Children in Christ; or, The relation of children to the atonement, the ground of their right to Christian baptism

Front matter

Hs&i

®wffl

""BT

Introduction

I examined the manuscript of this book with care. I believe it to be the best presentation of the subject that I have ever seen. The author is a polemic of acknowledged ability, and writes con-amore.

I commend this volume to all lovers of truth. Those who believe in infant baptism will have their faith strengthened ; those who have doubts on the subject will have those doubts removed ; and those who are opposed to infant baptism will find arguments here that they can not answer.

May the author and his readers so love and practice the truth, as it is in Jesus, that they may all meet in the home prepared for the righteous.

G. B. OVEKTON.

Corydon, Ky., February 12, 1884.

(iv)

Chapter I

the question stated.

Proposition : The right of infants to membership in the Church of God, and to Christian Baptism, grows out of, and is inseparable from, the Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"The wicked is driven away in his wickedness: but the righteous hath hope in his death." (Prov. xiv. 32.) This text presents us with two distinct and separate classes, with distinct and widely different destinies. These two classes are all that are recognized in the Bible. There is no neutral (7)

ground — no third party. They are almost at an infinite remove, the one from the other. However nearly they may seem to approximate, however hard it may be, sometimes, for man to discover the line of separation, they are as wide apart as sin from holiness, as darkness from light, as bondage from liberty, as death from life, and are destined to be as far apart as hell from heaven. These two classes include the whole of the human family. Every human being belongs either to the one or the other, and is destined to dwell in heaven or hell. We are either in favor with God, or we are not. If in favor with God, we are accounted among the righteous; if not, we are among the wicked. If we die in his favor, we will be admitted into heaven; if not, we will be "driven away in our wickedness" — driven down to hell! "for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." These are facts admitted by all. Let them, therefore, be firmly fixed and kept in the mind of the reader, for we will have use for them as we proceed. 1. There are but two classes. 2. These two classes embrace the whole race of man. Now, let us inquire, whence originated the two classes? why more than one? Did they originate in a separate creation? Did God, originally, create two distinct classes, the wicked and the righteous? To ask such a question, is to answer it. For, however much men may differ about other things, none who recognize the Bible as a revelation from God, and have any respect for its teachings (and we write for none other), will dare assume such a position. We will not, therefore, insult the common-sense of the reader by arguing against such absurdities; but accept the simple, plain Bible history of our origin, and the declaration of the apostle Paul that God " hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.''

Not only were there not two classes in the original creation, but there were not even two individuals! Absolutely, God created but one individual, viz: Adam. He did not create Eve, but took her out of Adam's side — made her out of one of

Adam's ribs. She was created, it is true, but only in the same sense that all men since Adam were created, in Adam. In this we see the absolute oneness of human nature. ISo doubt, God could have created Eve independently of Adam, and made them just alike, as to nature; but in that case, they would not have been one nature, but two, however much alike. This oneness of nature is clearly recognized and set forth in the account of man's creation, as given in Genesis. In the first chapter, after speaking of the creation of everything else, the inspired historian tells us: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion. * * * So God created man in his own image : in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." And in the second chapter, verse 7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (lives) and man became a living soul. ,, Here is the account, in brief, of man's creation.

Afterward, when "the Lord^God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam/' and took one of his ribs and made the woman, and brought her unto the man, "Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. v If she had not been created in Adam, she could not have been " taken out of" him. The two classes, then, are not to be accounted for in a separate creation of each; for there w T as but one, and that one bore the image and likeness of God. Of course the individuals composing that class were righteous. But they did not remain so, for in tracing their history, we find that man sinned and forfeited the favor of God.

We inquire, then, did the two classes originate in the fall of man? Did a part fall, and a part remain holy, or righteous? To this there is, there can be, but one answer; all fell — man apostatized, and human nature became corrupt. Not a part only, but the whole of that nature. Adam and Eve both sinned; and as they each possessed the whole of human nature, and were the only representatives of their kind, there were none left that did not fall. So, then, there was no division in the fall, no two classes formed yet. Human nature retained its oneness in the fall; and as all who bore that nature fell, we have but one class still, though changed in its relation to God. Before all were righteous; now all are wicked.

