Pedobaptism: is it from heaven or of men?

Front matter

I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

A

# I

Prefatory Note

Instead of a formal preface, simply a few words will be offered by way of explanation. When this work was begun, nothing could have been further from the author's expectations and intentions than to write a book. His only purpose was to give the subject a thorough investigation for himself. As it opened up before him, however, and as his interest increased, he determined, in the midst of the investigations, to give the result of his labors to the public, selecting the Western Recorder as the medium. The following chapters were, therefore, originally designed as so many articles of a serial for that paper. This fact will account for the marked personal cast they sometimes assume in the way of appeal. Their publication in book-form was first suggested by one of Kentucky's oldest and most judicious pastors, to whom the entire manuscript was read, and whose judgment and opinion deserved the utmost confidence and respect. The advice to put the matter into a small book was taken, partly because it had become rather bulky for a newspaper publication, but especially because it was hoped that by giving to it a more permanent form, more good would eventually be accomplished, which was the sole reason for publishing at all.

It would, perhaps, be well to state also that scattered along through the work, in every chapter, and especially in Chapters IV., YI. and X., are to be found a large number of concessions from Pedobaptist authors. Many of these are new, and all of them very valuable, and if widely circulated will be for the furtherance of gospel truth. Special mention might be made of those quotations, taken from the recent controversy on this subject, published in the Southern (Methodist) Review^ and conducted by two Methodist divines — Kev. A. T. Bledsoe, editor of the Review, and one of his brethren, of considerable notoriety in this State. These will be of great value to any one studying the subject. Great care has been exercised to preserve perfect accuracy in all the quotations given. All of them, unless otherwise designated, were copied directly from

PREFATORY NOTE. Q*

the original works ; and those from a second-hand source are taken from the most reliable authorities, whose Dames are also given. Some Baptist authors have been quoted without mentioning their names.

The quotations are made very accessible by a completed index of authors quoted, arranged in alphabetic order.

The earnest and prayerful endeavor throughout has been to give the subject a purely practical turn. It has been written in a Christian spirit and for a Christian purpose, and is offered for the kindly consideration of those who differ from the positions taken. Pirst read, and then approve or condemn. As the work was designed especially for the masses, any assistance in giving it a wide circulation among them, will be very gratefully received. Already much pleasure, and profit, and real Christian joy have been found in the preparation of the work ; and now that it may find its way into the homes and hearts of many, and that, under the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, the cause of truth may be advanced, while that of error is checked, at least a little, by the contribution of his mite, is the earnest prayer of

The Author.

Contents

CHAPTER. PAGE.

I. The Scriptures Examined from Jolin's Baptism to tlie

Commission, ------ 9

Chapter I

It is simply impossible to overestimate, or to state in exaggerated terms, the importance of doing just what our Master has commanded. To study the Scriptures, wherein is recorded his will? is, therefore, a laudable undertaking. These should be studied, not to support a preconceived theory, but that by prayer, earnest, fervent, and by patient labor, the truth may be reached and the Master's will known. To the Bible all theories, confessions, and creeds should be made to bend. In this spirit — our motto being 'Hhe Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants " — let the question asked be put to the test. It is no time now for harsh words or unpleasant epithets, much less for sophistry. The inquiry now is what has our Savior commanded? To do that when Iihowyl^ and only that^ whatever be the consequences, whether persecutions by fines, by stripes, by imprisonment or by death, is honorable indeed, and brings with it the approbation and the blessing of the Master.

The followers of Christ have suffered martyrdom, not more for doing what he commands than for refusing to do what he did not command, and what they regarded as an encroachment upon his ordinance. Did Christ command the baptism of '' believers and tlieir infant GhildrenV Answer, and act accordingly in the fear of God. Loyalty to Christ is the first thing.

