Arguments, derived from sacred scripture and sound reason, exhibiting the necessity and advantages of infant baptism, and proving sprinkling or affusion to be the most scriptural and appropriate mode of administering it, together with a number of essays on important subjects connected with baptism / by Benjamin Kurtz

Front matter

' PRINCETON, N. J. **>

Agneiv Coll. on Baptism, No.

a. i

Preface

The following pages have been written in obedience to a " Resolution" of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Maryland, and in accordance with the reiterated requests of personal friends.

In preparing them, it has been our uniform endeavor to concentrate the largest possible amount of conclusive evidence and useful information, within the narrowest limits ; and also to adapt our language and reasoning to the capacity of the plain unlettered reader, in order thus to meet an important desideratum in the church.

If in some cases, the nature of our subject compelled us to depart from this course, and to enter into a train of abstruse argument and philological criticism, the merits or demerits of which can only be fully estimated by the learned, those instances are by no means so frequent as to interfere materially with the popular utility of the work. We therefore indulge the hope, that our investigations may present some claim to the attention of those, whose want of time or inclination forbids the task of poring over ponderous tomes of scholastic erudition, and iv PREFACE.

be found not altogether unworthy the notice of the student and divine.

To say that we are indifferent as to the judgment that shall be pronounced upon our efforts, would be mere affectation ; — we are not indifferent. We cordially desire that they may be well received by the church generally, and particularly by that class of individuals for whose special benefit we have mainly labored ; and above all, that the Master, whose glory we trust we are most anxious to advance, may in great mercy, smile upon them, and by his blessing, make them instrumental in promoting correct views on the interesting questions which we have discussed.

THE AUTHOR.

INFANT BAPTISM.

Chapter I. Baptism In General

Before we proceed to the investigation of the subject of the present work, a few preliminary remarks explanatory of our view of the nature of baptism in general, are deemed necessary.

Christian baptism is a sacrament ordained by Christ as the sign and seal of God's covenant ivith his people, and a formal recognition of their right of membership in his church.

1. Whether we define a sacrament merely as an ordinance by which we are formally brought under an obligation of obedience to God, and which obligation is equally sacred with an oath,1 or as "an outward and visi-

!The word sacrament is derived from the Latin word sacrament - um, which was adopted to signify an oath, particularly the oath taken by soldiers to be true to their country and general. This word has other significations, but it is in this sense mainly, if not exclusively, that it is used in reference to baptism and the Lord's ' supper, in which Christians may be said to bind themselves as by an oath, or the most sacred vows, to obedience to God. 1* ble sign of an inward and spiritual grace ;" — baptism is equally a sacrament. For in it the subject either personally or by sponsors acknowledges God's claims on his obedience, and solemnly devotes himself to his service ; and it is obvious that the water applied to the subject, is " an outward and visible sign," and that the covenant of which it is the seal, guarantees the richest spiritual blessings. Hence baptism is to all intents and purposes a sacrament.

2. If it be maintained that a sacrament is a means of grace, we add that such is plainly the nature of baptism. It symbolically represents some of the most important truths of the gospel, and that too in a very striking and forcible manner ; and as divine truth is the principal means of grace, it is evident that baptism must necessarily partake of this nature. Moreover, its administration is connected with God's word and prayer, which in themselves are the most efficient means of grace ; hence it follows that it must likewise be a means as well as a seal of grace.

3. It is also a sign and seal of God's covenant with his people. The covenant here alluded to, is that which was solemnly entered into Avith Abraham, nearly two thousand years anterior to the Christian era:1 " And I ivill establish my covenant betiveen me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Of this covenant, circumcision was the original sign and seal:2 "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised," &c. But when Christ appeared, the old dispensation, having fulfilled its grand design, was set aside to give place to the new one ; the church

lGoa. xvii. 7. 2Gen. xvii. 12. . - assumed a different aspect ; its external ordinances, its ceremonies, sacrifices, etc., which referred to and prefigured him especially in his mediatorial character, were necessarily abolished, because they all centered and received their accomplishment in him. Circumcision, one of the ordinances of the old economy, shared the same fate ; it was annulled to make room for Christian baptism, an institution better adapted to the simplicity, increased light and more " easy yoke" of the New Testament economy. The Abrahamic covenant however, usually denominated "the covenant of grace," was not and could not be abrogated, because that was designed to be an " everlasting covenant." While the covenant therefore, by which the church of God was organized, continued substantially the same, the sign and seal of that covenant was altered ; circumcision was repealed and baptism substituted, as will hereafter be more fully proved. Hence baptism is, as we have defined it, a sign and seal of God's covenant with his people.

