01.10 - Lecture 10

LECTURE X. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. concluded.

WE have dealt with the question as to the Subjects of Baptism, treating it, as we proposed, in accordance with the historical method. We have studied carefully every Scripture passage that can be taken as bearing immediately and directly upon this question at least we have not overlooked any passage that is supposed to favour the Baptist view as opposed to ours and we have ventured to supplement our somewhat exhaustive examination of Scripture teaching by a brief and cursory examination of the testimony of some of the early Fathers, not that we think Scripture needs to be supplemented by Church History, but that our Baptist friends are in the habit of claiming the two first centuries of the Christian era as entirely their own. We have seen that the distinctively Baptist position in relation to this question has no foundation whatever in the Word of God, and no foundation whatever in Church History until the Anabaptists arose in the sixteenth century, so that it is destitute not only of the supreme and sufficient sanction of Scripture, but also of the subordinate and insufficient sanction of antiquity. Of course it is understood that the practice of the Church in the first centuries of the Christian era is valuable, in this connection, only in so far as it sheds light on the practice of the Church in the Apostolic age.

Xo later age can speak with the note of authority in its voice, unless its deliverances are found to be in harmony with Apostolic precept and Apostolic practice. Thus we have shown that the Baptist arguments, for which it is sought to find a basis in Scripture, are inconclusive even when they appear to be most cogent, and that the Baptist objections, for which it is sought to find a basis in Scripture, are invalid even when they appear to be most forcible. Apart, however, from Scripture, there are a few considerations of somewhat secondary importance that our Baptist friends are in the habit of bringing forward with the view of creating difficulties for those who believe in the lawfulness of Infant Baptism. And as we have all along pursued the policy of examining every point that, by any stretch of imagination, could be sup posed to make for the Baptist contention, so we shall gladly extend to the remaining representations that are submitted in the Baptist interest the courtesy of a careful and candid consideration.

ADVANTAGES OF INFANT BAPTISM.

And, first of all, we are asked to explain what good is done by pouring a few drops of water on the face of an “ unconscious babe.” Of course if it were simply a matter of putting a few drops of water on a baby’s face, apart from every other consideration, the action might not have any particular significance and might not be followed by any particular advantage, just as the immersion of an adult in a tank, apart from every other consideration, might not have any particular significance, and might not be followed by any particular advantage. But when we remember that the child is the child of professedly believing parents who are in the membership of the Church; when we remember that these parents have come to dedicate their child to God in the presence of His people, and to pledge themselves to teach and to train him in the knowledge of Christian truth and in the way of Christian life; and when we remember that in Baptism the Church status of the child is publicly recognised, and that the ordinance itself is a sign and seal of Covenant blessings when we remember these things, we are in a position to realize that, in these circumstances, there may possibly be some advantage in the authoritative symbolical application of water to the child. If the question of benefit is to be considered we must look at the whole situation, and not disconnect the baptismal act from its surroundings. But this question as to the benefit of Infant Baptism is not quite relevant to the issue that every lover of the truth must wish to reach in connection with this subject. The only question that is to the point here is the question as to whether the practice of Infant Baptism has Divine sanction and appointment. If it has, we need not pursue our inquiry any further, because every ordinance of God is productive of benefit to all who participate in it, whether we can define the benefit or not. Indeed, in the very nature of the case, it is impossible for us to formulate all the advantages, or even the most important advantages, that flow, in a particular instance, from the observance of a Divinely-appointed rite. On the other hand, if Infant Baptism is not of Divine appointment, the question of benefit need not be considered, for, even if benefit could be proved, it would not, in that case, be sufficient to justify the continuance of a practice for which there is no warrant in the Word of God.

Now, if we have made good our contention in previous lectures as to the Scripturality of Infant Baptism and of that, I think, there can be no doubt then this question as to its benefit is both irrelevant and impertinent. There is always great advantage in submitting to an ordinance of God.

