11. Lecture X. Futher Presumptions

LECTURE X.

FURTHER PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. A seventh presumption against infant baptism arises from its incongruity with the analogy of faith,

Christianity is a system: its parts, adapted to one another, form a consistent whole. To prove that any doctrine or practice agrees not with other doctrines and duties of Christianity, is to prove that it is not a Christian doctrine or practice at all. If I prove that Pedo-baptism accords not with the analogy of the truth as it is in Jesus, I prove, or at least I bring a strong presumption, that it is net a Christian institute.

1st, Infant baptism does not accord with the scripture doctrine of election. The Scriptures teach us that election is the divine choice of persons to eternal life, and not the choice of tribes or of families. Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified." This is a description, not of families and tribes, but of persons called and saved. John 6:37-39, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." This election is personal and saving. John 17:2, “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:5, “I pray for them; 1 pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine." Ver. 24, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory." Luk 10:20, “Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven." Rev 13:8, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Php 4:3, "And I entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other of my fellow-laborers, whose names are in the book of life." Romans i10:11 — 13, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." On the supposition that infants derive some spiritual and saving benefit from their birth or baptism, they would be saved by families, by tribes, by nations: whereas the election of the Bible is neither an election of nations, nor tribes, nor families, but of persons only., to salvation. But the fact renders this incongruity still more glaring. Every one of the scriptures just quoted connects election with salvation. But who, that looks at their wicked lives and impenitent deaths, is not painfully convinced that many of those baptized in infancy are not finally saved? In the first passage quoted on this particular, it is asserted, and in all the rest it is supposed, that saving grace is inseparably connected with glory. If the infants of believers derive grace from their birth or baptism, and lose it before they die, he must be very inattentive, indeed, who observes not the incongruity referred to. Throughout the world called Christian, the great body of the people are baptized, or sprinkled, in infancy. On the supposition that birth and baptism convey saving grace, the number of the elect greatly exceeds the number of the called. The doctrine of the Scriptures is just the reverse. In Mat 20:16, and frequently elsewhere, we are told that “many be called, but few chosen." These remarks more immediately interest that numerous class of Pedo-baptists who suppose that grace is conferred by blood, or by baptism; but they are uninteresting to none. They must prove fatal, like those which follow, to pedo-baptism, until it be proved, as it never will, that, like circumcision, it stands on scripture precept or example, and, like it, has no personal respect to the subject. The inquirer may examine for himself. Is it supposed that baptism imparts any temporal good? The supposition is contradicted by fact; — the baptized are neither more healthy, more wealthy, nor longer lived than others; nay, many of them die in infancy. Is it supposed that infants derive spiritual good from their birth or baptism? The supposition contradicts all the Scriptures quoted, and many more which might have been quoted to the same purpose.

2dly, Infant baptism is inconsistent with the doctrine of representation. In the popular worship, every parent is the representative of his children, immediate, remote, or both; hence there are as many representatives as there are parents. But is .this the Scripture doctrine of representation? It is very different. Adam, the first man, represented all his posterity, descending from him by ordinary generation. Christ, the second man, represents the election. Of these two representatives we read in Scripture. It is as representatives that Adam is called the first, and Christ the second man. Rom 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Adam and Christ are meant. Of other representatives the Scripture makes no mention, and by its silence excludes them. The exclusion of all moral representatives, (Christ and Adam excepted,) is most explicitly taught in the passage just quoted. Many men intervened between Adam and Christ; but from Adam to Christ there was no moral representative. All parents, Abraham not excepted, are excluded from this honor. By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous: it is by the obedience of Christ, exclusive of the obedience of others. If the child be justified at all, he is justified by the righteousness of Christ exclusively; the righteousness of the parent is excluded. The recollection of these things will dissipate the clouds which ignorance and design have gathered around this subject, from the covenants with Abraham, David, and others. They are expressly excluded from moral representation; they were merely typical representatives. To assert that the moral condition of infants depends on their blood, or their baptism, is to oppose the Scriptures, as in many other respects, so particularly, in respect of representation. This incongruity attaches to all Pedo-baptists who found baptism in parentage.