While here and there you find a few bold men who are advancing some new theories of infant baptism, yet the old and oft-repeated arguments in its favor are still being repeated again and again, and are emphasized with fresh vigor all over this land. And to many they are from various causes perfectly conclusive. The following, from Dr. Alvah Hovey, in the Baptist Quarterly (for April, 1875, p. 137), is a brief but correct summary of the arguments :

''Baptism is still said to have taken the place of circumcision, the seal of the Abraliamic covenant being changed, but not the covenant itself. The Christian Church is still said to be a continuation of the Jewish Church, modeled after it in the quality of its members, part of them being introduced as believers and part oF them as unbelievers. The households that were baptized by Paul are still supposed to have included infants who received the holy rite with their believing parents, for may not every household have an infant in it '^ The language of Christ in blessing little children is still believed to authorize the baptism of infants, for is not any one whom Christ blesses entitled to baptism ? The w^ords of Paul in respect to the children of the Corinthian Christians ' but now arc they holy ' are still supposed to prove that those children were infant members of the Church in Corinth, though the supposition makes the reasoning of Paul wholly illogical. The practice of infant baptism in the third century is still thought to imply its apostolic character, though the practice of immersion at that time, as the only con^lete rite, is thought tobe a perversion, superstitious, if not immodest (Coleman). And the natural desire of Christian parents to have their children in covenant with Grod is still supposed to justify, in some manner, the application of baptism to them, though it is difficult to see why the same argument would not justify the baptism of all whom Christians long to have saved from endless woe — that is to say, the baptism of all mankind."

The frequency and the zeal with which these arguments are repeated, demand that their refutation, SO often made, be made again. With this in mind your candid attention is asked to the following pages.

It is by no means easy to learn even from those by whom the rite is practiced and defended, just what is the purpose of infant baptism, or what is the exact status of baptized children. If they die in infancy are the}^ more likely to be saved than those who die of the same age unbaptized? Do they enjoy a single promise not equally enjoyed by the unbaptized children of believing parents — perhaps their older or younger brothers and sisters ? Certainly not. Are infants regenerated, '' made children of God and heirs of gloiy" by their baptism? Some Pedobaptists respond yes, while others, with equal emphasis, respond no, and of course the latter are right. Does their baptism make them members of the church? The contrary answers given to this by Pedobaptists are, they are baptized to bring them into the church, and they are baptized because they are already in the church. It is evident, however, that baptized children (infants) are not treated as church-members. They are not disciplined as other members are ; they are not allowed to commune as other members are ; they are not permitted to participate in the general privileges of the church as other members are. What possible benefit, therefore, can they reap from their baptism ? This is an impertinent question, if God has commanded the baptism of infants. It is simply our duty to obey. These are minor questions, therefore, and with them we have no concern, except so far as they bear upon the leading inquiry : Pedohaptism ; Is it from Heaven or of Men ? This is the standing question of this little volume. If from Jieaven^ then to oppose it, or to disregard it, is to be found fighting against God and taking from the sacred word.

If of men^ then to defend it and to administer it, by the authority and into the name of the adorable Trinity, is to sin grievously and to add to what is contained in the Scriptures. The question, therefore, is a serious one, for it is a dangerous thing to add to or to take from the inspired oracles. (Revelation xxii. 18, 19.)

This question must be settled by the New Testament. For that is the Christian's only law book, and baptism is a New Testament ordinance. Surelj^ by its decision every one should be willing to abide. To the law and the testimony. And may the Holy

Spirit, its Author, guide us into all truth, blessing both writer and reader.

" Father of Light ! hear our feeble cry, and so illuminate our minds by the influence of the Holy Spirit, that, with an eye single to thy glory, we may look above all the paltry interest of sects and times, and plead the cause of truth alone, desiring only the progress of true Christianity among the children of men."

The first baptism mentioned is that of the Harbinger, who, as Christ's forerunner, came preaching the kingdom of God. The record of his baptism is found in three of the evangelists as follows: Matthew iii. 5-9 ; Mark i. 4, 5 ; Luke iii. 3, 7, 8. By reading these narratives carefully you will observe the following facts :

1. Crowds flocked to the baptism of John.

2. Descent from Abraham gave no one a pass to the baptismal waters.

3. Of all who were baptized John demanded repentance, nay, more, evidence of their repentance]; '^ Bring forth fruit meet for" (suitable, agreeable to) ''repentance."

4 All admitted to baptism were baptized of him " in Jordan confessing their sins." Do not these simple facts, discernible to even the superficial reader, utterly exclude infants from the subjects of John's baptism?

The epitome of John's baptism, given by Paul in Acts xix. 4, only adds strength to strength :

" Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus."

14 PEJDOBAPTISM :

In addition to demanding of his hearers that they should repent, he also demanded faith in a coming Messiah. Were infants among John's hearers ? Did he demand of infants that they should repent and bring forth fruit meet for repentance ? Did he demand of infants that they should believe on him that should come, that is, on Christ Jesus ? Were infants baptized confessing their sins ? To all of these questions you must give a positive no, unless an infant be capable of doing all these things. There were no infants baptized, therefore, by the first Baptist.