There is always great advantage in complying with the will of Christ. When, in the days of our Lord, the mothers brought their children to Him that He might lay His hands on them, some of the more coarse-grained adults who stood around might have thought that the Saviour’s touch would bring no benefit to the “ unconscious babes.” But the finer instinct of the maternal heart more accurately appreciated the possibilities of the situation, and more correctly interpreted the mind of the Master. And so Jesus rebuked the dull-witted utilitarian obstructives that, in their ignorance, stood between Him and the little children, and, by His direction, the babes were brought to Him, and He took them in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them. Who will say that the “ unconscious babes “derived no benefit from the Saviour’s benediction and the Saviour’s touch? Certainly not those who enter aright into the spirit of this instructive incident and who appreciate aright its bearing upon the question with which we are dealing. It is easy to see that an indelible impression for good was made on the hearts of these favoured mothers in Israel, that this impression became a means of grace not only to the mothers themselves, but also to their children, and that the impress of the Saviour’s touch and the echo of the Saviour’s blessing remained with them to the end of their days as the most precious treasure of memory, and became a powerful factor in determining their own destiny and the destiny of their offspring. Who will say that the blessing of God cannot find its way to the infant heart? Who will say that God does not reserve for Himself an avenue of communication by means of which the influences of His grace can, from the very first, reach the spirit of the little child? Who are we with our clumsy capabilities and our semi-conscious sensibilities that we should make our fragment of knowledge the measure of God’s working? There are more things in Heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy, and the near-sighted, narrow-souled utilitarianism that is always on the lookout for a benefit which it can measure with its inch-long rule has not a monopoly of the wisdom that is wise in relation to the things of the Kingdom. Some of us, at any rate, will continue to believe that the believing prayer of the believing parent who takes his stand on the Covenant promise and dedicates his infant child to God in the ordinance of Baptism will not remain unanswered, that God will not refuse to honour His own promise, and that an appropriate blessing will not fail to attend the right observance of one of the most important means of grace. But descending somewhat into detail we can easily see that far-reaching advantages must come to the child that is dedicated to God in Baptism by believing parents. Our Baptist friends might just as well ask what profit there was to the child in Infant Circumcision as ask what benefit there is to the child in Infant Baptism. Fortunately that question has been anticipated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:1, where he asks: “ What is the profit of Circumcision?” And the ready answer is:

“ Much every way.” That also is our answer to those who inquire concerning the profit of Infant Baptism. There is much profit every way. In the first place, it is an advantage to the child to have his status recognised and to have a place, from the very first, among God’s professing people.

It is an advantage to the child to be introduced into an atmosphere of faith and prayer that may reasonably be expected to exert a powerful formative influence on his life and character. It is an advantage to the child that his parents should realize that their hands are sustained and their hearts encouraged, in the difficult task of training their child for God, by the sympathy and the prayers of their fellow-Christians who are members of the same Church.

Then, again, it is an advantage to the child that his parents publicly pledge themselves to train him in the knowledge and love and fear of God. You know how important it is that the young should be rightly trained, how important it is that they should be trained to fitness for the earthly service to which they may be called; and how much more important it is that they should be trained to fitness for the higher service of the higher calling; and I am convinced that the vows which parents take upon them at the Baptism of their children help to hold them to a right performance of the duty of family training. It may be said that this duty lies at the door of parents independently of Baptism, but surely it is in accordance with the spirit and even in accordance with the terms of the great Commission that the children should be discipled through Baptism and teaching. They are entered in infancy as scholars in the school of Christ, and we cannot enter that school too early. Parents are bound to train them for God, and the Church is bound to exercise such supervision as may be practicable and to see, as far as possible, that they are trained in such a way that God’s claim upon them shall always be recognised and acknowledged.

Thus Baptism, when rightly observed and when followed up by faithfulness on the part of the parents and faithfulness on the part of the Church, secures for the child the unspeakable advantage of early Christian training. That is beyond all question the greatest advantage that can come to any of us in this life.

Besides, it is a great advantage to the child to be committed in advance to the right course. We need not stay to notice the objection that is some times made to the action of the parent in choosing a religion for his child and thus interfering with the child’s freedom. I am sure I do not need to say that the parent is not only at liberty to choose for his child, but that he is bound to choose for his child until the child comes to be in a position to choose for himself. The parent is bound to choose for his child and lie is bound to choose for the advantage of the child. Suppose the parent did not choose for the child that he should go to school, and did not choose for the child that he should be trained for the duties of some position in which he should be able to fill a man’s place and do a man’s work, the so-called freedom thus mistakenly allowed would be a poor substitute for the advantages of a sound education and a useful calling. It is clearly a parent’s duty to choose for his child until he comes to be capable of choosing for himself, and, above all, it is the duty of a parent to choose for his child that he shall walk in the way of rightness, and set his heart on the things that pertain to his eternal peace. And if this choice is made by the parent, and if, by the Divine blessing, the child is faithfully trained along the line of this choice, and is thus brought to appreciate something of the blessedness that comes from knowing and obeying the will of God, he will at length, of his own accord, gladly accept the choice which a godly parent has made on his behalf, and will lift up his heart in gratitude to the God of all grace, for the advantage that he enjoys through the faithfulness and thoughtfulness of a parent, who chose aright for him when he was unable to choose for himself, and who, by counsel and example, guided him in the right way when he was unable to guide himself.

