As Delivered in a Sermon at
Moorefield, Indiana, August 26, 1877.
By Elder J. D. Griffith, in reply to Rev. R. L. Kinnear
TEXT. — Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. — Mathew. 28 chap. 18-20 ver.
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. — Mark 16 chap. 15-10 ver.______________ Thus it is written and thus it behove Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem. — Luke 24 chap. 46-47 ver.
It is a matter to be regretted that at this age in the Christian era, it should be necessary, for those professing to be ministers of the same Lord, and having the same revealed truth to guide them, with the same object or end in view — the salvation of their fellow men, that they for a moment, should stop in making common cause, and in opposing a common enemy — to antagonize each other’s doctrine and practice.
But the fact that we are here to-day presenting different sides and different views of this subject, this does not cause or constitute the difference, that difference already exists. It should be our object, in the presentation of our arguments, to reduce differences and annihilate distances rather than increase them. "With malice toward none and charity for all" let us reason together.
No doubt, many sensible and educated men, who have not studied the Bible as carefully as they ought, look upon this subject as a trifling affair — a dispute about sprinkling a little water upon the face of the child — an infant. Allow
me to disabuse your minds on this subject. You misapprehend the question. It is not the sprinkling of water upon the face of a child, nor any one else, neither is it in reference to the amount, whether much water or little water, that we are discussing. The inquiry is about making a member of the church, without faiths without a knowledge of God; a single divine impression on the heart, without any influence of the spirit of God. — The person's own heart or conscience having nothing to do with it.The ground here taken is this, — That no human being can become a mem¬ber of the body of Christ (which is the Church) without faith, a change in heart and life, the conscience and volition.
One other remark before we begin the subject proper. There is no use of ignoring the fact, that there is dissension where there should be none; the plainness of bible teaching imposes a solemn responsibility upon us. It will not do to say that provided men are sincere, it is a matter of no moment, or at most, of no serious consequence. We cannot easily conceive of a more fatal mistake. And I am willing to assume the full measure of this responsibility. If our Pedo-baptist friends are right, if infant baptism has authority in the word of God, then its claims are universal. I with my brethren ought to have our children baptized, it is not a mere matter of taste, and in refusing to do it we sin against God in neglecting what he has commanded. But if we are right that repentance and faith are indispensible and that baptism is an act of personal obedience intelligently performed, then those who practice infant baptism are guilty of an offense of no ordinary character before God in performing an act in the awful and solemn name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that he has never required at their hand — one for which there is no scriptural authority.
It is admitted by all denominations of Christians who practice baptism, that it is an ordinance of the New Testament, this being admitted, it would follow as a consequence, that all direction concerning it may be found in the New Testament. In a word, the commission given by our risen Lord to his Apostles is the great law governing in the case. The circumstances connected with the giving of this commission were replete with interest. The Savior had finished the work which he came down from heaven to accomplish, in making an offering for sin, that he might atone for our transgressions. He had descended to the dark mansions of the grave, triumphed over death and hell, and was about to ascend to the right hand of the Majesty on high, invested with mediatorial authority when he said, "All power in heaven and in earth is given unto me." He then proceeds to tell what to do, and how to perform the work, and the results that should follow. But our Pedo-Baptits friends, instead of coming to the New Testament and especially this commission, take us back to the covenant made with Abraham, recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis, more than two thousand years before the
Christian era, and tell in the language of Mr. Hibbard that "they rest the weight of their argument for infant baptism on that covenant," that as infants were circumcised and initiated into that covenant, and that baptism came in lieu or in the room of circumcision, the two covenants being identical, therefore children (infants) are fit subjects for baptism, and, consequently, for church membership. It will be our business to examine this subject as thoroughly as time will allow.1st. To give a brief sketch of the Abrahamic institution. When God called Abraham he gave him two promises essentially different in their character and import. The first was personal and familiar, the other spiritual and universal. In other words, one had respect to Abraham and his natural descendants, according the flesh, hence temporal. The other had respect to the Messiah and all his people. Upon one God builds a nation, upon the other his church.
Two covenants, sometimes called two testaments, by these terms we have two institutions continually brought before us. The old and the new — the old by Moses, the new by Jesus — hence Moses represents the one and Jesus the other; the law sometimes stands for one, the gospel for the other; the letter in some instances stands for one, and the spirit for the other; the old covenant stands for one, the new covenant for the other.
The old dispensation and the new, Moses on the one side, Jesus on the other. — It then becomes a matter of transcendent importance to determine all the time, what belongs to the old institution and what belongs to the new. It is argued that God made with Abraham a covenant, and that that covenant has been perpetuated to the present time, and as that covenant embraced infants, and that is identical with the gospel, therefore, infants ought to be baptized.
What is meant by identity? Identity is not similarity; two things may be similar, but cannot be identical. To be identical it must be the self same thing not two things. It is, therefore, nonsense to talk of the identity of the covenants, or the two covenants, there must be no two in the case. But the one identical covenant made with Abraham and perpetuated through the Mosaic and Christian institutions. But it would be well to inquire into the importance of sustaining this theory of the identity of the covenants, and what is to be gained by it. Why, there were infants in the Abrahamic, and if it is proved the same covenant has been perpetuated and is the gospel covenant, then infant church membership is sustained.