Continuing our search for the origin of the two classes, we next inquire, did they originate in a partial or limited atonement? Did God redeem, and provide for the salvation of, a part of the fallen race, and consign, by an arbitrary and irrevocable decree, the rest to everlasting ruin; and that without the possibility of escape? Such a supposition is not only repugnant to the better feelings of our nature, but is contrary to the plain teachings of the Word of God, is opposed to the very philosophy of the plan of salvation, impugns the character of God, and destroys not only the distinction between virtue and vice, but the possibility of the existence of either. The truth is, it is impossible in the very nature of things for God to redeem a part of the human family, and not all; for to do so would be to destroy the oneness of human nature, or to divide Christ.

We have seen that human nature is a unit. To be a human being, then, is to possess that nature — not a part only, but all of it. To possess only a part, would be to be partly human. Every human being, to be such, must possess the whole of human nature. It is because we possess that nature that we are interested in the atonement. The same nature that sinned, was redeemed; and redeemed by the atoning sacrifice of the very nature that sinned. The law — justice — had no claim upon, no demands to make of, any other. Man had transgressed, and man must suffer the penalty. Here was a problem; who could solve it? God's law had been broken; divine justice demanded the punishment of the guilty culprit, and divine mercy compassionated and longed to acquit the prisoner and restore him to life and liberty. What could be done ? Only infinite wisdom could tell. Only He who created man could redeem him. How was it done ? Not by the creation of a substitute; that would not do. Justice would not, could not, accept such a sacrifice. Another man would not do, unless he possessed the same nature ; it was not enough that it be like it, it must be the same nature. To be the same, it must be of it — in some way generated by it. To be generated in the usual, natural way would not do; for then the effects of sin would be entailed, and death would be the natural and necessary result, and could not be endured for another. To die for another, the victim must be one on whom death has no claim, and upon whom, on his own account, death could never come. Here was the difficulty: He who would die for and redeem man, must be of the same nature — must be man, and yet be free from sin and its effects. In the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, the case is met. The divine paternity and the human maternity combine to give to the world a perfect man, free from sin — without " spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.'* He was "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. iv. 4.)

Human nature being a unit, and being represented entire in Adam, in him fell and was brought under the curse of the law; and being under the curse of the law, must suffer the penalty due to its transgression, unless a remedy be provided. Law is inexorable in its demands, exacting the full measure of punishment due for its transgression, and of all who have transgressed. Hence the necessity, in redeeming man, that man should suffer, and that so much of man — the nature of man — as was involved in the sin, should also be involved in the suffering due to that sin. If, therefore, Jesus were not man, a perfect man, possessing the whole of man's nature, he could not redeem man, because unable to meet the demands of the law upon him. On the other hand, being perfect man, possessed of the whole of man's nature, in redeeming one, he of necessity redeems all who bear that nature. Law can no more go beyond exact justice, than it can fail of reaching it. Therefore, if the whole of human nature suffered once, in the person of Jesus Christ, the law has no further claim upon it; and to inflict punishment upon it, or upon any part of it, again, would be as much to dishonor the law as to have failed to inflict the merited punishment at all. In either case, the law, failing to accomplish the end for which it was designed, would be a nullity. Unless, then, Jesus Christ was less a representative than Adam, it is impossible to limit the atonement to a part — great or small — of the human family. Indeed, if limited at all, if must be limited as to all, that is, limited in its nature, its sufficiency as a remedy for sin, and not as to the number saved; for what w T ill cover one, of necessity covers all, with equal sufficiency. In other words, if it is possible for a single descendant of Adam to be lost, without actual personal transgression, it is possible for all to be lost without personal sin; and then it follows, either that the atonement made by Jesus Christ was insufficient; or that the law may demand punishment twice for the same offense; or that God may arbitrarily punish his innocent creatures, without regard to law or justice! Upon what ground, then, could we base infant salvation, so as to reach, with any certainty, the conclusion that all, or any, dying in infancy, are saved?