In John iii. 22 ; iv. 1, 2, is all we have recorded of the baptizing done by Christ and his disciples during his ministry. What his disciples did in his name was said to be done by him. The only point in this, that is pertinent here, is, ''that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." Individuals were first made disciples^ and then received baptism. There is a manifest diff'erence between mahing disciples and haptizing them. As infants could not be made disciples they did not receive baptism. Why give to an infant the badge of discipleship, when it has not been made a disciple ? This record, like the other, is not only silent about but utterly excludes infant baptism. The brevity of these narratives is only equaled by the explicitness of their statement of the subjects admitted to the ordinance of baptism in the days of John the Baptist, and the ministry of Christ.

One other passage deserves attention here, and simply because some — only a very few- — Pedobap-

IS IT FR03I HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 15

tist consider it as supporting the dogma of infant baptism.

No one would ever think of pausing here, except hailed by a Pedobaptist. And stopping, we find, as will be presently seen, that they are disputing over this passage, as they are in fact over every passage ever quoted in favor of the practice ; some claiming, while many more discard it, as supporting the infant rite.

Reference is had to Matthew xix. 13-15, with its parallel passages in Mark x. 13-16, and Luke xviii. 15-17. It requires no close study of the passage to show that the argument founded upon it is baseless. In fact it is refuted by simply a careful reading of the words :

" Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands upon them, and pray ; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."

What are the facts? Plainly these, and beyond them no one can go :

1. According to a well-known custom among the Jews, of bringing their children to receive a blessing from distinguished rabbis, children were brought to Jesus also, for this specific purpose, viz : " that he might lay his hands on them, and pray," or bless them. Who will add, and for the purpose of baptizing them? The inspired record does not; and human additions are worthless and dangerous.

2. The disciples rebuked those who brought them. This conduct is unaccountable, if Christ had

16 PEBOBAPTTSM :

hitherto been in, the habit of baptizing children, or of even receiving them for the purpose mentioned. This is prima facie evidence that up to this time at least, Pedobaptism was a thing unknown among the apostles.

3. Jesus was displeased, and said, suffer them to come. "jH^ called them," says Luke, "unto him." Perhaps, at this time, he is going to give an example which his disciples are to follow, and which he had not yet taught them, viz : of baptizing infants. Don't Pedobaptists wish he had ?

4. But he did no such thing. He did simply what the children were brought to him for — nothing more if the divine record can be trusted, viz : "he laid his hands on them," or as Mark has it, "he took them up in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them," according to the custom already mentioned. If it could only be added as a fifth fact, that he baptized them, what rejoicing there would be among those who baptize infants !

But let the impartial reader say whether these children were baptized, or only blessed, by our Savior, There was a specific thing to be done, and this the Savior did — he laid his hands on them, and blessed them. Is there anything in all this to prove the scripturalness of infant baptism?

A presiding elder recently remarked in the hearing of the writer, "Of course these children were not baptized because they were Jewish children, and having been circumcised would not need to be baptized." Of course he knew from logical inference {?) that these children were all little hoys^ and

IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR qY MEN? 17

had been circumcised! ! But are there no cases in the New Testament, vvhere persons received both the rite of circumcision, and the ordinance of baptism ? How about Christ and Paul and Timothy, and the three thousand on the day of Pentecost? If a Jewish family should be converted, and apply for membership in a Methodist Church, would they, or would they not, baptize the circumcised members of the family ? But more of this in another chapter.

It has been argued from the phrase " of such is the kingdom of heaven/' that these children, whom our Savior blessed, were " members of his visible church." And the conclusion is drawn, that being in the church infants have a right to baptism. But it is wholly gratuitous to assume, that by " the kingdom of heaven " is meant the " visible church." For this, proof is most earnestly demanded. It is an erroneous assumption, born of Pedobaptist reasoning, something like the following: Christ says, these children ('' of such is ") are in something; they can not be in his spirituaul kingdom, and they were not at that time in the kingdom of glory, therefore, it must mean " visible church," and they are in that. It must be proved first, that the expression "kingdom of heaven" is ever used by the inspired writers in a single instance, where it must, from ahsolicte necessity^ mQ^n the ''visible church" — a passage must be produced where it can not possibly have any other meaning. It must be proved^ second, that " the kingdom of heaven," in the passages under consideration, must necessarily have that meaning; that it can not mean either the kingdom of glory or Christ's spiritual kingdom, but must of 7iecessity mean the "visible church." The question is not what a certain passage of Scripture ^nay mean, but what does it mean. Prove that in this passage the expression can not mean anything except " visible church," and so far the argument may be of some avail. But this can not be done.

