07. Lecture V; Positive Proof Essential

LECTURE V.

POSITIVE PROOF ESSENTIAL TO WORSHIP IN BAPTISM.

Position IV. Proof in some degree positive is essential to worship in Baptism.

Before I can take part in baptizing an infant, either as administrator or sponsor, I must he satisfied that the action is positively required, and not that, peradventure, it may be my duty. We have been so long accustomed to hear infant baptism defended by certain arguments, that we are apt to believe that there may be something in them, although we cannot tell what. On this undefined feeling, without further evidence, many take part in the practice, and decline being themselves baptized. They reason thus:— Although I cannot find them, there may be examples of infant baptism; and, although I am not satisfied with the arguments for the practice, there may be something in them; I feel I know not what suspicion, that the Baptists may be wrong; for the present, I will delay my own baptism; and as to my child, I will proceed as usual." Now, if our position be true, this apology is inadmissible, and the conduct founded on it is wrong. In proof that evidence in some degree positive, is essential to worship in baptism, I observe, first, that the formula commonly used runs in positive terms; and without some degree of positive evidence, I cannot conscientiously use it. The words of the formula are “I baptize thee in the name," which means, amongst other things, I baptize thee by the commandment of God. The words are not — I baptize thee, perhaps or it may be, by the command of God. The words mean, that there is a command for baptizing infants; that I know that there is such a command; .and that I act on the positive knowledge that there is. Now, unless there be such a command, and unless it consist with my knowledge that there is, I cannot conscientiously act under the formula. I prevaricate, when I intimate that I know it, when I only imagine that possibly there may be such a command. Suppose that a prisoner is indicted for murder, committed at such a time, in such a place; suppose that a witness depones, that the pannel committed the deed, at the time and in the place indicted; suppose, farther, on cross-examination, he admits that he cannot positively say whether the pannel was in the place at the time; or that he committed the deed; hut that his (the deponent’s) mind was impressed, he could not well tell how, that the prisoner might be in the place, at the time indicted, and that, perhaps, he committed the murder. In a case like this, few need to be told, that the counsel for the pannel would not fail to remind the jury that this witness had prevaricated on oath. Most assuredly neither judge nor jury would pay the least attention to his evidence.

I use the example, not to measure the degree of criminality, but to illustrate and establish the fact, that the man prevaricates — whether as administrator or sponsor, who, without some degree of positive proof, takes part in baptizing a child in the name of the Trinity.

2d, Proof in some degree positive is essential, because faith is essential to worship in baptism. The necessity of faith in every part of worship is often and plainly asserted. “Without faith it is impossible to please God." “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." The necessity of positive evidence to faith may, without difficulty, be evinced. Rom 10:17, “Faith cometh — by the word of God." Unless a fact be revealed, and I know that it is revealed, 1 cannot believe it. I do not believe, if I suppose only that perhaps it is revealed. "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the re warder of them that diligently seek him." The acceptable worshipper must be persuaded, not that there may be a God, but that there is a God: not that perhaps he may, but that he will, reward them who diligently seek him. He that believes that Jesus is the Christ — not he that supposes that perhaps Jesus is the Christ — shall be saved. Apply these things to infant baptism. If it be not practised in faith, it is sin. To faith, two things are required — 1st, that it be revealed in the Scriptures; and, 2d, that I know that it is revealed. As yet I inquire not whether it be or be not revealed, — but suppose, either that it is not revealed, or that 1 do not know that it is, — it cannot be practised in faith. If I imagine merely that peradventure it may be revealed, this is not faith; and there fore during this uncertainty of mind, I cannot with a good conscience take any part in the practice, either as administrator or sponsor. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; and he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

3d, Proof in some degree positive is essential in baptism, because without such proof our service would be will-worship. We are guilty of will worship when we worship without a warrant from Scripture. Isa 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." To worship without a warrant, without evidence, and without certainty, are sins of the same kind; if they differ, they differ only in degree: the guilt of will-worship more or less attaches to them all. To worship without knowing the warrant is, as to the worshipper, as though no warrant existed; and to act in uncertainty, is to act on a peradventure that there may be no warrant. What may be, may also not be; to act, therefore, under uncertainty whether I have or have not a warrant for my conduct, is to act under uncertainty whether I am or am not contracting the guilt of will-worship; that is, I do in some degree contract that guilt.

