01.08 - Lecture 8
LECTURE VIII. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM continued.
WE have seen that, under the Old Testament Economy, infants were, by Divine appointment, recognised as members of the visible Church, and received the sign and seal of the Covenant on which the Church was based. We have seen that our Lord not only did not set aside this Divine arrangement which had been in existence nearly two thousand years before He came, but that He, in the most positive and significant fashion, put upon it the stamp of His approval, and confirmed it in perpetuity. We have seen that, in all essential particulars, the New Testament Church is the same as the Old Testament Church, and is, therefore, constituted in the same way, consisting, in its visible form, of all those who profess the true religion and their children. And inasmuch as Baptism is admittedly the ordinance in which membership in the visible Church is visibly recognised, we are compelled to the conclusion that the infant children of Church members ought to be baptized. The question of Baptism is determined by the question of Church-membership, and the question of Church-membership is decided in favour of the infants concerned. We do not need to find in the New Testament a special positive Divine enactment authorizing the Baptism of infants. We do not need to find in the New Testament a special positive Divine enactment constituting the infant children of professing believers members of the visible Church, although, as we have seen, the words of our Lord in this connection are explicit and conclusive. We find in the Old Testament a special positive Divine enactment constituting the infant children of professing believers members of the visible Church, and that enactment must stand until it is repealed or set aside, not by Baptist assumption or Baptist assertion, but by Divine authority. We are not prepared to treat the Old Testament as a dead letter.
We are not prepared to repudiate, for a purpose, any part of the Word of God. We are not prepared to give way to the exclusive mania that not only excludes pouring and sprinkling as lawful modes of Baptism, that not only excludes infants from membership and status in the Church, but which also excludes the evidence the relevant evidence which the Old Testament offers in this case, and without which the case cannot be rightly issued. The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is our rule of faith and practice, and the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, must be allowed to decide this question as to the Subjects of Baptism, and every other question that concerns the doctrine, government, and worship of the Church.
BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION.
It is to be noted that, while the Church has preserved its identity all through, certain changes in the direction of freedom and enlargement came into force at the inception of the New Dispensation. When a minor comes to be of full age he is freed from the restrictions peculiar to minority, and enters upon the inheritance that awaits him, with liberty of possession, enjoyment and use, but his identity continues. And so, when the Church of God ceased to be in a state of minority, it was relieved of many of the restrictions of the past, and succeeded to the full inheritance of privilege and blessing that awaited it in the Divine purpose, but it continued to be the same Church all the time. As we have already indicated, the recognition rite of Circumcision was displaced by there cognition rite of Baptism. This is evident from the terms of the Commission (Matthew 28:19), in which Baptism is enjoined in connection with the making of disciples. Under the Old Dispensation disciples or proselytes were circumcised. Under the New Dispensation they are baptized. It took the early Christians some time to realize that Circumcision had been set aside by Baptism, but the question was authoritatively decided, as we learn from Acts 15:1-41, by the Council of Jerusalem. For reasons of expediency, however, Circumcision was allowed to continue for a time side by side with Baptism in the Jewish section of the New Testament Church, just as in that section of the Church the observance of the seventh day as Sabbath was allowed to continue for a time side by side with the keeping of the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day.
Further evidence as to the substitution of Baptism for Circumcision is to be found in the fact that both rites had the same spiritual significance. Each of them was a symbol of purification. In Colossians 2:11,
It is abundantly clear that Baptism has come in the room of Circumcision. As was to be expected the new rite is in keeping with the character of the New Dispensation. Unlike Circumcision, it is not restricted in its administration to a particular day and to one sex, just as the Lord’s Supper is not restricted, in its observance, to a particular time and to one sex. In both cases the change is in the direction of a more advanced state, a more enlightened age, and a more progressive spirit.
I know that our Baptist friends take exception to the statement that Baptism has come in the place of Circumcision. They hold that literal Circumcision has been replaced by the Circumcision made without hands. At least that is the view of the Rev. F. B. Meyer. 1 But that contention cannot be sustained, because the Circumcision made with out hands is not peculiar to the New Dispensation.