And, furthennore, even granting that this was its meaning, then the phrase " of sicch is the kingdom," by no means necessitates the idea that those of whom it was spoken were in the kingdom. It can have, it does have, another interpretation. If not, then the argument would prove too much, and would therefore be worthless. If that be the interpretation, then the passage means that the '^ kingdom of heaven/' whether the ''visible church," the kingdom of glory, or Christ's spiritual kingdom, is composed " of buch*' persons (of infants and young children) to the exclusion of persons who are older. If the "visible church" is meant, then the "visible church,'' in its entirety, and completeness, consists^ or is made up, "of such." How preposterous! Christ by no means said those children, to whom he gave a blessing, were in the kingdom of heaven ; this would simply be impossible, if he had reference to either his spiritual kingdom, or the kingdom of glory. And let it be repeated that it has never been proved that "kingdom of heaven" means " visible church ; " nor that " of such " means that those children were in the kingdom.

This is all that Christ meant, that those born into his spiritual kingdom, in some respects resembled children. He refers not so much to children as to childhood. Those born of God are like children, not in age, not in physical stature, not in moral character, but simply in the characteristics of childhood — are gentle, affectionate, docile, confiding, etc.

How strikingly and beautifully do the characteristics of childhood resemble those born into Christ's spiritual kingdom, ''who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (Johni. 13.)

Dr. Albert Barnes, who is good authority among Presbyterians, speaking on this passage, says:

" Of such as these — that is, of persons with such tempers as these — is the church composed. He (Christ) does not say of these infants^ but of such as resemble them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up.''

This idea is more fully brought out in Mark and Luke :

" Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein/'

Also in Matthew xviii. 3 : " Except } e be converted, and become as little children^ ye shall not enter into the kingdom of henven." "And whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me," etc.

Here the resemblance is still presented, and very strongly indeed. The passage has nothing to do with baptism whatever.

Blessed be the name of Jesus that he said, " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me." With great joy should parents, by early instruction, bring their children to him. And none are more earnest than the Baptists in proclaiming this joyous message of our Savior, But in all this there is not one word about infant baptism.

Dr. Scott, a Pedobaptist, in commenting on this passage, sa^^s : " Christ did not order these infants to be baptized." Of course not; any one can see that. The passage proves absolutely nothing in favor of that practice. Olshausen, a distinguished German Pedobaptist, in his Commentary, says : * " We can not in truth find anywhere a reliable proof-text in favor of infant baptism.''

Why did he not turn to this passage ? In his commentary on this very place, he says: f *'0f that reference to infant baptism which it is so com* mon to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not the slightest trace to he fo%L7idP Other men of equal celebrity, and Pedobaptists at that, such as Dr. Doddridge, Prof. Jacobi and others, might be mentioned to the same effect. In fact, many of the most learned Pedobaptists are abandoning this passage as offering no support to infant baptism. Are Baptists, then, to be charged with dullness and stupidity, because they also fail to see here an argument for the practice? The argument can not be very clear. Passing this text, next comes the commission, to be discussed hereafter.

The entire ministry of Christ has now been examined ; and though the church, together with the ordinances, have been established, or appointed, yet not one word has been said about the baptism

"••■Quoted in Baptist Short Method. Page 91. ^Progress Baptist Principles, by Curtis. Page 95, of infants, or of their reception into the church ; nay, more, the teaching is wholly at variance with the practice. Is it from heaven, or of men ? Says Bishop Fuller,"^ a distinguished Pedobaptist author : " We do f reel]] confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the Nev) Testament for the baptizing of infants,'' Do you believe that?

*Quoted in Baptist Short Method. Page 89.

Chapter II

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.

