12. Lecture XI; Concluding Presumptions

LECTURE XI.

CONCLUDING PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. A ninth presumption against infant-baptism, arises from the greater certainty of believer-baptism.

Supposing, for a moment, that it were doubtful whether infants ought or ought not to be baptized, yet, even on this supposition, believer-baptism would be our duty. It is an established rule, in all doubtful cases, to take the safer side. Let the following things be considered, and it will appear that it is more safe to practice believer-baptism than infant-sprinkling.

1st, We must be baptized. This position needs no proof; it is confirmed by doctrines, examples, and precepts. Rom 10:9, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Of this profession, baptism is the symbol. John 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

2nd, The same subject cannot be baptized in more ways than one. Suppose a parent in deliberation whether his child is to be baptized on his descent or on his faith, it would immediately occur to him that the one of these practices excludes the other; whichever he prefers, the other is rejected. The doctrine of the Scriptures on this head seems to be admitted by all. Baptism is not to be repeated. It is because infant baptism is a nullity, that believers are immersed on their faith.

3rd, The evidence for infant sprinkling is confessedly doubtful; there is neither precept nor example in support of the practice. It must be allowed that the inferences adduced in its support are all questionable. There is not one of these inferences which has not, by one or other of its ablest abettors, been rejected as inconclusive. Many observe the ceremony without scruple, and possibly with great confidence, but in these cases, it is generally known, that the subject has not been examined. Whoever pleases may make the experiment. Let him name his reason for adopting the practice, he will find that his plea has been rejected by some of the friends of sprinkling. Ingenuity has been questioned on the rack; her answers are exhausted.

4th, The evidence for believer-baptism is unexceptionable: it has never been rejected by any who did not reject the ordinance itself. The baptized assert, and the abettors of sprinkling deny, that whether sprinkled in infancy or not, every one, after believing, ought to be baptized: but neither deny, that adults not sprinkled in infancy, ought to be sprinkled or baptized. All missionaries baptize or sprinkle their adult converts, — so satisfactory is the evidence for believer-baptism. The deliberation is now brought to an issue. If my child shall be baptized on his faith, his baptism is scriptural and valid: if I shall sprinkle him on account of his descent, the case is very different. The reality of his baptism, as well as the morality of my own deed, must at best remain doubtful. The safer side is to postpone this questionable ceremony. It need hardly be mentioned, that these conclusions affect the man baptized in infancy as much as the parent. If infant baptism be questionable (may he say), my own baptism is questionable: respecting the validity of believer-baptism there can be no doubt; and there can be as little that I must make sure of being baptized. I must choose the safer side; and if I am a believer, it is my duty to be baptized.