It existed, in many cases, side by side with literal Circumcision under the Old Dispensation. Then, as now, the sign and the thing signified were, if not always, at least sometimes united in the same person. As we saw in a previous lecture, the Circumcision of the heart is frequently spoken of in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 10:10, Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4). The inward and the outward 1 Seven Reasons Believers Baptism, p. 16.
Circumcision co-existed, if not always in the same person, at least under the same Dispensation, just as the inward and the outward Baptism co-exist, if not always in the same person, at least under the same Dispensation. The in ward and spiritual grace did not take the place of the outward and visible sign. Under the New Dispensation the grace continued to have its own place, only that it became fuller and deeper and more general and more dominant, but the corresponding sign was changed that it might the better correspond with the spiritual enlargement of which it was to be the symbol. The grace did not take the place of the sign under the New Dispensation any more than it did under the Old Dispensation. The new grace took the place of the grace that was less copious, and the new sign took the place of the sign that was less comprehensive. In other words, Baptism took the place of Circumcision. It is quite evident that if the place of Circumcision was to be taken by something else, it must have been taken by Baptism, for there was nothing else avail able and appropriate for the purpose. A FALSE ANALOGY. The Baptists sometimes try to score a point here on the ground of analogy. They point out that as natural birth preceded Circumcision, so spiritual birth should precede Baptism; that as the Jews were born into the privileges they enjoyed under the Old Dispensation, so Christians are born again into the privileges they enjoy under the New Dispensation; that as in the olden days men were born into the commonwealth of Israel, so in these days men are born again into the Church of God. But the analogy is fallacious and false. It puts spiritual birth and water Baptism on the same plane, which is obviously inadmissible. It confounds two things that differ, viz, the Church visible and the Church invisible. It is true that the Jew was born in the visible Church, and that his Church status was recognised in the rite of Circumcision. But it is not true that he was born into the invisible Church. To that end a higher birth and a higher Circumcision were necessary. And it is true that men are born again into the invisible Church, but it is not always true that men are born again before they enter the visible Church, even when that Church bears the Baptist name. You cannot secure that regeneration shall precede water Baptism. The analogy to be correct should be put in this form: As natural birth preceded Circumcision, so spiritual birth should precede spiritual Baptism or the Baptism of the Spirit. Of course it does not, in that form, avail anything against our position, as it leaves water Baptism out of account altogether. Our view is that the children of God’s professing people are born in the visible Church now, and so are entitled to the recognition rite of Baptism, just as the children of God’s professing people were born in the visible Church under the Old Economy, and so were entitled to the recognition rite of Circumcision, and that the true people of God enter the invisible Church now, through the birth and baptism of the Spirit, just as the true people of God entered the invisible Church in the olden time through the birth and Circumcision of the Spirit. In the face of that position the Baptist analogy, so-called, is absolutely destitute of point and pertinence.
CHILDREN CONTINUE IN THE CHURCH. So far we have found nothing to countenance the idea that the infants of Church members should be denied Church status and Church recognition, and we have found nothing that can be legitimately construed into a repeal of the law by which the infants of professing believers are in the membership of the visible Church, and have a right to the ordinance in which such member ship is visibly recognised. We continue to prose cute our inquiry into the teaching of the Word of God in reference to this matter that we may discover whether there is anything in Apostolic teaching or Apostolic practice that would modify the position which has been, so far, established by Scripture.
Let us go away back in thought to the day of Pentecost and imagine ourselves among the crowd of men that listened to Peter, and who heard him say: “ To you is the promise and to your children.” What meaning would these words convey to an audience of Jews who were accustomed to regard their children as embraced within the Covenant and as sharing in the Covenant promise? There is only one meaning that was possible to them in the circumstances, and that is that their children were bound up with themselves in the Covenant and in the privileges which the Covenant secured. Any other interpretation would have been quite out of line with Jewish thought, and would, in fact, have been unintelligible. “ To thee and to thy seed “ had one meaning, and only one throughout the whole history of the Jewish people, and that meaning was not set aside on the day of Pentecost, or for that matter on any other day. It has been suggested that the word “children” is to be understood here in the sense of “ descendants.” But even the sense “ descendants “ will not serve the purpose of our Baptist friends unless it be understood again in another sense, and in such a sense as to exclude infant descendants. In view of the historical situation it is impossible to construe the words of the Apostle in such a way as to leave the children of professedly believing parents out side the range of the Covenant promise and outside the pale of the visible Church. Tf the Apostles had been Baptists, and if they had told the hundreds and thousands of Jewish parents who accepted the Christian faith and entered the New Testament Church that, by a new arrangement, their little children could not participate in the status to which they had been raised, and could not be recognised as having a place in the society into which they had been received, I think it is certain that, at least some of these parents, with their Old Testament ideas about the children, would not have silently acquiesced in this new and revolutionary departure, which we are to suppose was an improvement on everything that had preceded it, and that some of them would have ventured to ask for a word of explanation. The fact that, so far as the record shows and a matter of such outstanding importance would not have been overlooked no such explanation was ever asked for or given is sufficient to prove that there was no occasion for it, and that no change adverse to the rights and interests of the children, such as the Baptists contend for, was ever suggested or contemplated in connection with the work of discipling the nations as it was done in the Apostolic age.