This subject demands, therefore, your most serious consideration. In support of the promises laid down, that there were two distinct and different kinds of promises, that developed themselves into two covenants: we invite attention to some plain texts of scripture, Exodus 6th chap., 2-7 verse. "God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am the Lord, and I appealed unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. And I have established my covenant with them to give
them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strang¬ers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord and will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptian. And I will rid you of their bondage. And I will redeem you with a stretched out arm and with great judgments. And I will take you to me for a people. And I will be to you a God. And ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of the Egyptians."A temporal national deliverance is here promised in fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision, and the promise under consideration is quoted from the covenant, and applied directly to the entire Jewish family. God gives his own interpretation and application to the promise.
Other instances will readily occur to the Bible student, in which this promise, or its equivolent, is applied to the people of Israel nationally, without reference to their spiritual condition. See Psalm 105, 8-11 ver., Psalm 147, 19-20, ver., Deut. 4, 31-34 ver. It is a remarkable fact that when the covenant was renewed with Isaac, the promise of a numerous posterity and a. title to the land of Canaan are repeated, but the promise so necessary for the Pedo-Baptist system is omitted.
Circumcision was an external sign put upon Abraham and his natural seed showing them to be a peculiar people nationally, under peculiar obligations, and entitled to peculiar blessings. This dispensation was preparatory to the bringing in of a better.
In order that man might be saved, he must have confidence in God, not only to believe in the existence of God, "but believe that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." And in order that man have this confidence in the Lord, it was necessary he should show himself a covenant keeping God, and that he will perform all his promises. He had made promise to Abraham, saying, "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Genesis 12 chap. 3d ver., 22 chap., 18 ver.
In order to show to heaven and earth that God had kept this promise, it was necessary to keep the seed of Abraham separate from all other nations, until the Messiah should come, or as Paul expresses it, "until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." Galatians 3 chap., 19 ver. Had not this been done, the seed of Abraham might have been lost in the ocean of human beings and no man could have told whether the covenant had ever been fulfilled or not.
It might have been fulfilled to the letter, but the lineage being lost, skeptics would have had the advantage.
Then in order to keep the posterity of Abraham separate and show conclusively that the Lord had kept his promise he threw around the seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, and by it kept them distinct from the other nations of the earth. This was the first
design of that institution. It was also intended by the imposition of these rites, including circumcision, to hold that people in subjection. The Jews are always spoken of as a stiff necked, hard hearted and rebellious nation. If the covenant made with Abraham contained in the 17fh chapter of Genesis, (which is the only one that embraces infants and circumcision) is the gospel covenant, then neither we nor our children are in it, and worse than this, we can never get in it, we are hopelessly cut off from a participation in its blessings and enjoyments, (see Gen, 17 chap. 13 ver.) the conditions are, 1st, he that is born in thy house; 2d, he that is bought with thy money, examine the entire chapter, these are the only characters that are embraced, we cannot come under either of these heads, nor our children. We were not born in Abraham's house or family, not lineal descendants, but Gentiles; neither we or our children having been bought with Abraham's money, consequently, if this is the gospel covenant, both we and our children are forever excluded.Do you say there were two covenants made with Abraham and reference is made to tli3 wrong covenant, the covenant referred to is the only one having infants in it, and if you abandon that you. find no infants. It is the one to which you must go to find infants and circumcision, your dilemma is this, if you go to this covenant, you find you are excluded by the description of the only two classes in it. And if you abandon that covenant you find no infants or circumcision; in cither case you are completely defeated and your argument ruined.
But again, if the covenant of circumcision and the covenant of grace be the same, and baptism came in lieu of circumcision, then the child that is not baptized is lost. Genesis 17 chap., 14 verse. Substitute the word baptized for circumcised and we have this reading: And the unbaptized man's child that is not baptized, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant. If then that theory be correct, you have the doctrine of the inevitable and unavoida¬ble damnation of all unbaptized infants. This throws infant baptism back upon its original basis. How God dishonoring such a sentiment?
If the covenant of circumcision is the covenant of grace, then those who are included in the one enjoy all the benefits of the other. It is clearly taught that the blessings of the new covenant are pardon of sin, a knowledge of the Lord adoption, in a word, all spiritual blessings. Then it would follow that the entire family of Abraham, which constituted the Jewish nation, were all saved in the best sense of that term; were all the blood-washed people of God. Who is pre¬pared to accept of such a theory? But further, if the premises taken by our friends be tenable, that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and is the in¬itiating rite into this covenant, then as a logical sequence that not only infants, but all others baptized arc regenerated.