Another presumption against infant-sprinkling, arises from the inspired description of the members of the New Dispensation. The members of the New Dispensation are particularly described, both in the Old Testament and in the New. I shall give two or three of these descriptions from the New Testament. John 3:3 — 5, "Jesus answered and said unto Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It is generally allowed, that by the new birth, regeneration is understood. In the context, our Lord describes this change by the first actings of the new nature, viz. believing the record of God respecting Ins Son. Ver. 16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The words are parallel to Mark 16:16, "Go preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It deserves particular notice, that regeneration evidencing itself in faith, stands opposed to natural descent. Ver. 6, 7, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." Our Lord is evidently speaking of the subjects of the Gospel Dispensation. He describes them positively. They are born of the Spirit: they give evidence of the change, by believing and professing the faith. He describes them negatively: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Both directly and indirectly, infants are excluded. In this respect, the kingdom of heaven differs from the Old Dispensation. In the latter, men enjoyed all the privileges of the national covenant by birth; in the former, those privileges are limited to those who are born again. The subjects of the New Dispensation are described in terms both negative and positive. They are all taught of God, from the least to the greatest. We have a third description of the subjects of the Gospel Dispensation in the preaching of John the Baptist, as recorded in Mat 3:8. He is evidently referring to the last chapter of Malachi; and, comparing the words of the Prophet with the words of the Baptist, we have another description of the visible subjects of the Gospel Dispensation. “They must bring forth fruits becoming repentance." These descriptions necessarily exclude infants. “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father." The transaction recorded Mat 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luk 18:15, in no way opposes this doctrine. The words are these: — “And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, 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, shall in no wise enter therein." The words, “of such is the kingdom of God,’ may be referred either to the persons, or to the character of these infants. If we refer the words to the character of the children, the meaning will be this: — The subjects of the kingdom of heaven are, like these little children, humble and teachable. It was the manner of our Lord to seize such opportunities of conveying instruction: and the context favours this exposition. Luk 18:17 : “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." If we refer the words, “of such is the kingdom of God," to the persons of these infants, the meaning will be this: — Infants, like these, shall go to heaven. Taken in this sense, they do not warrant the admission of infants to baptism or the supper. They intimate no more than the fact, that infants are saved. Infants may belong to the kingdom of God, though they are neither admitted to baptism nor to the supper. These infants were not brought to be baptized. “And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them." They were not baptized. "And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence," Mark 10:16. Whether they were, or were not, the children of believers, we are not told; nor are we told by whom they were brought. Not a word is spoken of infant baptism or sprinkling, though the opportunity was most favorable. We conclude, therefore, that this transaction furnishes no exception to the general rule; and as the inspired descriptions of the members of the New Dispensation are inapplicable to infants, the presumption is, that infants cannot be admitted to baptism or the supper. The inutility of infant baptism furnishes another presumption against it.

Infant sprinkling is useless: it is useless to infants, and all others. Though we could discover no advantage attending it, either to infants, parents, or others, yet would it be our duty to practice it, if thereby God were glorified. Obedience is, but will-worship is not honorable to God. Col 2:20, “Why are ye subject to ordinances, — after the commandments and doctrines of men?" It is useless to infants; they cannot enjoy any advantage communicated through the exercise of the mind, being incapable of mental operation. The only good which they can be supposed to derive from sprinkling, is that ascribed to baptism by Papists and others, viz. regenerating grace. Their natures might, no doubt, be sanctified as well at baptism as at death. But if two things be considered, all must be satisfied that baptismal regeneration is a fiction.

Consider, first, the perpetuity of grace; and, secondly, the hopeless death of many or most of those sprinkled in infancy. They die without grace. Grace, therefore, they never had; that is, they were not regenerated in baptism. Now, there is no other conceivable good which infants are capable of deriving from baptism or sprinkling. I said that it is also useless to parents, and to all others. But this must be proved; for it has been asserted that the utility of infant sprinkling is obvious; that it illustrates certain doctrines; and that, to parents in particular, it confirms the promises made in the Scriptures to themselves and to their children. This assertion is plausible, but fallacious. To detect the fallacy, it must be observed, that the design, as well as the institution of ordinances, must be learned from revelation. I am no more at liberty to assign to an ordinance an unscriptural use, than I am to use a ceremony which God has not instituted. By misapplication to unwarranted ends, an ordinance of God is profaned. The Bible itself is profaned when applied to superstitious purposes. Let it be observed, that nowhere in the Scripture is baptism represented as the symbol of the doctrines specified, nor once used to confirm promises either to parents or children. All the uses assigned to infant baptism are the creatures of imagination. Not a single text has been, or can be, produced in support of them. All sober Christians justly reprobate the practice of taking direction or comfort from texts of Scripture perverted or misapplied. For’ the same reason must the judicious inquirer reprobate as enthusiastical the idea of deriving instruction or comfort from the unsanctioned practice of infant baptism. Thus, in every view of the subject, infant baptism is useless. Now, it will require but little attention to be convinced that the ordinances of God are of a very different character. Every doctrine, every precept, every ordinance of God, is useful. The doctrines of Scripture are doctrines according to godliness. “More to be desired are the statutes of the Lord than gold, yea, than much fine gold." The ordinances are means of grace. Few need to be told the Scriptural use of preaching or reading, of praying or communicating. In a word, what is said of the Scriptures collectively, is in its measure true of every part of their contents. 2Ti 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This is obviously true of believer-baptism: its uses are revealed, and often enforced.