We must not omit to notice that Baptism is useful, as Dr. Candlish has pointed out in his excellent handbook, both as a sign and a seal to the growing child. When his intelligence is awakened, and when he sees the ordinance administered to other children, and when he is told that it was administered to himself, he is sure to ask for an explanation of the service, and then the parents have a fine opportunity of telling him about the “ washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,” which are needed even in the case of the youngest children. That truth is brought home to his mind in the most impressive way by the symbolical washing of Baptism, and he is thus helped to realize that even the young need to have the cleansing and purifying influence of the Holy Spirit applied to their hearts that they may be saved from the guilt and impurity of sin and freed from the bondage which it brings. Thus Baptism is useful to the child as a sign. And, then, it is useful to him also as a seal or token of God’s love. The child can be made to feel that God has a purpose of mercy toward him in that he has received this seal. A child in infancy receives a valuable present as a mark of goodwill on the part of some kind friend who is deeply interested in his welfare, and who intends that this present shall be a pledge of further favours. The present is carefully kept for the child until he comes to understand some thing of its nature and its value, and then he is told of the friend who gave it to him and why it was given. As a natural consequence the gratitude of the child goes forth to his benefactor, and the relationship of disinterested kindness and consideration and love, on the part of the friend, is supplemented by that of confidence and attachment and affection on the part of the child. And so it is, or may be, in regard to the baptismal seal which the child receives in infancy. It is well that children should be taught to know that God thinks of them, and takes an interest in them, and regards them as His own. It is well that they should be taught to know that Baptism is a seal of God’s favour and a pledge of His willingness to confer further favours. It is well that the relationship of loving-kindness and tenderness and graciousness which God sustains toward them should be early recognised, and should early call forth on their part the responsive relationship of gratitude and submissiveness and obedience to Him. And Baptism may be turned to good account in this connection, as a seal of God’s favour. As Dr. Candlish says:

“It (Baptism) is all the more precious and useful as a sign of God’s Covenant, a token of His love, because it is given from earliest infancy: it testifies of a love that has met us at the very outset of our life, of a Saviour who has been waiting and ready to receive us ever since we had a being. In this way it really benefits the soul of the receiver, though given in unconscious infancy, and benefits him all the more as a seal of God’s grace just because it has been given in infancy, its efficacy not being tied to the moment of time when it is administered. 5 1 But then we are told that, as a matter of fact, 1 The fMiristian Sacraments, p. 75. these advantages do not, in most cases, attend the practice of Infant Baptism, that the anticipated result does not as a rule follow the administration of the ordinance, that baptized children do not often realize the professed desire of those who dedicate them to God in infancy, and that the presence, in any communion, of so many baptized persons who, even in the judgment of charity, cannot be regarded as regenerate is calculated to encourage inadequate and unworthy ideas as to the requirements of the Christian religion, to lower the standard of Christian living, and to exert, in other ways, an injurious influence on the Christian Church. It must be admitted that, in too many cases, parents do not faithfully give themselves to the fulfilment of the vows they made when their children were baptized, that family training does not, even in many Christian homes, receive the attention its importance deserves and demands, and that in some cases children who were baptized in infancy seem to set aside the engagement to be the Lord’s that was made for them at the time of their dedication. It is true that some of those who an; baptized in infancy do not, in the first instance at any rate, fill ill the expectations of the office-bearers and members of the Church into whose fellowship they have been received, just as it is true that some of those who are baptized on their own profession do not fulfil the expectations of the office-bearers and members of the Church into whose fellowship they have been received. It is true that the advantages which Infant Baptism brings within the reach of Christian parents are not always laid hold of, and that Infant Baptism, as well as Adult Baptism, is sometimes abused. But what good thing is not abused? What ordinance of the Christian religion does not suffer through the inconsistency and unfaithfulness of unworthy participants? What Christian institution is safe from the blighting influence of the hypocrisy and unbelief of some of those who profess to take advantage of its benefits?