But once more if the covenant of circumcision and the covenant in Christ are identical, and there was no previously existing covenant of grace, then only
those who lived after the ordaining of that covenant could be saved, it could not therefore, embrace Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisidec, or any of those who lived for the first 2,000 years in the world's history, though Paul records their names high on the roll call of faith.The covenant of circumcision became an essential part of the law. Behold I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, he is debtor to do the whole-law. Galatians 4 chap., 21-31 verse. We are asked sometimes, how can circumcision be a part of the law of Moses, when it was 400 years before the law. And yet they tell us it is part of the gospel, though it was introduced almost 2,000 years before the gospel dispensation. It is not difficult to see that the covenant of circumcision and that made at Mount Sinai became identical, though chronologically they were 400 years apart. The old covenant church, to be a national church, must have a showy and expensive ritual, it could not, therefore, bo fully organized until the family of Abraham were increased to a nation and "were sufficiently wealthy to support its rites of worship. And yet if it had not an incipient organization in the family of Abraham so far as would suffice to keep his descendants distinct from other nations, there never would have been any materials from which to organize it. The covenant was accordingly made with Abraham, including his posterity, in which the only condition then required of them was the observance of the law of circumcision. But the fact that the descendants of Abraham were by these means placed under peculiar relations to God, gave him the right to superadd other conditions whenever it should be necessary. That necessity appeared when the Israelites made their exodus from Egypt: and then when the original covenant was renewed, the other conditions were added, to which Israel gave their unanimous consent. This renewal of the covenant and the complete organization of the old covenant church is called the covenant from Mount Sinai; identical, as we see with the covenant of circumcision.
I will now offer some direct testimony from the Scriptures to the proper identity of the covenant of circumcision with that from Sinai. — In John 7 chapter, 22-28 verse, Christ says: "Moses gave you circumcision (not because it was of Moses, but of the fathers)" How did Moses give them circumcision, if it were not an essential part of the law he gave? It was originally given to Abraham, and came down from him. If the observance of circumcision were not founded on a covenant, with the one from Sinai, and if it were not of the same nature^ and so incorporated into, and enforced by the law of Moses. Moses could, with no sort of propriety, be said to have given them circumcision. The next verse continues, "If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision that the law of Moses be not broken, &c."
A neglect to attend to circumcision clearly, could not be an infraction of the law of Moses unless the law requiring it was a part of the law of Moses. Our
Savior, in affirming that the law of circumcision is a part of the law of Moses, fully establishes the identity of the covenant on which it was founded, with that which was from Mount Sinai. Acts 15 chap., 1-5 verse. "And certain brethren which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved." "But there rose up certain of the Pharisees, which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Why is Moses referred to here and circumcision joined with" the keeping of the law of Moses if it is not a part of the law?Acts 21 chap., 20-21 verse: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousand of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they ought not to circumcise their children, neither walk after their customs." According to James and the Elders at Jerusalem, teaching Jews not to circumcise their children was teaching them to forsake Moses. Gal. 2 chap., 25 verse: "For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the whole law." The argument of the Apostle evidently is this: That keeping part of the law will avail nothing except, the whole law be kept. If you are circumcised you keep part of the law which could not be true unless its observance were required by the law.
Jeremiah standing 1351 years this side of the time when the Lord made that covenant with Abraham. And looking forward said, "Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Now it is no matter how many covenants men talk of or what they call them, whether Adamic, Abrahamie or Mosaic, before the Prophet is here speaking, for he points forward to a covenant which the Lord says Iwill make, not to one he has made. And to assure us that the prophet was referring to the gospel covenant. Paul quotes the very language and applies it to the gospel. Showing that the gospel itself is that new covenant that the Lord said I will make. The Lord most positively declares that it shall not be according to that old covenant. — Let us pay particular attention to the language of Scripture and see wherein the new differs from the old. 1st. "They shall not, under the new covenant, teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother saying, know the Lord," the reason is that all shall know me from the least to the greatest. Not a solitary exception, they cannot enter the new covenant without knowing the Lord.
This brings us to the grand distinguishing point or difference between the old covenant and the new. Under the old covenant the ground of membership, was in a birth of flesh or a purchase with money, these two classes, he that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money — this includes unconscious infants — the ignorant heathen servant without knowing the Lord, and consequently they had to be taught to know the Lord — then under this covenant there were two
grounds of membership without knowing the Lord, natural birth-blood relations purchased with money. What a striking, nay what a perfect contrast between this and the gospel church, in the qualifications for membership. Instead of nat¬ural birth, Jesus says to Nicodemus, "You must be born again, and except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God," being born of the spirit born from above. "Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." In contrast with second qualifications under the old covenant Peter assures the children of God that they have not been redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.I now design calling your special attention to a passage in Galatians 4 chapter. "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ, be formed in you I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was born of the bond woman, was born after the flesh, but he who was born of the free woman, was by promise." Here then are two births, one by virtue of flesh, the other by virtue of a promise. Now, says Paul, these things are an allegory. For these are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar; for this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem, which ia above, is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou barren, that bearest not, break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate, hath many more children than she that hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But, as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the scriptures? "Cast out the bond woman with her son, for the son of the bond "woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman." So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free.
That I may place the precept of repudiation fairly before you and conclusively show that the children of the flesh are no longer "counted for the seed," I will request your particular attention to an analysis of this passage. The four principal tropes in this allegory are Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah and Isaac.