We do not say, for w r e do not believe, that, in making atonement for man, Jesus Christ suffered the full amount and extent of punishment due to the sins of all men, so that all the punishment that would be endured by the sinner was borne by him; for in that case universal, unconditional salvation would be the result. But we do say that the unity of human nature is such, that whatever was necessary to atone for one human being, was equally and necessarily sufficient for the whole of that nature, however numerous the individuals who bear it; and that, therefore, all who were affected by the fall of Adam, in which they could have no personal responsiblity, were to the same extent, and unconditionally, affected by the atoning death of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, all fell in Adam, all

are redeemed in Christ. The nature that was alienated from God in Adam, was reconciled to him in Christ: " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." " Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man." In him we " behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." "He gave himself a ransom for all. " As God is one, and human nature one; and as Jesus Christ was "made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that are under the law," and all bearing that nature were under the law; and as he took upon him the seed of Abraham — the whole nature of man — and "in him dwelt the fullness of the God-head, bodily; it follows, of necessity, that all were redeemed, absolutely and unconditionally redeemed.

The two classes, then, did not originate in a partial or limited atonement. The oneness of human nature — made one in creation — was not destroyed by the fall. It was assumed, as a whole, by Jesus Christ, and wholly redeemed by the atoning sacrifice of himself; so that, in virtue of his death, every descendant of Adam stands, until personal sin is committed, in a saved relation to God; and that unconditionally \ Where, then, shall we look for the origin of the two classes ? Evidently, to the point of personal divergence from Christ; to the voluntary act of departure from him — actual, personal transgression of the law, to sin. "You:* iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you/' "We hazard nothing in saying that, in the very nature of the case, it is impossible for a single human being to be lost, without personal transgression. Nothing but sin can separate between a human soul and God. So far, then, from the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy being true, it is impossible for any but apostates to be lost. Hell was made for apostates, and none other can ever enter there! But this by the way.

Our object now is, to show the origin of the wicked, who constitute one of the two classes into which our race is divided and in which the whole race, every member of it, is embraced. God created but one. That one was not divided in the fall, but contintied a unit y though changed in its relation to God. As one it was redeemed by Christ, and in him restored to the favor of God. And as none can be lost without sin, actual, personal transgression, we necessarily conclude that the other class (the wicked) is formed by the sins of those who, as individuals, voluntarily depart from Christ. All who sin are classed with the wicked, and are destined to be "driven away in their wickedness," to "go away into everlasting punishment;" unless they voluntarily return, bj 7 repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, to be numbered with the righteous, who have hope in their death, and inherit eternal life. In a word, every human being is either in Christ, or he is out of Christ. If in him, he is saved and is accounted righteous. If out of him, he is numbered with the wicked and, unless he repent, will be driven away in his wickedness and be eternally lost; "for our God is a consuming fire."

Chapter II. The Fall And Recovery

We are now prepared to take another step, and affirm that, as every child of man is embraced in the atonement, and stands in a saved relation to God, in virtue of Christ's death, so is every one entitled to all the blessings and privileges accruing to the world through him, until by personal transgression he forfeits them.

That man is a fallen creature is a fact admitted by all. That he exists, since the fall, by virtue of the atonement, is equally clear. In the fall man lost everything. Life, with everything calculated to perpetuate or make it a blessing, was forfeited by the first transgression. Had God not provided a Savior, the death-penalty must of necessit}' have been inflicted upon the first transgressors; for his very nature forbids that creatures should be brought into existence to suffer the consequences of an act in which they had no part, without any possible means of escape therefrom. And as we exist by virtue of the death of Christ, so have we in him, absolutely and unconditionally, all that is needed to make that existence a perfect and perfectly happy one, until by personal transgression we forfeit it. I do not say that we are thereby exempted from natural and physical evils, such as the infirmities attaching to depraved nature, and the dissolution of soul and body, which we call temporal death; but even these could not be allowed to exist if they were not compensated for in the resurrection, of which we have a pledge and first fruits in the resurrection of Christ. But I do say that the grace of salvation, with everything attaching thereto, whether as a means of grace or as a sign and seal of " the righteousness of God;" whether as a type pointing to the coming antitype, or as a memorial of the great fact of redemption consummated in the death and resurrection of Christ, is absolutely and unconditionally secured to every child of man, to be forfeited only by actual, personal transgression.