3dly, Infant baptism is inconsistent with the covenant of grace or covenant of God. The Scripture doctrine on this topic is as follows: — All mankind descending from Adam by ordinary generation, have fallen by the apostasy of their representative, into an estate of sin and misery. Rom 5:18, "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." God from eternity, selected a number of our fallen race, and gave them to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to be redeemed by Him. Eph 1:4, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." In the time and manner appointed by God, the redeemed become acquainted with the gospel, and are made to believe it. This blessing flows from the grace of God, and is communicated by the regenerating work of the Holy Ghost. Tit 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Eph 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." By this faith they are united to Christ, brought personally into covenant with God, and interested in all His merits and benefits. 1Co 1:30, “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."

Such is the account we receive from the Scriptures of the covenant of grace. The process by which infants are brought into the covenant of baptism or sprinkling, is generally known, and need not be recapitulated. Let it only be recollected that many, or most of the sprinkled come short of holiness, and happiness, and the incongruity will immediately appear. In the covenant of grace all is ordered and sure, as the purpose of God on which it rests. In the covenant of infant baptism or of sprinkling, all is precarious. In the covenant of grace there is one, and but one representative. In the covenant of baptism or sprinkling, there are others — parents or sponsors, or both. Into the covenant of grace, men are brought by the spirit. Parents or sponsors bring infants into the covenant of baptism or sprinkling. Faith alone, is the medium of interest in the covenant of grace. Infants are brought into the covenant of sprinkling by birth, baptism, or by what is termed common grace. Men in covenant with God, have all the benefits of the covenant of grace, justification, adoption, sanctification, with all their consequences, here and hereafter. Many or most baptized or sprinkled infants, enjoy none of these benefits. Every thing is personal in the covenant of grace. In the covenant of sprinkling there is nothing personal whatever. Before concluding this particular, permit me to press these remarks on the attention of such as speak of bringing infants, by baptism or sprinkling, into covenant with God. Such would do well to consider what covenant they mean. If the covenant of grace be intended, the incongruities referred to demonstrate that they are mistaken. Men are neither given to, nor interested in Christ by baptism. The elect were given to Christ before the foundation of the world; and the mystical union in time, is formed not by baptism, but by faith. If some other covenant be intended, it ought to be recollected that, under the gospel, no covenant exists but the covenant of grace. The typical covenants, with all that concerns them, have answered their purposes, and ceased. Infants, therefore, can be brought into no covenant by baptism. Should the inquirer ask how elect infants are saved? — he must be reminded, that the Scriptures do not furnish us with a positive answer; they do teach us, however, that they are not saved by baptism or by immediate descent. The great proportion of those who die in infancy are descended from Heathens or Mahommedans, and have no baptism. This fact is not a little instructive in practice. The best interests of infants sustain no loss, either by their descent, or their want of baptism.

4thly, Infant baptism is inconsistent with the perpetuity of saving grace. Some found infant baptism on common grace, that is, communications supposed to be made to all men, — they save whilst retained, but they may be forfeited and lost. Though this fiction be avowed by Arminians only, it seems in some degree to be adopted by many, if not all, who adhere to the popular practice. Baptism is considered a privilege, and the want of it a prejudice to the souls of infants. Hence, those who practice infant baptism are supposed to deal more kindly with their children than those who maintain that it is a piece of unauthorized will-worship. The mortifying fact must, however, be recollected, that many or most baptized infants never attain to holiness or heaven. If they be justified in baptism, the sentence is afterwards reversed, for eventually they are condemned. If they were sanctified, their sanctifying grace has perished — they live and die impenitent. But is this the doctrine of the Bible? The apostle, in Rom 8:38, teaches us that the sentence of justification is irrevocable. Ver. 38, “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The perseverance of the sanctified is no less plainly asserted. Jer 32:40, “And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." John 4:14, “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life." John 10:27; “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand." 1Pe 1:5, Believers are “kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." 1Jn 3:9, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1Jn 5:13, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." So plain is the doctrine of the Scriptures, that, as Paul tells us, Rom 11:29, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" and proportionably plain is the incongruity of infant baptism with this doctrine.