Compare, now, what we have heard of divine ordinances, with what has been proved of infant baptism, and the presumption against its divine origin strikingly appears. Of every one of the ordinances of God, the scriptural use can be stated: — on the use of infant baptism the Scriptures are totally silent. In observing the former, God is honored and obeyed; the latter is will-worship. The appointments of the one are suited to the faculties of the worshippers; the mental faculties of unconscious infants are incapable of exercise. All the ordinances of God are calculated for edification. Infant baptism is equally useless to infants, to parents, to him who administers, and to those who witness the ceremony. The presumption is confirmed; infant baptism is useless, and consequently not an ordinance of God.

Another presumption against infant baptism is suggested by the design of baptism. The design of baptism, though deeply interesting, has never been exhibited according to its importance. My present object requires not a full statement of that design: some of its parts come afterwards to be noticed; its general design must at present be opened; because taking the revelation of its history as we have it, that general design affords a presumption against infant baptism. What, then, is the general design of baptism? A. Baptism is designed to represent the truth as applied to, and as received by the baptized. It is designed to distinguish the recipient of the truth from such as never heard it, or who heard it without receiving it. Christ’s commission to his apostles, Mat 28:1-20 gives a statement of the general design of baptism. The words are, “Baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Into, not in, is the literal translation of the word which is obviously intended to explain the general design of baptism? The words, 1Co 11:24, “Do this in remembrance of me," explain the design of the Lord’s Supper. I naturally expect to find a similar statement of the design of baptism, in the institution of that ordinance. Translate the words, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the expectation is answered. The disciple is baptized into the name, that is, into the faith, respecting the different persons of the Trinity. The ordinance is designed to represent the truth respecting the Trinity, that is, the saving truth, and all other revealed truth in connection with it, as actually received by the believer, together with his interest in all the blessed consequences of his faith. It is taken for granted, that the person baptized believes the Gospel. Baptism is the profession of his faith, his hope in the promises made to believers, the ground of that hope, and his purpose of living according to the Gospel. I need hardly add, that the authority by which baptism is administered is implied. But that authority is but a part of the truth that is intimated. The words of the commission clearly intimate the design of the ordinance. The following Scriptures illustrate the same truth,— Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12. Such is the general design of baptism. Allow me now to ask whether infants be capable of answering this design? Need any be told that they are equally incapable of the perception and reception of the truth. And, let me ask farther, whether infants can be baptized, when it must be allowed that they cannot answer the design of the ordinance? Personal profession of the truth is essential to baptism. Where the truth is not professed, there can be no baptism; for the very design of the ordinance is to represent the reception of the truth. This design of baptism is recognized by Pedo-baptists the most cautious and learned.

Let me ask, On what principle are infants excluded from the Lord’s Supper, and the arguments for their admission repelled? The reply must be, Infants cannot answer the design of the Supper, “do this in remembrance of me;" and must therefore be excluded; notwithstanding their admission to the passover, and notwithstanding their admission, by many professing Christians, to the Lord’s table. The reason of rejection is valid, but not more so than the reason of refusing to baptize infants. The truth cannot be professed by them; they cannot answer the design of the ordinance. The presumption, therefore, remains valid; the design of baptism precludes the baptism of infants. If we pass from the general design of baptism, and attend to particulars, the truth will be still more apparent. Various examples shall be produced; at present, I select regeneration. A presumption against infant baptism arises from the impossibility of ascertaining the regeneration of infants. One special design of baptism is to represent the regeneration of the baptized; Tit 3:5, Eph 5:26. All infants are not regenerated; multitudes live and die in impenitence. Final impenitence is inconsistent with regeneration. Wherever the good work is begun, there God will perfect it till the day of Christ. Whether baptized or not, the finally impenitent were never regenerated. In the case of infants, it is impossible to ascertain who are and who are not regenerated. Thus the presumption against infant baptism appears. The operation says that the baptized person is regenerated; the facts prove that he is not regenerated. A falsehood has been exhibited, but the exhibition of falsehood can never be required by the God of truth. I know of nothing that can, with the show of reason, be objected to this presumption.