4. It is further a formal recognition of membership in the church of God. Baptism is almost universally spoken of as an initiatory rite, or a means of introducing individuals to membership in the church. With certain limitations, this mode of representing it may be admissible, but if strictly interpreted it is calculated to convey, and in numerous instances has conveyed, an unscriptural and consequently erroneous view of the subject. Children are members of the visible church of God through the merits of Christ's atonement and in virtue of their birth from Christian parents or of their being brought under Christian guardianship, and therefore have no need to be made members by baptism. With regard to adults, whether heathen or inhabitants of a Christian country, they are always previously instructed in the precepts of the gospel and required to profess their faith in it, prior to their baptism ; and it is this profession, and not their baptism, that constitutes them members of God's true church. By baptism they are, in a very solemn and impressive manner, recognized and publicly proclaimed as members of the church ; hence we prefer describing baptism as a formal recognition of church-membership, rather than as an initiatory rite.

The idea here advanced may be illustrated by the following fact : In Europe there is a "Traveller's Society," the constitution of which declares that every person of good character who has travelled in foreign countries to a certain extent, shall be a member. The mode of admission is thus : the member subscribes the constitution ; a mark is made on his right arm with indelible ink ; his name is added to the list of recorded members, and he receives a certificate of membership. (This may in some sense be termed an initiatory ceremony.) If he neglect to lay claim to his membership in due time, he forfeits it. From this statement it is evident, that every traveller of a certain description is a member of the society, and can demand admission ; that if he neglect to do so he loses his membership, which however, by a compliance with certain requisitions, may be regained ; and that before he can participate in the rights and honors of the society, he must submit to a prescribed form in which his membership is openly recognized and his obligations as one of the parties constituting the association are sealed. It is manifest that it is not the ceremony of initiation, but his having performed certain journeys, visited certain cities, &c.r that made him a member ; and his initiation is no more than a formal recognition and ratification of membership previously possessed. So children are members of God's church in virtue of Christ's merits and their birth from Christian parents ; God's covenant with Abraham, made nearly forty centuries ago, and never revoked, constitutes them members, and when baptized their membership is set forth and solemnly certified. We indeed readily admit that the analogy in the foregoing illustration is not perfect, but we think it sufficiently so to answer our purpose.

In support of this view, we must be permitted to offer a few remarks. The covenant with Abraham, which is confessedly still in force, being emphatically an " everlasting covenant" embraces his " seed in all generations " as well as himself, consequently his infant offspring and that of all his posterity were included as subjects of this covenant, or in other words, as members of the church of God, and that by virtue of their birth from a chosen and godly parentage, or of their being placed under a godly influence. It was not circumcision therefore, that entitled the pious patriarch and his children, or the slave-child born of worthless parents but brought under Jewish protection,1 to church-membership, but the stipulations of the covenant. Circumcision however was the sign and seal of the covenant, and must therefore be regarded as a solemn token of membership. Apply this elucidation to baptism, and the idea we wish to impart will be easily apprehended.

*It should be borne in mind that God also required the children of heathen parents to be circumcised, if by slavery or otherwise, those children were brought under Jewish control. " He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised." Gen. xvii. 12, 13 ; see also Exod. xii. 48.

This exhibition of the subject receives irresistible force from the fact that God ordained, that if any, whether infant or adult, should not be circumcised, "that soul should be cut off from his people;11 because, it is added, "he hath broken my vow11 Here then it is clearlymanifest, that the individual so "cut off," in consequence of non-circumcision, must previously and independently of circumcision, have belonged to God's people ; — have been a subject of the covenant, and member of the church ; or how, on any other supposition, could he be exscinded, or be said to have broken his vow? Who then must not plainly perceive, that church-membership existed prior to circumcision,1 and that the latter was, strictly speaking, only the recognition of the former ? In like manner, the children of Christian parents are by birth, in virtue of God's covenant, members of his church, and when baptism is administered, their membership is publicly signified and the covenant of grace sealed.