Suppose that an apothecary kills a patient by selling him poison instead of medicine; suppose it proved on his trial that the apothecary knew the drug to be poison, he would be guilty of death; he had murdered his patient. Supposing it proved that he sold the poison, suspecting it might be poison, a question might arise among the jurors respecting the designation of his crime — whether he should be found guilty of murder, or of culpable homicide. But, whatever name they may give to his crime, acquit him they could not: he had criminally taken away the life of his patient.

If, under a conviction that I have no Scripture warrant for my conduct, I take part in baptizing a child, I contract the guilt of will-worship, in all its malignity: if I act under a conviction that, for any thing 1 know, it may be will-worship, the degree may be less, but my sin is the same in kind — still I am guilty of will worship.

We are now prepared to state and answer the practical question, — May I, in the circumstances supposed, without some degree of positive assurance that it is required of me, take part in baptizing or sprinkling my child? I may not; in the fear of God I cannot proceed. The doctrine of Scripture here is plain and often repeated. Mat 15:7, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mat 23:8, "Be not ye called rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Col 2:20; Col 2:22, “Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances — after the commandments and doctrines of men?"

4th, Evidence, in some degree positive or real, is essential to worship in baptism, because, acting without this kind of evidence, I am guilty of offending my brother. To offend, is to tempt to sin. Offences are given in many ways. In the case before us, I give offence, when I tempt another to perform an action, of the lawfulness of which he is not fully satisfied. A good conscience requires that, in his own mind, the agent have no doubt of the lawfulness of his conduct. Some Gentile converts questioned the lawfulness of eating things offered to idols: some Jewish converts questioned the propriety of eating meats forbidden by Moses; for such to eat — notwithstanding their scruples — was to sin, perhaps to destruction. To tempt them to eat, was to offend them: it was to lay a stumblingblock in their way, over which they might fall into sin and perdition. The doctrine before us is both illustrated and proved by these plain and pointed references. If my evidence of infant baptism does not exceed a “peradventure," a "may be" that it is lawful, I cannot but doubt; and he that doubteth is condemned. If my brother imitate my practice, that is, if he act, whilst he has scruples about the lawfulness of his conduct, he falls under the same condemnation. I, in the meantime, am doubly guilty; I am self condemned, because I doubt the lawfulness of my own procedure — I offend my brother, and make his guilt and danger my own. The language of Scripture on this subject is peculiarly striking. 1Co 8:9-13, “But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died 1 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Rom 14:13, “Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way. Ver. 14, To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Ver. 20, For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak," &c. Mat 18:7, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh."

Here, before we proceed farther, it may be proper to apply the remarks already made. Every one knows, or may know, the grounds and character of his own convictions; and according to them, he ought to continue, or decline to take part, in baptizing or sprinkling infants. Conduct, in every man of principle, must be determined by the dictates of his conscience." If he find that the practice is groundless, he must renounce it, for the same reason that human authority must be renounced in other matters of religion. If he have doubts, he cannot proceed, for he that doubteth is condemned. If he be conscious that his convictions do not rise above a peradventure, or may be, his practice cannot be of faith, and whatever is not of faith is sin.