It might be of much use to such as practise the ceremony to determine the exact nature of the benefit received in it. If grace be received, it appears from the fact, that in most cases it is afterwards lost. But this, we have seen, is contrary to the analogy of Scripture. The Scriptures every where teach the perpetuity of grace. If nothing be received, it cannot be an institution of God. The service is illusory and vain; and it will not be easy to vindicate it from the charge of profanity. The name of Jehovah is solemnly interposed about nothing. “The Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain."

5thly, Infant baptism tends, in direct opposition to the Scriptures, to confound the Church with the world. In national churches, the fact is notorious, acknowledged, and unavoidable. In them, the Church is a geographical idea — all within certain bounds are born, sprinkled, and reared within her pale. Individuals in Established Churches, not aware of the restraints under which they are placed, have often attempted to remedy the evil. Their attempts, however, have uniformly failed, and by their failure have given experimental evidence of the invincible repugnance of these institutions to the laws of Christ. The case is similar in all societies of consistent Pedo-baptists; for example, the Greek and Eastern Churches admit infants to the Lord’s supper. The generality of infants, as appears from their lives, belong to the world. In these communions, therefore, the Church and the world are systematically confounded by means of baptizing infants. Some communions admit infants to sprinkling, whilst they reject them from the supper. This conduct is inconsistent; for if the faith of the parent give his child a right to the one ordinance, it cannot fail to give him also a right to the other. In neither case does the right depend on personal, but on relative qualifications. Personally, the infant is qualified for neither; relatively, he is qualified for both.

I said those who make a distinction between infant baptism and infant communion are inconsistent; but the evil of confounding the Church with the world is not remedied by the inconsistency. Have we not good grounds to conclude, both from reason and observation, that in societies which follow this practice, applications for communion will be made and admitted more readily, than in those churches in which each member is received, after being baptized on a credible profession of repentance towards God, and of faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the first part of our assertion is proved, that infant baptism tends to confound the Church with the world.

I now observe that this confusion is condemned by the Scriptures. The evidence here is multiplied and strong. I shall quote but a few tests. All the members of the primitive churches are described as called, elected, sanctified, adopted, heirs of God and of glory. Men of a different character, if we are guided by their example, are neither to be admitted into church communion, nor retained in it, if admitted. Mat 18:15. “Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast sained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." 2Th 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Compare these and many like Scriptures, with the descriptions of positive goodness required in the members of churches, and the care of Christ to keep and preserve the Church in separation from the world will appear. No one, who is not born of water and of the Spirit, can lawfully enter these holy societies, or continue in them. The repugnance of infant baptism, both in spirit and effect, to the purity of church communion, furnishes another incongruity with the analogy of the faith, so strong, that if a positive appointment of the practice cannot be produced, we must conclude that the popular system forms no part of the revelation of God. In many particulars, infant baptism transgresses the analogy of Scripture. ’ I can but name a few of them. Infant baptism accords not with the grand design of the plan of redemption, to show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness towards his people, through Christ Jesus, Eph 2:7. In this ceremony, descent, common grace, or the operation itself, either supplant or determine grace. The religion of the New Testament is a personal thing. The believer owes his privileges to no relative but Christ. Infant baptism, on the contrary, is altogether relative; every thing personal is, from the nature of the case, excluded.

Infant baptism accords not with faith as the medium of interest in the benefits of redemption. In the Scriptures faith is every thing; in infant baptism it is nothing — descent, common grace, or the mere act of sprinkling, is substituted for faith. But we speak of infants, say some. Be it so. Infant sprinkling accords as little with the manner in which Heathen and Mahommedan infants are saved. In what manner, the merits of Christ are applied in cases like these, the Scriptures do not inform us. But be it what it may, it is neither by descent nor baptism; so that here, again, infant sprinkling does not accord with God’s ordinary way of saving infants. Few, I apprehend, will be disposed to believe that all Heathen, Mahommedan, and other unbaptized infants, are damned, because they have not been sprinkled or baptized. Again, the common ceremony accords not with the doctrine of original sin. At what age our race pass out of a state of infancy into a state of personal responsibility, I cannot tell; but at what time soever the transition be made, it is made, on the principles of Pedo-baptists, with special advantages on the part of the sprinkled. They are supposed to derive these advantages from descent or sprinkling. Heathen and Mahommedan infants can derive nothing from these sources. Compare, on the principles of Pedo-baptists, these two classes of infants. The sprinkled, and the descendants of professors, become a privileged order. But what is the doctrine of the Scriptures? Every one who has read them can judge for himself. Is original sin, with its consequences, restricted to one class more than another? Did it ever occur to us, that some infants passed into a state of personal responsibility with greater inherent advantages than others? To conclude, the more closely we examine the subject, the more evident does it appear that infant baptism is inconsistent with Christianity. Had we proof, by precept, by example, or in any other way, that infant baptism is the will of God, we submit our reasonings to revelation; we sprinkle our infants. But if no proof to this effect can be produced, and if infant baptism clash (as we have seen that it does), with most of the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion, what should a candid and conscientious man do, when the presumption appears so strong, that infant baptism belongs not to that system, with which it is so palpably incongruous? An eighth presumption against infant sprinkling arises from the personal interest of the baptized in the things represented in baptism.