These two women represent two covenants — the consummated covenants, the one from Horeb, the other from Jerusalem. The two sons of one father — Abraham represent the children of the two covenant, Ishmael the Jews, Isaac the Christians. Now the question is, in how many points do the two women represent the two covenants, and the two sons, the two kinds of children under these institutions? They represent them in the four following particulars: First, In the conception of their offspring, Hagar's was natural, Sarah's super-natural; Hagar was a young woman,
Sarah was super-annuated, and, as Paul says, as good as dead. Hagar was according to the flesh, that of Sarah according to the spirit. Second, In the condition of their offspring, Hagar was a slave, and Sarah a free woman. Now the issues always follow the mother when contemplated as property. If the mother be free the offspring is free. — If a slave her offspring is a slave. — Hence Ishmael was a slave and Isaac was free born.Third, In the spirit of their offspring — There is a free, noble, generous spirit and there is a slavish, low, mean spirit. Isaac was docile, pious, elevated above the flesh — a spiritual man. Ishmael was selfish, rude, insolent—an animal man. Fourth, In the inheritance, Hagar had no property, not being the proper wife of Abraham, she had only a slaves portion — bread and water — hence a loaf of bread and a bottle of water constituted her whole fortune and Ishmael's inheritance. But Isaac was an only son of his mother, and also in the marriage covenant, he was the only child of Abraham by Sarah and the rightful heir of his vast estate. But one point in the comparison the contrast is most striking, that is in the matter of casting out the bond woman and her son, and the perpetual enjoyment of the inheritance of home by Isaac. There are then, two church covenants, the two women, says Paul, are the two covenants. The one from Mount Sinai — Agar in Arabia, the Jewish church covenant, beyond a doubt. The other is from Jerusalem above the new Christian constitution: This is the new covenant in ray blood, said Jesus in Jerusalem, hence the word of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem. Is it not indisputable, Paul says the first covenant children were born after the flesh, and the second covenant children after the spirit. This single passage, this most graphic allegory, these most appropriate tropes and images, go all the length and breadth of our views. Whilst the notion of church iden¬tity and infant membership founded on ancient covenants have no foundation in either old or new testament. The expression, "cast out the bond woman and her son," contains the precept often demanded on the part of our Pedo-Baptist friends — the precept for unchurching those under the just covenant. If Hagar represented the old covenant and Ishmael those that were under that covenant, and the command to cast out indicates unmistakably the repudiation or abolishing of that dispensation.
Having shown that the covenant of circumcision and the covenant of grace are not identical, but dissimilar, that the first is national and hereditary, conferring only temporal favors, and that only for a limited time, and by divine appoint¬ment was abolished.
The commission given by our Savior after his crucifiction [sic] and resurrection from the dead, and before his ascension to glory is the law of baptism. Baptism being a new testament ordinance, we would naturally go to the new testament for direction. We refer to the different versions of the commission as given by the three Evangelists: 1st Matthew, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations — teach (is
derived from the verb Matheteue, means make disciples) is to precede baptism, Mark establishes the priority of faith, and Luke connects repentance and remission of sins. Webster defines the word disciple thus: A learner, a scholar, one who receives or professes to receive instruction from another; 2nd, a follower, an ad¬herent to the doctrines of another. When used as a verb, he defines it to teach, to train, to bring up; 2nd, to make disciples, to convert to doctrines or principles. — The commission not only made disciples that they should be believers before bap¬tism, but that they should be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Prof. Stuart says the word baptize may be followed by a person or a thing (doctrine) which has eis before it. In the first, when it followed by person, it meant, by the sacred rite of baptism, to bind ones self to be a disciple or follower of a person, to receive and obey his doctrines and laws — e. g, 1 Cor. 10 chap. 2 ver., And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses. Gal. 3 chap. 27 yer., For as many of you as have been baptized into (eis) Christ have put on Christ Romans 6 chap. 3 ver., Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ were baptized into his death, etc. So Greenfield in his lexicon of the new testament: To be baptized to any one, is to bind ones self to honor, obey and follow any one. But infants cannot be baptized in the name of the Lord because they cannot bind themselves to receive and obey his doctrines and laws. They cannot profess anything and of course are never baptized upon a profession of obedience to the will of God. But this is required by the express letter of the commission, then by the commission they cannot be baptized. You might with as much propriety baptize an image of the Virgin Mary into the name of the trinity. Who hath required this at thy hands? But it is further evident that the commis-sion has no allusion to infants, from the fact that the baptized are to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. This supposes the subjects of thethecommission are capable of being instructed into the obedience in all the ordinances of the church militant. Of course this cannot allude to infants. They are incompetent to receive such instruction. It is well for us that we have different versions of the commission. They explain each other: According to Matthew they were to be discipled, according to Mark the gospel must first be preached and they must believe, according to Luke repentance and remission of sins must be preached before baptism. Hence Paul says, "that daily in the temple and from house to house they ceased not to preach and teach Jesus Christ." There can be no excuse for misunderstanding this commission. No language can be more plain. It enjoins the baptism of disciples or believers. It knows no others. No minister with this commission in his hand, would baptize an idolater or unbeliever, he would require the idolater to renounce his idolatry and believe in Jesus. If you may baptize an infant that is not a disciple, not a believer, you may, with the same propriety baptize an adult that is not a disciple, not a believer. What the commission
