Thoughts on Baptism

REV. R. PENOILLY, of Ireland, author of an excellent tract on Baptism, says:—

"From my earliest childhood, I was taught to say that, 'in my baptism, I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven.' See the Church of England Catechism, and Baptism of Infants. My instructors would readily admit, and in effect taught, the following sentiments, lately given to the world by different writers.

"One affirms: 'With the water of our baptism, the grace of regeneration, the seed of the Holy Ghost, the principle of a higher existence, is committed to the soul; it grows with us as an innate impression of our being. . . . As long as the believer trusts to his baptism as the source of life, all is well.' Mr. W. Harness, minister of St. Pancras' chapel, London, in a sermon on Baptismal Regeneration.

"Another adds: 'On a topic so interesting I might have well enlarged. I might have told you that only by baptism we are admitted into Christ's flock on earth; by baptism we are adopted into his covenant, incorporated into his church; . . . . that in baptism all our sins are pardoned, and the Holy Ghost bestowed.' W. B. Knight, Perpetual Curate of Margam, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, Letter on Baptism."

These teachings are not confined to the Church of England. Dr. Clarke says substantially the same thing, as follows:—

"Baptism brings its privileges along with it, is a seal of the covenant, does not lose its end through the indisposition of the receiver."—Com., at the end of Mark.

In the baptismal service of the Methodist Episcopal Church are the following words of prayer for an infant, at its baptism:—

"We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt look upon this child; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's church."

And hymn 259, of the Methodist Hymns, says:—

"Now to this favored child be given

Pardon, and holiness, and Heaven."

Wesley says: "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism. It has been already proved, that this original sin cleaves to every child of man; and that hereby they are children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation." And again, quoting the "rubric" of the church, he says: "It is certain, by God's word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved."

These are sufficient to show, and conclusively show, that salvation is based entirely upon baptism—"baptismal regeneration." The remark of Dr. Clarke is singular,—the indisposition of the receiver is no bar to receiving the benefit of the ordinance. It must then remain a question, What is necessary, on the part of the receiver, to invalidate baptism or to forfeit its benefits? Who shall determine this?

And it is evident, also, that, if these teachings are true, unbaptized children are certainly lost! If, by baptism, sins are pardoned, the Holy Ghost received, the principle of a higher existence is committed to the soul, a child is made a member of Christ and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven, it follows that without baptism none of these benefits can be received. For how shall an infant receive pardon who is not thus "favored"? How else is an unconscious babe delivered from the wrath of God and brought into the church? The Arminians are accustomed to speak sharply against the Calvinists on account of their belief in infant reprobation, but the parties are not so very far apart so far as "infant damnation" is concerned. In effect, both parties teach it.

But the whole system is wrong, in every particular. Wrong in principle, and wrong in its methods of proof. The salvation of little children stands on a different basis. The infant of days has committed no sin, cannot repent or believe, and needs no remission. Or else, of what is it pardoned? As it has no sin of its own, it must be pardoned of the sin of another. Of course, then, without such pardon it would stand condemned, and finally be lost, for the sin of its forefather! But the Lord says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." Eze. 18:20. Each individual of the race must bear his own sin, and the sin of no other. How will the advocates of this theory meet this Scripture truth?

We will now present an argument, which, we think, is justified by reason and the Scriptures.

As no person is answerable for the sins of another, so no person can repent of the sins of another. We may, indeed, be sorry that others have sinned. I am sorry that Adam sinned; sorry that my parents sinned; yes, sorry that you, reader, have sinned; but I am not required to repent of their sins or of yours. I cannot do it. I can repent of my own sins only. And as baptism is so intimately connected with repentance, I was baptized for my own sins, and for no others. However much Adam may have sinned, I should not have been required to be baptized if I had not sinned. It is as unscriptural and unreasonable to be baptized for the sins of another, as it is impossible to repent of the sins of another.