1st, The objects represented in baptism are facts, doctrines, duties, privileges. For the present I speak of privileges, and shall attempt to prove that the privileges represented are saving. Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The privilege here is salvation. This privilege is received by faith, and the reception is represented by baptism. Acts 2:37; Acts 2:41, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, 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. — Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." Acts 22:16, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Peter tells his hearers, and Ananias tells Paul, that remission of sins is exhibited in baptism. But remission of sins is a saving benefit. Rom 8:30, “Whom he justified, them he also glorified." Adoption is received by faith, and represented in baptism. Gal 3:26-27, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Sanctification is exhibited in baptism. Tit 3:6, “According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Regeneration is saving, and is represented in baptism. 1Pe 3:21, “Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh), but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Christ."

These, and many other Scriptures, prove the truth of our first assertion, that baptism exhibits saving benefits, and represents the believer’s participation of these benefits. It, therefore, differs from circumcision, to which multitudes were entitled, without partaking of any spiritual blessing. Salvation, on the contrary, is the infallible portion of every individual who has obtained precious faith in the righteousness of Christ; in other words, in the doctrine into which he is baptized. A hypocrite may be baptized and perish; but this does not affect the truth, that where the profession made in baptism is sincere, it is inseparably connected with the salvation which it represents. It is the profession of the believer’s faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of his being by his resurrection begotten to a lively hope of an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth not away. Nothing external can secure salvation. The kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost: it is within us. But baptism is the appointed means of putting on Christ; of assuming his livery; of going forth to him without the gate; the sign of our having begun to look for a better country beyond the grave — even an heavenly. The design of the ordinance, therefore, viz. to represent the personal interest of the baptized in the salvation of Christ, must prevent its being administered to infants. But ought not infants, for the same reason, to have been kept from circumcision? I answer, no. The design of circumcision was totally different from the design of baptism. Circumcision, except in the case of Abraham, was never designed to represent saving benefits as the privilege of the circumcised. It was the token of the covenant with Abraham that Christ should spring from his loins, and that the promise in all its parts should be fulfilled in the salvation of those who possessed the faith of Abraham. Rom 4:11, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." The rite represented no saving benefit to the infant. The infant’s body was like the canvass on which the truths were painted. The sign was calculated to remind the spectator, and the circumcised himself, when capable of observing it, of all the precious promises of the covenant, and particularly of the history of the patriarch, as the pattern of faith and hope. As soon as the circumcised believed, he might, by the sign, be confirmed in his hope of salvation. Till then he could have no such assurance. Circumcision was not a sign of righteousness by descent; it was a sign of righteousness by faith. As to what chiefly concerns us, I said that the infant’s body was merely the canvass, on which the truths of the Gospel were drawn. Circumcision answered this purpose on whomsoever the operation was performed. The correctness of these statements appears from the facts. By the commandment of God, circumcision was administered to Ishmael as well as to Isaac; to the sons of Keturah, whatever was their moral character; to male Israelites and proselytes, believing and unbelieving, without distinction. In every instance, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, by which Abraham was justified in uncircumcision. Hence we may see that in no instance, with the exception of Abraham, did it represent saving benefits as the privilege of the circumcised, as baptism does to every baptized believer. If I have made myself understood; the reason is plain why infants might be circumcised under the law, whilst they may not be baptized under the Gospel Dispensation.