Some additional light may be reflected on this subject, by a reference to the established usages of civil life. A number of individuals in a state are chosen members of Congress ; they are termed " members elect," and are members in full so far as "the sovereign people," the source of all power in a republic, can make them such ; but they cannot claim a right to the exercise of their official privileges, until they shall have complied with certain forms prescribed by the constitution. Evidently it is not these forms that elevate them to their office, but the voice of the people ; the forms however may be regarded in a sense as a seal of their membership, and should they refuse to comply with them they

Abraham was a subject of God's covenant fourteen years before circumcision was instituted.

would be " cut off " or excluded from the enjoyment of their membership. So children of Christian parents are members of God's church in virtue of his election of them through Christ to that dignity in the covenant of grace, and baptism is the seal of that covenant, the vow of fidelity to it, and of course, a public recognition of their membership.

This is perhaps as suitable a place as any other to observe, that the common English version of the words of the institution of baptism,1 is confessedly erroneous ; — the word, ^ahrtvaxrs means, to disciple or make disciples, and hence the passage should be rendered thus : " Go ye therefore and disciple (or make disciples of) all nations, baptizing for, and baptize) them in the name,"2 &c; the monosyllable "by" frequently inserted immediately before baptizing, is an interpolation not found in the original and conveys a wrong idea.

These words present baptism to us as an ordinance to be administered originally by the apostles, and subsequently by the ministers of the gospel ; for what was the duty of the apostles in this case, is equally the duty of all succeeding ministers. Moreover, the office of baptizing was entrusted to the same individuals who were commissioned to " teach" or preach the gospel, and these were the pastors of the church, hence they and they alone are warranted under ordinary circumstances to per-

>Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

2 There can be no dispute concerning this translation, as the ablest and most respectable philologists bear harmonious testimony to its correctness. Examples of a like construction of the present participle are of constant occurrence in the New Testament. Thus, Matt. xv. 25, 'H Jt txSov?*. 7r£owtvvu etura> xrycuat, " but she came and worshipped him and said," &c. See also Matt. xix. 3, and many other similar instances.

form this office ; and the more so, as a commission to perform any specific work, on prudential grounds at least, excludes all upon whom that commission has not been conferred.

We hope we shall be pardoned for here introducing a few remarks, which, though not perhaps legitimately connected with the argument, are yet not irrelevant. In some of the ancient liturgies of the Lutheran church in Germany, we find provision made for the administration of baptism in cases of "extreme necessity" by rnidwives. This practice was originally introduced by the church of Rome. In that church it is maintained that children, dying without baptism, are not saved, but have a place allotted them in Limbus, the ante-chamber of hell ; and hence the intense solicitude of its members to have their children baptized even by a female, rather than that they should die without receiving the ordinance. This unscriptural view has been rejected by the Lutherans, but they nevertheless hold in Germany to what is termed " Nothtaufe," that is, private baptism by the midwife in cases of extreme necessity. They do not pretend that there is a divine command or any express authority for this doctrine. Baptism, they conceive, is a consecration of the child, not to a secular but to a spiritual kingdom, yea to God's eternal kingdom in glory, and hence, it is deemed highly proper that every infant should be baptized, though its temporal existence should endure but for an hour. Moreover, it is regarded as a source of precious consolation to parents to reflect, that their children, who are hurried hence immediately after they open their eyes upon this world, have received the seal of God's gracious covenant, and been solemnly dedicated to him in his own appointed ordinance. The hope, of a glorious re-union seems to be thereby strengthened, and thus an invisible bond between the living and the dead is cherished through the power of the gospel. From all this it is inferred, that children should by all means be baptized if they survive their birth long enough to admit of it ; and if the services of a minister of the gospel cannot be procured in time, it is thought better that the ordinance should be administered by a pious midwife than be altogether neglected.

But in the church in Germany where this practice still obtains, the most judicious measures are pursued in order to secure the assistance of midwives of adequate professional and moral qualifications. The civil authority takes cognizance of the subject, and has adopted wise and efficient regulations in reference to it. A midwife is required to be an educated and intelligent woman, who has herself given birth to children ; she must not only be in high repute for patience, meekness, diligence, skill, &c. but also afford undoubted evidences of piety. Physicians duly appointed for the purpose, examine and decide as to her professional ability, and the clergy must pronounce upon her moral and religious character. They must moreover be women of ample experience in other respects as well as in personal religion, and it is a part of the duty assigned them, to impart consolation and encouragement to the patient, to pray with her, &c. Every species of superstition and quackery is strictly prohibited. Such is the character of licensed midwives in Germany ; and in special cases, such as have been mentioned above, it belongs to their office to administer baptism. But if a regular minister can possibly be procured during the probable lifetime of the child, they are relieved from this duty. 2

Should the child after such baptism be restored to health, it is subsequently carried to the church, where testimony is publicly borne to the fact of its baptism ; the ordinance however, is not repeated, but sanctioned and confirmed by the officiating minister. The ceremony on such occasions is exceedingly interesting and impressive; but it would lead to too long a digression to repeat the form.