If Infant Baptism is to be condemned, because it fails to guarantee to unbelief the blessings which it seals only to belief, then every other ordinance of the Christian religion is involved in the same condemnation. Judged by this test the Baptism of adults is in no better position than the Baptism of infants. We have only too much reason to humble ourselves because of the unfaithfulness of parents, and, it may be, because of the unfaithfulness of Churches, and it must be acknowledged that this unfaithfulness has done more to bring discredit on Infant Baptism than all the superficial plausibilities of Baptist propagandists and proselytizers. But we are not to throw overboard a Divine institution simply because it has not been rightly used. That would not be a very rational mode of procedure. If that course were taken in regard to every Church ordinance, it would lead to the abandonment of such ordinances altogether. Obviously the proper course is to abandon, not the ordinance which is misused, but the unfaithfulness which leads to its misuse. Parents and Church members generally should lay this matter to heart, and should seek by increased faithfulness and increased attention to the training of the young to roll away whatever of reproach has been laid at the door of an ordinance of Christ. But when all is said and done, I am not sure that our Baptist friends have much ground for pluming themselves on the purity of their Church as compared with our own. I do not make any comparison, but I do not think that our Church would have any reason to shrink from such a comparison if it were made by a competent authority. However, it is not a source of pleasure to any Christian to know that there are defects in the membership of other Churches, and it is not the part of a Christian to build up a reputation for his own Church on the shortcomings of his neighbours. It is a source of regret to every Christian to know that there are defects in the membership of the Church to which he belongs, and it is his desire to have the character of his Church and of all Christian Churches elevated and improved by the removal as far as possible of all defects, and by the acquisition, as far as possible, of all the graces of the Christian life. And I am persuaded that Infant Baptism so far from being a cause of defects, and so far from being a barrier in the way of Christian progress, is just an ordinance, which, if rightly used and improved, will give a powerful impetus to the formation and growth of Christian character and to the acceptance and prosecution of Christian service.

INFANT COMMUNION.

It has been stated that there is no argument that can be advanced in favour of Infant Baptism that is not equally valid for Infant Communion.

We might meet that statement by a direct negative, and challenge anyone to point to a single argument we have advanced that can be compelled to yield such a conclusion. We content ourselves with two observations. First: Baptism corresponds to Circumcision, while the Lord’s Supper corresponds to the Passover, but infants were not admitted to the Passover until they came to be capable of actively participating in the Feast and of understanding why it was kept. Thus the argument from Circumcision cannot be converted into an argument in favour of Infant Communion.

Second: In the action of Baptism the subject is passive, and in that of the Lord’s Supper the subject is active, so that, while an infant may be a recipient of Baptism, he cannot, in the nature of the case, be a recipient of the Lord’s Supper.

BAPTISM A PUBLIC ORDINANCE.

I should like to say a word in conclusion as to the place where the ordinance of Baptism should be administered. The Directory of the Westminster Assembly is explicit on this point:

“ Nor is it (Baptism) to be administered in private places or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear.” The Book of the Constitution and Government of our Church, with the requirements of which, as loyal Presbyterians, we are bound to comply, provides that “ This ordinance shall be administered publicly unless in cases recognised by the Session as exceptional.” The Synod of Deny and Omagh is most anxious that this law shall be faithfully observed within its bounds, and that, unless in exceptional cases, Baptism shall be administered at some stated diet of worship. I need hardly say that I am thoroughly at one with the Westminster Divines, with the General Assembly, and with the Synod of Derry and Omagh, and I trust that the loyal members of this congregation and all our congregations will see the propriety and the fitness of upholding the authority of Church Courts and of having Baptism administered in the presence of the congregation.

It is obviously most agreeable to the nature of 1 Page 112, pur. Gil. the ordinance that it be administered in public.

Baptism recognises membership in the visible Church, and therefore it is fitting that this recognition should take place where there is a visible congregation. Sometimes it takes place where the amount of visibility, in this regard, is reduced to a minimum. If a new member is getting initiated into some society it is more respectful to him that he should be received at a full meeting of the society and not at some hole-and-corner conclave, as though the great body of the members were ashamed to recognise him. It is evident that the larger and more representative the meeting at which he is received into the ranks of membership the greater the honour conferred upon him in his reception. And so with Baptism. Apart from every other consideration there is a certain degree of respect and regard manifested toward the parents and the child when Baptism is administered in the presence of a full congregation. And I do not know any reason why parents should deny themselves this mark of respect and regard. Of still more importance is the consideration that the beginning of a young life within the membership of the Church is a matter of interest to the whole congregation. The whole congregation should join together with one heart in the baptismal service. The members of the congregation are not simply spectators.

They are parties to the act of Baptism, and they, as well as the parents, have a measure of responsibility in relation to the infant baptized. Surely it is a matter of some consequence that parents should seek to have their children received into the congregation in such circumstances, that they should dedicate their offspring to God in the presence of His people, and that on this solemn occasion they should have the sympathy and the prayers of those who are associated with them in the member ship of the Church. Such advantages as these are not to be lightly esteemed. And the more parents appreciate the nature of this ordinance, and the more they enter into the spirit in which it ought to be observed, the more anxious will they be to have it administered in the presence of the congregation, and to have their hands strengthened by the believing prayers of God’s believing people.