The Church of God, in a spiritual sense, is nothing more nor less than fallen spirits restored to the favor and image of God, by virtue of the death of Christ, through the agency of the Holy Spirit; and in its visible, organized form it consists of a recognition of this relation to God in Christ by the signs appointed of God, and mutual recognition among the associated worshipers of God. Baptism is a — I may say the — sign of divine ownership, appointed of God himself to designate as his all who are justified in Christ Jesus. It was not given as a sign of repentance nor of faith, but of righteousness — the righteousness of God. It was not, therefore, intended only, nor necessarily, to follow faith; but to encourage and strengthen faith, by setting forth our need of cleansing and symbolizing the purifying influence of "the Holy Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption," and at the same time reminding us that we belong to God and should therefore keep ourselves unspotted from the world. AH, therefore, who belong to God — all who stand in a justified relation to him through Christ — have a right to this sign of divine ownership, this seal of the righteousness of God. Yea, more, justice absolutely demands that it should be placed upon all such; and whoever assumes to forbid it to any, even the least of his children, assumes thereby a fearful responsibility, for which he is in nowise to be envied. If this be true — and who will dare gainsay it? — to determine whether children — infant children — have or have not a right to Christian baptism, we have only to ascertain whether they stand in a f justified relation to God, or not! Xeed we argue that they do? Will any affirm that they do not? If so, on what ground will they base infant salvation ? On what condition are those who die in infancy saved? or are all such lost? If they are not justified, there must be a reason why they are not, and whatever that reason is, when it is found, its removal must be the condition of their justification.

Shall we say that death, to the infant, is the condition of justification? To this thet*e are two insuperable objections: First, if death be the condition, then they must die before they can.be justified; for the condition must be fulfilled before that which is consequent on it can be realized; second, it must be a voluntary act on the part of those who perform, or comply with, the condition; else it were no condition at all. If justification takes place after death, then is the kingdom of heaven composed of unjustified persons; for "of such (these unjustified infants) is the kingdom of heaven!" If death is the result of volition, then are all who die guilty of suicide; and it follows that God has made the highest crime in the decalogue, viz.: murder — self-murder — the condition of salvation! The truth is, it is impossible for them to stand in any other than a justified relation to God, until they are capable of sin, for sin is the only thing that can separate from God any of his creatures. Nor is it any reply to this to say, they are depraved; for depravity is not sin, but only the result of it, and the perverted soil to which sin is indigenous. We would not be misunderstood. We do not deny the depravity of human nature; nor are we disposed to explain it away. On the contrary, we heartily endorse and teach the doctrine of total depravity. It lies at the very foundation of human redemption. If the nature of man had not been attainted by the sin of Adam and Eve, and entailed by them upon their descendants, there would have been no need of a Redeemer, for each and every child would have stood as unblemished as he was unblamable before God, and only the original pair — the transgressors — would have been punished.

Where there is no disease there can be no need of a physician. In the fact, therefore, that man is depraved, lies the necessity of the atonement. For nothing impure can enter heaven ; and the absolute justice of God renders it impossible for him either to punish his creatures for an act of which they were not personally guilty, or for actual, personal transgressions necessitated by a state or condition into which they were brought without any agency of their own. That man should exist then, after the fall, it became necessary that a Savior should be provided. To be a perfect Savior, lie must provide for all who are involved in the consequences of the original transgression; hence, "Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man." All who enjoy, or are entitled to, the favor of God, are indebted for the same to the death of Christ, and have a divine, a bloodbought right to all the blessings and privileges accruing to the world through him; for God is no respecter of persons. Nothing save Christ and him crucified can possibly secure to a single child of man — young or old — any, even the least blessing or privilege; and, thank God! nothing but sin — actual, personal transgression of divine law — can deprive any of the right to anything purchased by his death.