BAPTISM AND A PROFESSION OF FAITH. But then we are told that a profession of faith was made in connection with most, if not all, of the baptisms to which reference is made in the New Testament. Even so, we cannot allow the Baptists to take possession of these cases and appropriate them to their own use, as if they alone had any interest in them. We cannot admit that these cases stand out in opposition to our principles and our practice, and in support of Baptist principles and Baptist practice. There is not one of them that does not belong to us quite as much as to the Baptists. Even if all the baptisms referred to in the New Testament followed upon a personal profession of faith that circumstance would not, in the very least, make for the Baptist contention as opposed to the view which we hold, because we baptize professing believers as well as they. There is not a solitary case of Baptism in the New Testament that is inconsistent with our practice, and there is not a solitary case of Baptism in the New Testament that our Church would not have performed. Our missionaries to the Jews and the heathen act precisely as the Apostles acted. They baptize those who make a profession of faith, and, in their reports, they give most prominence to these adult baptisms. Of course they speak of the Baptism of children, but when they visit a district for the first time, and make some headway in the work of discipling, their first baptisms must, in the nature of the case, be baptisms of professing believers, and would be so described in an account of what they were enabled to do in that particular place. And it is to be remembered that the Book of Acts gives us an account of the beginnings of the Gospel at a great many different centres. The narrative moves quickly from place to place. It does not settle down to describe continuously and exhaustively what happened in the course of five or ten years in connection with a particular congregation. It is not to be wondered at that, in these circumstances, the New Testament record, in so far as it touches on Baptism, deals mainly with the Baptism of those who had come to years of discretion and were capable of making a personal profession of faith. We should not think it strange even if infants were altogether left out of account in the passing references that have been preserved in the scanty record of the Apostolic age. Of course, the very silence of the record in regard to infants is so far favourable to their continuance in the Church, for if they had not continued to be in the Church the silence would have been broken.
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. But there is at least some significance in the fact that Family baptisms were of frequent occurrence. There are twelve separate instances of Baptism given in the New Testament. In four of these cases the reference is to numbers of people, at Jerusalem (Acts 2:41), in Samaria (Acts 8:12), at Corinth (Acts 18:8), and at Ephesus (Acts 19:5). In three cases the reference is to individuals, the Ethiopian nobleman (Acts 8:38), Paul (Acts 9:18), and Gaius (1 Corinthians 1:14). Of the remaining five cases three at least were cases of Family Baptism, viz, those of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:15), of the jailer at Philippi and all his (Acts 16:33), and of the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:10. From the language that is used in describing the other two cases, viz, those of Cornelius (Acts 10:48, Acts 11:14-16) and Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:14), it is more than likely that in each of these cases also the household was baptized.
Thus it would appear that in almost every case, if not in every case, in which a household is mentioned, the whole household, as such, was baptized.
It may be noted that in two of the undoubted cases of Household Baptism, viz, those of Lydia and the jailer, it is not in evidence that any one except the head of the household believed. Lydia’s heart was “opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul,” but the record is silent regarding the other members of the household. The jailer “ rejoiced greatly with all his house, (he) having believed in God.” The Greek participle (having believed) is singular, and refers only to the jailer. Now I do not say that there was an infant in any one of these households. There may or may not have been. But it is somewhat significant, to say the least of it, that such a large proportion of the baptisms mentioned are Family baptisms. It shows us that Family Baptism was quite a common thing in the Apostolic Church.