The Scripture says, "In Adam all die." Adam, because of his sin, was shut away from the tree of life, lest he should eat, and live forever; Gen. 3:22, 23; and thus mortality was settled upon him because of sin; for "the wages of sin is death." Of course his children, and so all his posterity, received from him a nature no higher than his own; with him all were shut out from the tree of life, all became subject to death, all returned to the dust. This death, which we variously call natural death or temporal death, and the first death in distinction from eternal death, or "the second death," was a penalty inflicted upon Adam for his sin; and it was the penalty of that sin only. As he only was the transgressor, he only could bear the penalty; for "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." To his posterity it is a consequence of their relation to him, and not a penalty. The "second death" is the penalty for the personal sins of Adam's posterity. When sentence was pronounced upon Adam, a new probation was given to man through "the seed of the woman." Through a promise of the Son of God, who should become a son of man, the gospel scheme was opened to the race; and as the race was already involved by the fall of Adam, shut out from the tree of life, and doomed to return to the dust, or to die, another death was placed before Adam's race as the penalty for personal sin; for it is true, under all conditions and dispensations, that "the wages of sin is death."

That the death which the race has fallen under ever since the fall of Adam is not the penalty of our personal sins, is proved by the following considerations: They who accept the gospel of Christ are justified through faith in him, and receive pardon of their sins; yet they die "in Adam," as the unjustified do. But no one can believe that sin is pardoned and punished also. The remission of sin is the remission of its penalty. The individual who is pardoned by the gospel escapes the penalty of personal sin; "on such the second death hath no power." Rev. 20:6. But they who are not pardoned—are not justified by faith. in Christ—shall fall under the second death. This is proof sufficient that the second death is the penalty of personal sin.

Repentance, faith, remission, all combined, will not remove the consequence of Adam's transgression. We still die "in Adam," saints as well as sinners; and therefore this death is not the penalty of personal sin. The gospel may bring from it, as a benefaction; but it does not save from it by means of remission. It is remitted to nobody. As in the case of the saints—the justified—so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."

What, then, it may be asked, does the gospel actually offer in the case of infants? We answer, life; it offers them a resurrection from the dead. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Infants die because of their connection with Adam, not on account of any sin of their own; and they are made alive in Christ, not because of their obedience, but as members of the race for whom he died. What they lost in the first Adam is restored to them by the second Adam. See a promise of a resurrection to children, in Jer. 31:15-17. This is positive, tangible; it stands on no uncertain inference.

There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claim them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. "On such the second death hath no power." The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents.

When strong men endeavor to maintain their theories by weak assumptions or flimsy arguments, it often becomes strong evidence of the erroneousness of their theories. They will do the best they can under their circumstances. We are led to these reflections by reading remarks on baptism, by Dr. Lightfoot, copied and approved by Dr. Clarke. He says:—

"To the objection, It is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized, I answer, It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized."

This is one of the strangest arguments ever put forth by anybody. It is as much as to say, Anything which is not expressly forbidden may be properly maintained as a part of the gospel! That the Doctors should think the absence of a prohibition is equal in weight to the presence of a commandment, does not argue well for their acumen in matters of duty. Under such a rule, the wildest vagaries and most gross innovations may be maintained as of authority in the church of Christ.

Nor does the reason assigned help the case. They assume that the rite was well known to, and practiced by, the Jews in and before the days of John, and was passed over into the gospel without the necessity of a precept. Why, then, was adult baptism so specifically required and so often mentioned? This might have stood on exactly the same ground. But there are two difficulties in the way: 1. If proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time, there is no evidence, not an intimation, that the Christian or gospel ordinance was the continuance of it. Certainly not, according to Dr. Clarke, for he argues that baptism takes the place of circumcision, which was ever distinct from proselyte baptism.

2. There is no proof that proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time. Many authors think it did, but the proof is far from clear. Prof. Stuart went into a thorough examination of the case, both of Scripture and history, and he sums up as follows:—

"It is a matter of no little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to inquire whether Christian baptism had its origin from the proselyte baptism of the Jews. This we have now done, and have come to this result, viz., that there is no certainty that such was the case, but that the probability on the ground of evidence is strong against it."