reason that they are the children of the flesh. Which shall we believe? Paul, or our Pedobaptist brethren? The Bible or the Confessions of Faith? We cannot believe both, since, in the plainest terms, they contradict each other. In the second place, if the infant children of believing parents are “holy,” are “in the covenant of grace,” are “born in the church,” then of course, their nature is pure. The work of the Spirit is not necessary to cleanse their hearts, and fit them for a higher life. They are the children of believing parents, and therefore “sanctified. ” They are born holy! All this they are carefully taught from childhood. Are they not likely to believe it? If they do, they cannot also believe that they have a depraved and corrupt heart.

Consequently they can never feel very deeply, their miserable condition as sinners, nor appreciate highly the grace of God in the gift of a Savior. They are thus, and by their teachers, made ignorant of their own hearts, and deceived in a most vital point. I will not say that they never will be converted. It is evident, however, that their salvation is thus placed in fearful jeopardy.

It is now demonstrated that, by arrogating hereditary claims to the covenant of grace, infant baptism falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity, teaches that religion is propagated by natural generation, and that the children of believing parents have no need of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit of God. Thus infant baptism inculcates a religion that is neither moral nor spiritual, but merely physical. It is therefore a most revolting evil.