One of the arguments adduced in support of the foregoing usage, is the fact that on occasion of the sickness of Moses, his wife Zipora performed circumcision on their child, which in ordinary circumstances, was the prerogative of the father. But our object is not to defend the practice, but simply to state it, and to remark, that though we are not aware that it prevails in the Lutheran church in this country, yet there are some who approve of it. That it obtains in the church of England, is known to most readers. We do not at present either advocate or condemn it, and think we have expressed ourselves with sufficient definiteness in a preceding paragraph, as to the class of individuals to whom in ordinary circumstances, the duty of administering baptism properly belongs. After this slight digression, we return to our main subject.

Water was selected by our Lord as the sign in baptism, for very obvious reasons. It is a striking emblem of moral purification, and therefore admirably adapted to set forth the import of this sacrament and the obligations of its subjects; it was in previous use at the "divers baptisms" which existed among the Jews under the law, and it may be had without cost and in all countries. Having been wisely chosen by the Divine Author of baptism, we have no more right to substitute sand or milk or any thing else for water, than we have to change the outward elements of the holy supper. If these elements eannot be procured, the irremediable want of them absolves us from the obligation of celebrating the sacraments. Our Lord never required impossibilities from his disciples.

The water must be applied in the name of the Triune God, — Father, Son and Holy Ghost ; the baptism of all those who do not believe in the Trinity, and cannot therefore consistently baptize in the name of the Great Tlrree- One God, is unscriptural, — is not Christian baptism.

The practice of baptizing organs, bells and other inanimate objects, is so gross a perversion that it is not worthy of serious refutation; the command of Christ as well as the example of the apostles and their immediate successors, plainly limits its administration to human beings.

Adults are required in the Scriptures to profess their faith in Jesus Christ prior to baptism, that is, to make a public declaration of their cordial belief in the doctrines and precepts of the gospel, which is usually in this country denominated a Profession of Religion / for the command in reference to them is, to disciple them, not however by baptizing them, as is generally maintained, but by preaching the gospel to them ; and so soon as they embrace the gospel or profess faith in the Messiah, baptism is to be administered. The apostles undoubtedly understood Christ's command thus; for Peter called upon the Jews to repent and then be baptized; Philip did not baptize the eunuch until he professed faith ; Lydia was not baptized until the Lord had opened her heart; the jailor was baptized in consequence of his faith ; so was Paul; so were Cornelius and his household.

Infants obviously come under a different rule. They are incapable of professing faith, and are accordingly baptized on the profession of their parents, or of those who offer them to God in baptism, and who are their proper and authorized representatives in this transaction.

All the Israelites made public profession of the religion of the Scriptures ; all were circumcised and regularly celebrated the passover ; if they neglected to do so they were " cut off;" hence, in ordinary circumstances no children but those of professing Jews and those under Jewish guardianship could lawfully be recognized as members of the church and receive the seal of the covenant of grace under the old dispensation ; and unless that covenant in this respect has been altered, (which has not been, and never can be proved,) it follows irresistibly that no children but those of professing Christians and such as are brought under Christian influence can lawfully receive the seal (which is baptism) of the same covenant under the new dispensation. Peter declares that the promise is to as many (and their children) as the Lord our God shall call;1 as all are bound to obey the call he must have alluded to such ; but obedience to the call implies a profession of faith, hence baptism, strictly speaking, belongs only to those who profess the religion of the Bible, and to their children and wards, or such as are under their care ; so affirms the apostle in language that can hardly be misunderstood. Paul teaches, that if both parents be unbelievers, that is, heathens, their children are unclean,2 that is, are not members of the visible church of God, and may not be offered to him in baptism, unless made clean by their adoption into a Christian family or by their being brought under Christian inlets ii. 39. 21 Cor. vii. 14.

fluence. But if any one of them be a believer, then are the children holy, (in an ecclesiastical sense,) that is, they are members of the church of God to which the believing parent is united in virtue of his or her profession, and must in consequence of this relation, be devoted to him in baptism.