This, with its parallels in Mark xvi. 15, 16, and Luke xxiv. 46,47, is the Great Commission of our Savior to his disciples— the grand '-'Magna Charta^^ of his church. Through all his teachings he has said not one word about infant baptism, as was seen in the preceding chapter. After his death and resurrection from the dead, just before he ascended to the glory of the Father, he sends his disciples into the world with this commission. By this he authorizes them to preach the gospel, and to baptize. And here is the only place, so far as the record shows, where he gave this authority. In this, therefore, is contained the whole law of Christian baptism. This is the rule. All that come after are but examples, and are serviceable to us, simply as illustrating and showing how the commission was understood by those who received it directly from the Master. After all, therefore, here the question must he settled. By the commission infant baptism must stand or fall. Does it authorize the baptism of infants? Did the disciples so understand it? And did they, in accordance with this commission^ practice infant baptism? Tiiese questions strike at the very vitals of our subject, and will therefore be answered at length in this and following chapters.

If authority to baptize infants be^found in the commission, it must be either by a specific, positive command, or, at least, by a plain^ tinequivocal^ ^^ logical inferencer A command you can not find.

And the only possible way to get any inference (one that is plain and logical is simply impossible) is to infer that, as nations are to be baptized, and infants are a part of nations, therefore infants are to be baptized. Is this a plain Hogical inference ?^' It may, it does, suit some, but not Baptists surely. The following is a similar specimen of logic : '' The wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God." Therefore, as infants are a part of the all nations^ they will — according to this logic — be turned into hell. Is this conclusion admissible? Baptists with one breath exclaim. No ! What say Pedobaptists ? The logic is precisely the same.

'* 'Are not infants a part of the all nations spoken of in the commission?* Certainly they are ; and so are drunkards, and liars, and swearers, and whoremongers, and infidels, and atheists, and idolaters, and every wicked and abominable person, upon the face of the earth ; and if the phrase ' all nations' includes infants, so it does the others, and there is just the same warrant for the baptism of one as the other ; that is, no warrant at allP The same inference that would baptize the babe would also baptize each and all of these classes.

There must surely be something wrong in the logic, which infers infants to perdition^ and persons of such character to the ordinance of Christian haptism, Tfiose who can, may accept it, but Baptists can not. And, in fact, neither can the more learned Pedobaptists. E. ^., when Kev. 0. W. Miller, a prominent Methodist preacher in Kentucky, published a book, in which he used this logic, claiming by it to have found a command to baptize infants, he was promptly met and responded to by Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, editor of the Southern (Methodist) Revieio,^ who is a man of master mind, and wields not only a ready, but a mighty pen. The following is a part of his reply in the Heviewy'f showing that he will not accept such logic, though it comes from a Methodist, and that, too, in support of a doctrine he believes :

*' Take tlie command, for example, ^ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.^ (Mark xvi. 16) Now here nhe class is' every creature But stocks and stones and dumb brutes are '- a part of the class. ' Shall we then, in obedience to Mr. Miller's logic, preach the gospel to stocks and stones and dumb brutes? Ileason and common sense forbid. These compel us, in spite of his logic, to limit the preaching of the gospel, first to human beings, and then to that portion of the class, thus limited, who are capable of hearing and understanding the gospel."

After giving several other examples on the same page, he continues :

*This Review will be frequently quoted hereafter. It is published in St. Louis, under the auspices of the M. E. Church South. But the editor, one of the brightest lights in that church, resides in Baltimore, Md. t For July 1874, p. 176.

^' Not to multiply similar instances , as we miglit do ad injinitum^ we conclude witli this one : ' The Lord said unto Joshua, 3Jake thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israe2 the second time. (Joshua v. 2.) Here the ' class is' the children of Israel. But yet, instead of applying this command to 'all the children of Israel/ every reader of the Bible limits it to male children, in conformity with the well-known custom of the Jews,"

So the '' all nations" in the commission must be limited to those who have been made disciples, who, having heard the gospel, have lelieved on the Savior which it offered.

Pedobaptists must show, here, either ^ positive,, specific command to baptize infants, or, at least, a plain, ^''logical inference^^ which will support the practice, and yet be in perfect keeping with the entire teaching of God's word. It is just to demand this ; and, until they comply, they are cliargeable with "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Baptists are not, as is sometimes charged, afraid of inferences. They will accept such an one as is here demanded — but no other — whenever it is produced.

But, indeed, Dr. Wall and many other eminent Pedobaptists cordially admit that the commission does not ordain infant baptism. When they surrender the commission, all is surrendered. (See Chapter IV.) Dr. Wall, in the preface to his ''History of Infant Baptism" (page 29), as quoted by John L. Waller, ^^ says, in this commission, '* that there is no particular direction given what they were to do in reference to the children of those

*In Western Baptist Review^ Vol. I. p. 162.