It may be said that the unregenerated were circumcised by the command of God. It is true; but the fact proves that circumcision was never designed, like baptism, to represent the regeneration of its subjects. It may be said that hypocrites are baptized. It is answered, God commands men to be baptized on a credible profession of their faith; but God has nowhere commanded hypocrites to be baptized. On the contrary, their baptism is prohibited. Had a command been given to baptize hypocrites, it would signify that hypocrites are regenerated, which is absurd. Were it commanded to baptize infants, the ordinance would indicate that baptized infants were regenerated, which is contrary to fact. Such assertions cannot hang together without an impeachment of the Divine wisdom, truth, and consistency. It is therefore as certain that infants cannot be baptized, as it is certain that God has appointed baptism to represent the regeneration of the baptized.

Another presumption against infant baptism arises from the unity of Christian baptism. The Scriptures speak of one baptism exclusively; Eph 4:4. “There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all." In the same sense in which there is but one Lord and one God, there is but one baptism. Such is the doctrine of Scripture as to the unity of this ordinance. Admit, however, infant baptism, and we have more baptisms than one.

Infant baptism, supposing it to be an ordinance, would be an ordinance totally different from the baptism of the adult believer. Believer-baptism requires duties, antecedent, concomitant, and consequent to the ordinance. Infant sprinkling rejects all duties, for infants can perform none. In believer-baptism, (excepting our union with Christ and its consequences), there is nothing relative. In infant sprinkling, everything is relative; nothing is personal. Believer baptism, in all ordinary cases, is connected with the communion of saints; infant sprinkling in consistency requires, but in truth rejects it.

Believer-baptism is a symbol happily expressive of the great truths which baptism is designed to exhibit. Infant baptism is, as to the design of baptism, totally unmeaning. In one word, these two operations agree in nothing except that the element of water is used in both. Thus it is plain that infant baptism introduces two initiatory ordinances; it is equally plain that the Scriptures recognise one baptism, exclusive of every other. Hence it clearly follows that infant baptism is a human invention; it is not one of the ordinances of Christianity.

Before concluding the presumptions against infant sprinkling, it may be useful to notice, that Christ’s ordinances must be observed. Whether I have been sprinkled in infancy or not, it is my duty to be immersed after I have believed. If Christ has ordained an institute, it must be observed, because Christ has ordained it; and as the manner of observing the institute, as well as the institute itself, is of God, it must not only be observed, but observed likewise in the manner prescribed, 1Co 11:2, — “Now 1 praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you;" 2Th 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." Believer-baptism is one of these ordinances, and therefore must be observed. Were it not for infant sprinkling, this would not be questioned. But the obligation to obedience remains, and infant sprinkling cannot supersede it. This assertion will perhaps be denied. Many assign their having been sprinkled in infancy as their reason for not attending to baptism after believing. The reason, however, is not valid. Though I have been sprinkled in infancy, it is my duty, on believing, to be immersed. This assertion is interesting to not a few, and the history of the Acts of the Apostles puts its truth beyond a doubt. The Apostles baptized every adult convert, whether Jew or Gentile. Now, supposing circumcision to be baptism, and baptism circumcision, or, in other words, that the one comes in place of the other, every Jewish convert was twice baptized — his circumcision-baptism did not supersede his believer-baptism. The case must be the same still. If infant sprinkling came in the room of circumcision, the man sprinkled in infancy is in the same condition as the man circumcised in infancy. If the one were baptized after believing, so must the other. Believer-baptism is no more superseded by infant sprinkling than it was by infant circumcision.

Leave, however, these groundless suppositions, and all uncertainty vanishes. Infant sprinkling is not revealed: believer-baptism is plainly revealed. The question is practical. Am I to neglect what is incontestibly my duty on account of what cannot be proved to be a duty at all?

Thus, whether infant sprinkling succeed to circumcision or not, it cannot supersede baptism after believing.