Because it is evident that the instances given are only samples of what was taking place over the length and breadth of the field covered by the missionary labours of the Apostles and their helpers. It shows us, moreover and this is the important thing that the Old Testament practice of receiving whole households at a time into the visible Church was continued in the Apostolic age, and that the Old Testament principle of the solidarity of the family was recognised and applied, with Apostolic sanction and authority, in the execution of our Lord’s great Discipling Commission.
It may be said that if the Old Testament practice of receiving whole households into the visible Church is to be continued under the Gospel Dispensation, then servants and slaves should be baptized as well as the children. Certainly, if they make a profession of faith as was done in every case of the kind in Old Testament times, and as they might naturally be expected to do. Why not baptize them if they submit to the faith after the manner of those whom they serve, and if they continue to be in the household, and so constitute a part of the Church in the house? The fact is, Household Baptism was of frequent occurrence in the Apostolic age, and it is not of frequent occurrence in the Baptist communion.
Because it does not often happen that all the members of a household are of age to make a personal profession of faith, and, even, where that does happen, it is not often that all the members of such a household come under the influence of the truth at the same time, and are constrained to make a profession of faith at the same time, and so are eligible for Baptism at the same time. In the very nature of the case the Baptism of a whole household at the same time in connection with a Baptist mission must be a very unusual thing, so unusual as to indicate a glaring discrepancy between the practice of the Baptists and that of the Apostles. NO DISTINCTIVELY BAPTIST BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Baptists try to make what capital they can out of the fact that there is no specific reference in the New Testament to the Baptism of an infant. That seems, at first sight, to be a very formidable circumstance and a circumstance that is calculated to bring discredit and confusion upon all those who do not accept the Baptist gospel of exclusion. But it so happens that the Baptists themselves have to reckon with a circumstance that is still more formidable and still more confusing. The difficulty the Baptists have to face is this: that there is not only no specific reference in the New Testament, but no reference of any kind, explicit or implicit, to the Baptism of any one who was a professing believer in the sense that is distinctively Baptist. No doubt we have references to the Baptism of professing believers, but these are all professing believers that other Christian Churches would baptize as well as the Baptist Church. We cannot allow the Baptists to appropriate common property. We cannot allow them to take credit for New Testament baptisms that do not exemplify their distinctive principles as opposed to the distinctive principles of other Churches.
These New Testament baptisms are not exclusively Baptist baptisms. In fact, the Baptists have less claim upon them than other Churches, because of the number of household baptisms that are mentioned. But let us take it that these New Testament baptisms belong equally to all the Churches that baptize into the name of the Trinity. Then the boasted advantage of the Baptist as arising from these New Testament references disappears, and he is no better off than his neighbours.
Now, this fact once grasped, it will be seen that the Baptist has to deal with the difficulty that he is left without a solitary reference that supports his own peculiar view as opposed to the views of those who differ from him. He cannot put his finger on the case of a single person who, as an infant, was left unbaptized when his parents accepted the Christian faith and received Christian Baptism, and who, having come to years of discretion, was baptized on his own profession. There is no such case mentioned in the New Testament. And if the Baptist view is correct there must have been thousands of such cases during the sixty years or more covered by the record of the Apostolic age. But such a thing is never so much as hinted at, and therefore the distinctively Baptist principle is left without the support of a single New Testament reference. With the principles and practice of the Old Testament Church to our credit, and with the words of our Lord regarding the little children to our credit, and with the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant to our credit, and with the identity of the Church in all ages to our credit, we can afford to do without a specific reference to a case of Infant Baptism in the New Testament, and even to forego the credit that might reasonably accrue from the numerous Household baptisms to which reference is made. But the Baptist, without a solitary New Testament reference to give countenance to his peculiar view, and without a past in which he can find his distinctive principle in operation, and without a sentence in the whole Word of God on which he can found an inference favourable to his favourite tenet, is in a somewhat worse case. It would show a saner and more exact appreciation of the situation if our Baptist friends would not attempt to claim so much credit for themselves for references and examples that are not their exclusive property, and if they would not attempt to heap discredit on other people who cannot point to an example of Infant Baptism when they cannot them selves point to a single example of so - called “ Believers Baptism “ that supports their own distinctive view.