requires of one it requires of all. It either requires faith and discipline ship absolutely, or it does not. But some have said the command extends to all nations, and are not infants, it is asked, included in all nations? Certainly they are, and so are drunkards, and liars, and infidels, and atheists a part of all nations and if the phrase, all nations includes infants, so it does the others, and there is just the same warrant for the baptism of the one as the other, and that is no warrant at all. If the command is to baptize it is to disciple till nations and to teach all nations to observe the ordinances of Christ. This is the divine order.But Dr. Wall argues that the Jews made infants disciples, or proselytes by baptizing them, and hence he and others have argued that infants may be included in the commission, since it enjoins that disciples be made by baptizing them. This means that a person can be made a believer by baptizing them, for a believer and disciple are the same in scripture. This criticism teaches that an infant may be made a believer in Christ, a disciple of the Lord in baptism. Now it is possible that the superstitious Jews were capable of perpetuating such ridiculous nonsense as this, but we protest against it being imparted to the Savior. He never uttered such puerile nonsense, but if persons are made believers or disciples by baptizing why require faith of adults in order to give them admission to the ordinance, seeing they would receive faith by being baptized. And let us carry out the doctrine, and since the thing may be done let us look at the results of its operation. An infidel, by being baptized, becomes a believer in Jesus. Idolaters and Jews, as was done by order of some of the Roman Emperors, and of Charlemagne being taken by force and baptized, become disciples. The untold millions of the unconverted now living and have lived, who were baptized in infancy, were all made in their baptism disciples or believers. We should really be ashamed to look an intelligent audience in the face, were we seriously to set about a refutation of such a criticism. It must work out its own destruction in well regulated minds. No one can be a disciple without, teaching. An untaught disciple is a contradiction in time. An adult, as all agree, must be a believer before baptism, and if a believer then a disciple, and what is true of adults is true of all. It is universally admitted of adults that they should be believers before baptism, and yet in the es¬timation of pedo-baptist he is not a disciple until baptized. That he is a believing non-disciple. A singular species in the moral kingdom, but a baptized infant is a disciple though not a believer, and this introduces to our admiring eyes another monstrosity — a disciple who believes not.
Having referred to great commission as the law of baptism, the meaning of that commission should be interpreted in the light their teaching and example, as they were under guidance of the holy spirit they certainly executed the command of their risen Lord correctly.
But ye shall receive power after the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. — Acts 1 chap., 8 verse. Let us examine the testimony they bore beginning at Jerusalem, First, Peter preached, the multi¬tude were convinced of sin, and enquired, "What, must we do? they were instructed to 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," — Acts 2 chapter 38 verse., each individual for himself to repent and then be baptized. "Then they that gladly received Ms word were baptized." verse 41. Phillip went, down into Samaria carrying the glad tidings, the sacred historian says, "when they believed. Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." — Acts 8 chap., 12 verse. There is no mention of children in the narrative. If the children of believing parents were proper subjects for baptism, what a beautiful place this would have been to have asserted that fact, and thus saved a great amount of disputation on that subject. And certainly it is most astonishing that no mention is made of it, and the more especially since the sacred writers are in the habit of mentioning children in other connections. As, for instance, the Savior performing a miracle in feeding the multitude — about 5,000 men besides women and children — or when Paul was departing from Tyre — they all brought us on our way with their wives and children till we were out of the city. — Surely if children ought to be baptized it was a matter of far greater importance than the feeding of them, or their accompanying the Apostles out of the city.Also the case of Phillip preaching to the Etheopian eunich, the first thing was preaching Jesus; second, he believed; third he was baptized; this short narrative contains a most successful refutation of the theory, that faith is not essential or necessary to entitle an individual to the ordinance of baptism. Note the phraseology, "See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized." And Phillip said if thou believest thou mayest, the idea clearly implied, that in the absence of faith he might not, or in other words, unbelief would hinder his baptism So when Paul was preaching at Corinth — Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized. — Acts IS chap., 8 ver.
To the Phillipean [sic] jailor, who, alarmed at midnight, by the earthquake which had shaken the massive walls of the prison and loosed the prisoners, fell at the feet of Paul and Silas crying, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" they replied "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved and thy house." Then assembling the household they spake unto him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house, — Acts 16 chap., 30-34 verse, Then were they baptized, he and all his straightway, and he rejoiced believing in God with all his house. Here is first, instruction, then faith, afterward baptism. In like manner the family of Cornelius. Now turn again to Acts 1 chap., 8 verse, touching the testimony they were to bear to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth,
how unvarying their coarse, how uniform their practice, how exactly in keeping with the commission which is the sole law governing in the case.But it is urged upon the part of our pedo-baptist brethren that the circumstance of bringing little children to the Savior, and his remark, "of such is the kingdom of heaven," furnishes strong proof in favor of infant baptism. I was astonished to hear my brother announce this as a text to base his argument upon, when baptism is not alluded either directly or indirectly in the whole narrative, but the object of their coming was, that the Savior might bless them, or, as recorded by another evangelist, pray for them, and for persona to assume that they were brought to the Savior to be baptized, when the inspired penman has given a different construction, it is outside of all reason or argument. How strange the remark "who knows but the Savior had some water on his fingers and baptized them,” when it is expressly stated by St. John, that Jesus himself baptized not, but by his disciples. Another fact worthy of mention in this connection is this, that the Apostles of Jesus did not understand that it, was their duty to baptize little children, or they would not have rebuked those parents; the fact that they acted rashly does not change the truth of this proposition, and then when we take into account that they had been three years with the Savior, for he was going up to Jerusalem for the last time, perhaps not more than three weeks before