There are two other classes of professors who should here be addressed. The first of these float on the tide of fashion: they have never inquired, and have no intention of inquiring, after truth. These may have no doubts, but they can have no faith. In words, perhaps, they call no man master, but — knowing no warrant for it — their practice is willworship. They may not intend either to profane the name of God, or offend their brethren; yet they do both. They abuse the common formula, and by their inconsiderate conduct tempt others to imitate their profanity. The}’ shut their eyes against the light, and their cars against the voice of God in the Scriptures calling them to inquire. They have already reached the borders of presumptuous sinning; before they pass them, it is their interest to pause. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The class which comes next to be considered, consists of those who really believe in the doctrine of infant baptism. It is a fact, that error or mistake may be as confidently credited and defended as truth. Transubstantiation was introduced into the Church in the thirteenth century; for six hundred years it has formed an article in the Romish creed. Protestants have often, and unanswerably, proved it to be idolatrous and absurd. The priests, however, have all along defended the absurdity, and the people have approved of their sophistry. Light and learning have greatly increased, yet transubstantiation continues the disgrace of the reason and consciences of men. Amidst all the improvements of the nineteenth century, the monstrous tenet is, throughout the wide extent of the Papacy, defended and believed with unabating confidence. This is a mortifying but instructive fact. Infant baptism has been defended by men who professed to believe it. Multitudes have been, and still are, misled by their apparent sincerity; but neither the reasonings of men, however confidently urged, nor their belief, however sincere, are the rule of our conduct. Confident assertions have been mistaken for evidence; but our appeal must be to the Scriptures of Truth. Notwithstanding the numbers, and the confidence with which they have been defended, transubstantiation and infant baptism may both be corruptions of Christianity. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The fact that error is often believed with confidence, is equally instructive to believers in infant baptism and transubstantiation. Was pedo-baptism silently and gradually introduced into the Church? so comparatively was transubstantiation. Is pedo-baptism of great antiquity? transubstantiation has preveiled for 600 years. Has pedo-baptism been supported by learning? so has transubstantiation. Has sprinkling been defended with plausibility? the words, “this is my body," applied to the bread, give a plea to the Papists more plausible than any that has yet been urged in defence of infant baptism. Has infant baptism hitherto survived the attacks of its opponents? transubstantiation exists, notwithstanding all the labors of the Reformed. Are Pedo-baptists confident in their cause? so are the Papists. Do Pedo-baptists exult in their numbers? so do the abettors of transubstantiation. The parallel proceeds; but I follow it no farther than to its application. What is the duty of the Papist as to transubstantiation? I answer, — The same as the duty of the believer in infant baptism. Both the one and the other ought by the Scriptures to examine the grounds of his confidence. “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth."

Before concluding, it may be useful to exemplify the more particular application of our position.

It has been disputed on whom lies what logicians call the onus in’oband1:The onus probandi, that is, the labor of finding warrant for our practice, lies on the man who practises infant baptism. Every Pedo-baptist, if he would act in the fear of God, must furnish himself with satisfactory evidence that God requires it at his hands. By satisfactory, I understand what has been proved; not that for any thing he knows, it may be so, but that, from Scripture, he is convinced in his own conscience that infant baptism is an ordinance of God. That we may more clearly see how to apply this position to practice, I shall take a case of common occurrence. The inquirer has an infant: he deliberates whether it be his duty to have it baptized, or to delay baptism until the gospel be credibly professed; he will, and perhaps not improperly, have recourse to the arguments for sprinkling. A hint to such may be useful. In perusing every particular argument, mark down all the Scriptures offered in proof; lay aside your author. Examine the proof scriptures, in the Bible itself, in their connection. After prayer and consideration, judge, as you must answer at last, whether these Scriptures, in the connection in which they stand in the Bible, satisfy your conscience that God requires you to baptize or sprinkle your child. In looking into the fire, or at the clouds, you sometimes observe something like figures — birds, beasts, men, and the like. These figures, every one knows, are the effect of imagination working on certain appearances in the clouds or the fire; in a short time the appearances cease to exist. Texts, taken out of their connection in the Bible, and stuck into a well-wrought argument, may assume the appearance of evidence. Look at them in their connection in the Bible; and the evidence, like figures in the fire or the clouds, will speedily vanish. For a man, wishing to practise on his understanding, I know few rules more, efficacious than never to look at the text adduced in proof, in the Bible, but always in some book that pleads for the favoured practice. The candid inquirer will follow a different course; he will examine the texts as they stand in the scriptures; and until he find, to the satisfaction of his conscience, that it is an ordinance of God, he will take no part, directly or indirectly, in the practice of baptizing or sprinkling infants.