It is in vain to object to this view of the subject on the supposition that children are entitled to baptism in their own right and independently of any relation to their parents ; for not only can no such right be found in the original stipulations of the covenant, but the very idea is subversive of the great design of baptism. On the above supposition ministers would be bound to administer it to the children of infidel and heathen parents, whether they renounced their infidelity and heathenism or not ! — and would not this defeat one of the principal objects of this holy ordinance? — No, like circumcision, it is "a seal of the righteousness of faith," and therefore presupposes the exercise of at least historical faith; but it is impossible for infant children to believe, and hence it is on a profession of faith made by those who present them in the ordinance, that they can be baptized. If it be contended that as children were universally circumcised under the law, so they ought to be universally baptized under the gospel ; our reply is, that the circumcision of children was precisely co-extensive with a profession of the religion of the Bible on the part of parents, and the same rule should govern in the administration of baptism; for it is in every case, this profession which gives the right, in the church, to this ordinance. If parents refuse to believe in the gospel, how can they dedioate their children to the service of its divine Author \ if their heart be radically wrong in the one case, can it be right in the other ? — In vain will it be pretended that they love their offspring more than themselves, or that they can perform an act of religious duty on their behalf, which they cannot perform on their own.

It is hardly necessary to add concerning this profession, that it should be sincere ; or that those who make it ought to mean all that is ordinarily intended by the profession.

The want of such sincerity however, though it inculpates the hypocritical professors, cannot affect the validity of the ordinance. It is to be feared that Jewish children were often circumcised while their parents did not exercise genuine faith, yet the circumcision was neither invalidated nor rendered unmeaning on that account. It is sufficient for the visible administration that faith is visibly professed. The Baptists no doubt often administer baptism to adults who are not honest in their professions, but they do not consider such dishonesty as divesting the ordinance of either its warrant or its meaning.

We cannot close this chapter, written more than a year ago, without quoting a passage from an article in a late number of the Biblical Repository, which, so far as it goes, entirely accords with the views just expressed: "It is a common sentiment," says that writer, " that the baptism of children makes them members of the church, but this is an error ; their baptism does not make them members, it only recognizes their right of membership already existing ; their membership is not founded upon their baptism, but their baptism upon their membership ; and whether that seal of the covenant be applied to them or not, they are (in the case of believing parents) not " without" but within the pale of the church. Is any one here disposed to object, "how can children be members of the church without their own consent ?" I reply, that with equal propriety it might be asked, how can they be members of the civil state, or created rational beings, without their own consent. It is their " birthright," their privilege, and none the less such because it is a common one or greatly perverted." See Bib. Rep. for Oct. 1839, Art. III. by Rev. S. Helfenstein, p. 314.

Chapter II. The Church Of God

Having had repeated occasion to use the phrase, church of God, and as it will often occur in our future investigations, it may be useful to ascertain the several meanings attached to it.

The expression, church of God, is frequently synonymous with kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven.

1. The visible church or king-dom of God signifies the aggregate body of all those who profess the true religion, and of their infant offspring, 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; xv. 9, &c. The whole of this body comprehends all Christian nations, but constitutes only one society, of which the Bible is the statute book ; Jesus Christ the Head ; and a covenant relation the uniting bond.

2. The invisible church comprises all those of every denomination in the world, who are thoroughly converted to God, whether in a state of imperfection and conflict on earth, or of perfect holiness and glory in heaven. Eph. v. 24—27 ; Heb. xii. 23.

3. The term church also denotes any body of professing Christians who live together in the same city or vicinity, and worship in tbe same or in different houses. Acts xi. 22 ; xiii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i. 2.

4. It is also used in a denominational sense, signifying a whole Christian community, who hold to the same creed or confession and are united in the same mode of worship or discipline. This is a more modern application of the

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 21

word, and it is in this sense that we speak of the Lutheran church, the Presbyterian church, the church of Ensrland — of Scotland — of Rome, &c.

5. It yet further designates a congregation of Christians who worship together in the same place and under the same minister. Col. iv. 15 ; Rom. xvi. 5.

We cannot recollect that the phrase is ever used in the Bible to denote the building or house of worship, although by metonymy it is often thus employed in the present day ; some think it is used in this sense in 1 Cor. xi. 22 ; but to us it appears very doubtful, especially as we do not read that houses of public worship were erected at so early a period as that at which the apostle penned his Epistle to the Corinthians.

Accordingly, when we say that baptism is a formal token of membership in the church of God, we do not mean that a baptized person is necessarily a member of the invisible church, or of the Lutheran church, or of the Presbyterian church, &c, but of the church of God in its most enlarged acceptation ; and he may also, and indeed is bound to be, a member of the invisible church ; at the same time he may be a member of the Lutheran, or of some other denominational church.