his passion, they had been engaged extensively in administering the ordinance, for it said Jesus, made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but by his disciples. Is it not astonishing, seeing they had been so long with the Savior and that baptism was instituted, largely practiced, on the hypothesis Jesus had intended them to baptize infants, that they should have so rebuked the parents had they been modern pedo-baptist ministers they would promptly have said to the parent, name the child But it is argued that as the phrase "of such is the kingdom of heaven," either signifies the church militant or the kingdom in glory and in either case it would furnish a warrant for infant baptism. Prof. Ripley says "of persons like these in disposition," when a dispute amongst the disciples as to who should be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, "he called a little child and set it in their midst, and said unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, the same is great in the kingdom of heaven. It is added whoso receiveth one such little child in my name receiveth me, but whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck and be cast, into the depth of the sea.'" The trait of character especially intended to be set forth, is that of humility or loveliness, hence the analogy between a little child and the disciple as brought to view in the expression "one of these little ones which believe in me." But peculiar stress is placed upon the words "of such is the kingdom of heaven," giving it construction that infants possess an inherent holiness or purity
and therefore they should be baptized; but before our Methodist friends can make much headway in this view of that text, there is another difficulty to be removed, in the exposition of certain scriptures by Mr. Wesley in the discipline, the service for infant baptism. The minister shall say, "Inasmuch as all men are conceived in sin. And our Savior, Christ, hath said except a man be born of the water and the spirit," it will be perceived from this that infant baptism proceeds upon the theory that infants are impure, and consequently, unfit for the kingdom of heaven, and that baptism imparts a fitness, that without they cannot be saved. These views are just the opposite, if the one be true, the other of necessity must be false. We submit to our brethren which one of these views will you accept, and when you have elected which of these positions you will adhere to, you will then be forced to repudiate the other.According to Dr. Wall, the celebrated historian of infant baptism, the views of Mr. Wesley were those universally received up to the sixteenth century, that no other thought ever obtained in the baptism of an infant, until the times of John Calvin, that the infant dying unbaptized, its salvation was endangered. Again it is affirmed that infants of believing parents are already in the covenant, and therefore, are entitled to the seal, in the language of my brother "for God's sake give them the seal," (baptism,) just here I wish to disabuse the mind of my brother and all others entertaining this view, that baptism is no where called the seal of the covenant. But I will refer you to the scripture that will enlighten you at this point. Ephesians 2 chap., 12 verse, "After that ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise." hence it will appear that we are sealed with the holy spirit, not baptism, it takes place after they believe and not before. But to return from this digression, children are said to be in the covenant, and therefore, ought to be baptized; then again it is said baptism is the initiating rite, therefore without this rite they are not in the covenant; manifestly these two positions are contradictory, look at it my friends, you baptize infants because they are holy — because fit for the kingdom of heaven, and you baptize because they are conceived in sin — unholy in order to obtain a fitness, you baptize them because they are in the covenant, and you baptize them to bring them into it is obviously the fact, that these views flatly contradict each other, any person having the eyes of a goose can see. I mean nothing invidious by the remark.
Mr. Kinnear said, explain your meaning, tell what you do mean.
Mr. Griffith. — Brother Kinnear asks me to explain what I mean. Simply this, a goose has the faculty of looking up with one eye, and down with the other at the same time, in other words looking in different directions at the same time, and if men in their anxiety to build up and fortify their position, could see what was on both sides of the subject, there would not be so much danger of running off the track. Paul to Cor. 1 Epistle, 7 chap., 14 verse, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else
were your children unclean, but now are they holy." Mr. Barnes, a prolific writer of Philadelphia and a distinguished Presbyterian, says, "that the passage can have no possible allusion to infant baptism."But I intend to show that this passage is decidedly opposed to infant baptism, I think it may be made evident to every intelligent, candid person, that infant baptism and infant membership was never thought of in that age, I only wonder why Baptists have not generally made more use of this in all their discussions of this question.
The case is this, a question arose in Corinth whether persons inter-married, one party a Christian the other a pagan, ought to continue as husband and wife and still live together. It was referred to Paul. He takes up the matter and using the words clean, sanctified, and unclean in the current ecclesiastic and Jewish sense, affirms that "the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband, and the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the believing wife, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." Paul's response is briefly this, they may live together — they are sanctified or clean persons as to one another in this relation. If you may not continue to live together, you must put away your children also, for all your children stand to you as do those unbelieving, unholy persons. If you must reject your unchristian, unprofessing wife or husband, for the same reason you must reject, all your unprofessing, unbelieving children. Does not this passage then conclusively prove that infant membership, and infant baptism had never occurred to any one at Corinth? for in that case Paul's proof would have been taken from him, by one remark — such as, No Paul, we may retain our children for they have been baptized, and are not at all like our unbaptized, unsanctified husbands and wives. — I contend that we have found clear and invincible evidence that infant sanctification, dedication or baptism, had never occurred to the mind of Jew or gentile, but that all the children of the members of the church in Corinth stood in the same ecclesiastical relation to the church, as did their unbelieving unbaptized fathers and mothers. The usual argument from this passage is a very good one: That if the relative holiness of the child gives it a right to baptism, then the relative holiness of the unbelieving father or mother, would also give them a right to this ordinance.