Infant children, as we have seen, are entitled, by virtue of Christ's death, to the blessing of salvation; and, as the greater includes the less, it follows, unavoidably, that they have an indisputable right to membership in the Church, and to the sign and seal of the righteousness of God, secured to them in Christ. In a word, that they are proper subjects for Christian baptism, and their right to this ordinance is inseparable from the atonement. If the right to baptism is not secured by the death of Christ, how and by what is it secured? This is an important question, and we hope the reader will not lightly pass it by. In order more clearly to see its force and bearing upon the subject, we ask, What gives an adult the right to be baptized? Does repentance or faith, or do both, repentance and faith, give him the right? We do not ask whether they are required, or are necessary, in the case of an adult; but is it by virtue of them that the right is secured? Evidently not. There is no merit, no virtue, in anything but Christ crucified. Why, then, is an adult required to repent and believe before he receives the ordinance of baptism? Answer: Because he has, by personal transgression, forfeited the favor of God and the right to all blessings purchased by his Son ; gone away from Christ, in whom alone the right is found. He must, therefore, return voluntarily, by repentance and faith, in order to avail himself of the

Tint Fall and Recovery. 29

right forfeited by sin. The right inheres in Christ. To leave Christ is to forfeit the right. This he did when he sinned. By repentance and faith he returns to Christ, and to the right which was his before he sinned, because in Christ. He is not baptized because he believes, but because he stands in a justified relation to God in Christ. This relation, it is true, is secured by faith, which is the condition of justification; but why? why is faith necessary? Because he has sinned. To make faith, then, a prerequisite to baptism is to make sin necessary also; for if a man must repent and believe before he is qualified to receive baptism, he must have something to repent of, and in order to this he must sin, for nothing but sin can qualify him for repentance. Thus we see that to reject infant baptism is to make sin a necessary qualification for the reception of an ordinance of the Church of God. To say that infants ought not to be baptized, because they can not repent and believe, is the same as to say they ought not to be baptized because they have not sinned. It is equivalent to saying they have no right to church membership because they have not forfeited that right ! It makes sin a prerequisite to membership in the Church of God! — a forfeiture of the kingdom essential to the inheritance of it! Recur again to the question, What gives a man the right to Christian baptism, to membership in the Church of God, and to each and all the blessings and privileges of the gospel? Can any be at a loss for an answer? Do they not all grow out of the death of Christ, and hang around the cross as so many memorials of the great fact of human redemption, culminating in the agonies of the death struggle, which was the life-giving pang to a sin-ruined world? Do they not — the sacraments — receive their significance from thence? and are they not beautiful only when seen in the light emitted from the Sun of Righteousness, whose golden beams, falling upon the dewdrops of death, span with the bow of hope the gulf which separates time from eternity, its farther end resting on the walls of the celestial city? Now, if this be true, if all are secured by the death of Christ, then every one recognized by the Father as justified through his blood is entitled to all that he purchased. If, therefore, infants are in a justified relation to God by virtue of the atonement, and baptism is secured by the same, it follows, necessarily, that they ought to be baptized.

Again, if baptism is a symbol or sign of any real spiritual blessing resulting from the death of Christ, then all who are the recipients of such blessings are also entitled to the symbol or sign. Baptism is a symbol of spiritual blessings, and infants are the recipients of those blessings; therefore infants are entitled to the ordinance of baptism. Nor does it matter what we make baptism represent, if only it be something purchased by the death of Christ, and of which infants are partakers. If we say it represents the death, burial and resurrection (which however we do not believe), then, as infants have a real interest in his death, and a certain pledge in his resurrection that they shall be raised from the dead, they ought by all means to be baptized. If they are possessed of a fallen, depraved nature, which must be cleansed, renewed, in order to their inheriting eternal life; and if that cleansing is secured by the death of Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit, and baptism is a sign of that cleansing, it would be unreasonable and unjust to withhold it from them. In whatever light we view the subject — unless we deny human depravity and say that infants have no need of a Savior, no interest in the atonement — the only reasonable conclusion to which we can possibly come is, that infants are proper subjects for and have a divine right to Christian baptism.