To recapitulate this argument, let it be observed that the main question upon your children, and their, the parties children. That the children of all the members of the church in Corinth, stood in the same relation to the church as did their unbelieving parents, and that if it would be lawful to baptize the children upon the faith of one of the parents, because of being sanctified to their parents, then it would be equally right to baptize the unbelieving party on the faith of the other, or because sanctified into or by the other.
But history has been appealed to in support of infant baptism, the attempt has been made to show that it dates back to the days of the apostles, but in this we
think our pedo-baptist friends have signally failed. Tertullian is the very first writer, Christian or pagan, who mentions infant baptism, and lived about the years 200-250. Whilst we admit the antiquity of infant baptism, yet if it fails to connect with the days of the apostles by near 200 years they fail to make out their case — tradition may not be depended upon, for it is a scriptural fact that a chief cause of the erring of the Jews was through their traditions. — It is also absurd to attempt to establish it barely upon its antiquity, as (hero are very many other practices and rites that claim to be religious, that date quite as far back, as, for instance, infant com¬munion. And many of those fathers that are referred to in support of infant baptism, are produced by Catholics in favor of the antiquity of the doctrine of purgatory, and of praying to saints and angels. Of forty-four writers called orthodox, besides many called heterodox, who lived and taught and wrote from the days of the Apostle John, till the time of Tertullian, not one mentions infant baptism.Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, 1st vol., pp. 25-38-12, says, "Whoever acknowledged 'Christ' as the Savior of mankind, and made a solemn profession of his confidence in him was immediately baptized and received into the church, * * * * In the earlier times of the church, all who professed firmly to believe that Jesus, was the only redeemer of the world, and who, in consequence of this profession, promised to live in a manner conformable to the purity of his holy religion were immediately received among the disciples of Christ." Then baptism was administered to none, but such as had been previously instructed in the principal points of Christianity, and had also given satisfactory proofs of pious dispositions and upright intentions.
Neander says, "Since baptism marked the entrance into communion with Christ." It resulted from the nature of the rite, that a confession of faith in Jesus as the Redeemer, would be made by the person to be baptized, and in the latter part of the apostolic age, we may find indications of the existence of such a practice. As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable, that baptism was performed only in instances, where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown in this period. Hist. of plant and training, ch., "It cannot be proved by sacred scripture, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles." — Luther.
Stark's History of Baptism, page 11. There is not a single example to be found, in the new testament, where infants were baptized. In household baptisms there was always reference to the gospel's having been received. The new testa¬ment presents just as good grounds for infant communion. Therefore, learned men (such as Salmacins, Arnold, and Strabo,) have regarded both infant baptism and infant communion as an innovation, introduced since the apostolic times.
Rheinwald says, the first traces of infant baptism are found in the Western
church, after the middle of the second century, and was the subject of controversy, in Proconsular Africa, toward the end of this century, though its necessity was asserted in Africa and Egypt, in the beginning of the third century, it was even to the end of the fourth century, by no means universally observed, least of all in the Eastern church. It never became a general ecclesiastical institution till the age of Augustine. — page 313.
__________ THE EVILS OP INFANT BAPTISM: —
Its tendency is to ritualize Christianity, instead of making appeals to the heart and conscience, by addressing the understanding through the presentation of the truth — it addresses the imagination and the sensibilities, by means of rites, symbols and imposing ceremonies, instead of attributing great efficacy to the Bible and the preaching of the word, they attach great efficacy to sacraments and, pompous ceremonies.
Whilst the imagination and sensibilities, are not to be entirely ignored, yet in religion, as in the conduct of life generally, they should have a subordinate place compared with the intellect, that apprehends the truth, and the conscience that recognizes the obligations of duty.
What are the facts in regard to this matter? In all unreformed churches, the Papal, the Greek, and the minor oriental sects, Christianity has become completely a ritual religion. Its sanctifying and saving efficacy, is believed to be connected, not with a clear presentation and joyous acceptance of its truths, but with the administration of its sacraments.
And in the reformed churches even, the ritual tendency has had a powerful and pernicious influence. In a large part of the Lutheran and the Anglical [sic] churches, a regenerating virtue is attributed to baptism, and a sanctifying efficacy to the eucharist, not dependent in either case, upon the intelligent faith of those who receive those ordinances. We maintain that this corruption of Christianity in a very important sense, is to be traced to the practice of infant baptism. In Great Britain and the United States, the legitimate influence of this practice is not fully manifest, because it exists in the presence of an influential counteracting element, and is defended among evangelical sects, on grounds which could never have caused a world-wide prevalence, and which are, in fact, expressly repudiated by a large majority of those who favor the practice. And yet among those who hold the practice so loosely, and who formally deny its regenerating virtue, or sacramental efficacy, its ritualistic tendency discloses itself in the uneasiness, which many parents feel at the prospect of their children dying without baptism.
An examination of the creeds and confessions, of even the most evangelical of the Protestant denominations that practice infant baptism, reveals this ritual tendency. But we charge infant baptism, in the next place, with a tendency to
secularize the church. When baptism is made the sign and seal, not of personal, but ancestral faith and piety, it does indeed "come in the place of circumcision." It loses its Christian significance. It not only ceases to mark any distinction between the godly and ungodly, it tends to obliterate and abolish as far as possible the line of separation between the church and the world, When the whole community is a baptized community, what is this in effect, but taking the whole world into the church bodily.This introduces us to the most degrading, corrupting, damaging error, that ever took effect on the interest of the kingdom of God, the error of retro-grading, to the old fleshy basis of membership, and making flesh, and not spirit, the ground of membership in the church. This was the precise thing that came up in the conversation between the Savior and Nicodemus. If this teaching of our Lord to Nicodemus was fully unfolded, how many thousands of souls who have been misled and made to believe they were in the covenant, or in the church, who are not, would never rest, till they would by faith enter into Christ and be saved.
If the language of the Savior to Nicodemus was carried out, an overwhelm¬ing majority of all the church members in the world, would find they are not in the body of Christ — not in the church.
Lift up your eyes and survey the field. The Pope claims two hundred mil¬lions of human beings under his dominion — or about one-sixth of the population of the globe. There are about three million and a half of these, or near one person in eleven of the whole, in the United States, all claimed as members of the church. On what grounds are they claimed of faith? Any divine change in heart or life? any personal holiness or piety? Any knowledge of God? No, nothing of the kind; nine-tenths of them were in the church before they knew there was any God, any Jesus Christ. Some may think this is true of Romanist, but not of others. But let us look, the Greek church is put down in the Cyclopedia Americana at sixty-six millions. On what basis the membership of all these? The same as the Ro¬manist. Their membership is founded in a blood relation, and they are in the church before they have any faith or knowledge of God. Regeneration is not known among them. If you will inquire in reference to the religious standing of most of the foreigners that emigrate to our shores, you will find they consider themselves as members of the church on the ground of infant baptism, whilst very many of them give no evidence of a saving knowledge of truth.
We have examined the Abraham covenant of circumcision with reference to the subject of infant baptism. We think it fails to shed any light upon the subject. We have come down to the new testament, beginning with John the Baptist, who was sent to prepare a people for the coming Messiah, his teaching and practice cannot be misunderstood by the sincere enquirer after truth; he preached repentance, and required the fruits or evidence, before he would admit them to the sacred ordinance; and he contradicts most emphatically, the doctrine of the identity
of the two dispensations; when individuals would come demanding the rite, basing it upon their relations to Abraham and the former privileges they had en¬joyed, he silenced them by saying, "think not to say we have Abraham for our father." We have noticed Christ and his Apostles, whilst we learn a great many were baptized, yet he made and baptized disciples. First, they were made disci¬ples then baptized. Next we have referred to the commission of the different versions, as given by the different Evangelists, they harmonize in the fact that persons must first be taught, become believers, repent of sin, before baptism; then on the day of Pentecost, repentance is enjoined upon every one of them before baptism, thus in every case the preaching of the gospel, speaking to them the word of the Lord, went before baptism. We have only referred to a few authorities touching the history of infant baptism, these are pedo-baptist, they show what the custom was in the first and second centuries, that baptism was joined with a confession of faith. It therefore fails to connect with the age of inspiration.We close by offering a few quotations, some from some inspired, others un¬inspired authors, as
A SUPPLEMENT. 1st. To the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." — Isaiah.
2nd, "Learn of me. — Jesus."
3rd. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works." — Paul.
4th. "That which cannot be proven from the Bible, is not necessary to sal¬vation." — Wesley.
5th. "Let the church more and more eliminate from her person, every thing for which she cannot produce a clear warrant from God. The Lord did not call her to be his counselor, he sent her forth to observe and to teach his truth, to obey and execute his commandments. The very conception of a divine revelation, is as positive in what it excludes, as in what it embraces. And if God's sacred word be a perfect rule of faith and duty, which is the ultimate truth upon which protestantism rests, then we must not only go where that rule goes, but we must stop where that rule stops." — R. J. Breckenridge, (late Prof, of Theology in Danville Presbyterian Sem).We have made these quotations, for the purpose of impressing with the im¬portance, of adhering to the bible as our guide, in all matters of duty or service, and their sufficiency, to guide us in the way of righteousness.
In striking contrast with the sentiment contained in the quotations just made, read the following admissions from the distisguished pedo-baptist Dr. Wall, one of
the most learned pedo-baptist historian says, "There is no express mention of an children being baptized by him, i.c. John * * Among all the persons recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant."Henry Ward Beecher, in a sermon, said, "I concede and I assert first, that infant baptism is no where commanded in the new testament; secondly, I affirm that the cases referred to as implied, as in the cases of the baptism of whole house holds, are by no means conclusive, and without doubt, and that if there are no other basis for it than that, it is not safe to found it on the practice of the apostles, in the baptism of Christian families. — Therefore, I give up that which
whichhas been injudiciously used as an argument for infant baptism. — And thirdly, I assert that the doctrine, that as a Christian ordinance, it is a substitute for the circumcision of the Jews, is a doctrine that is utterly untenable to say nothing more. If any body ask me where is your text for baptizing children, I answer, there is none, and if I am asked, then why do you baptize them, I say, because it is found to be beneficial." With these quotations I close, asking all to consider this subject carefully and decide for yourself, as you shall answer to the author of your being.============ [Document from Ripley County Public Library, Versailles, Indiana, pp. 11-30. – Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Indiana Baptist History Page
Baptist History Homepage