By REV. J. MACLEOD.
* Rev. T. T. Shields, D.D., Toronto, has recently been strongly attacking infant baptism.—Editor.
IN Matthew we read—”And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Mat. xxviii, 18, 20). “And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned” (Mark xvi, 15, 16). Luke is silent on direct reference to baptism, but verses 46-47 in chapter xxiv intimates quite clearly the same divine commission as in Matthew and Mark to the Apostles—”And He said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
The Confession of Faith agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland:—Alexander Henderson of Edinburgh, Robert Douglas of Edinburgh, Samuel Rutherford of St. Andrews, Robert Baillie of Glasgow, George Gillespie (ministers); John Earl of Cassilis, John Lord Maitland, Sir Archibald Johnston (ruling elders); Henry Roburgh, Adoniram Byfield, John Wallis (scribes). These were our Scottish Commissioners at this assembly of divines, who sat with the English divines in framing and compiling the book known to us Presbyterians ever since as “Our Confession of Faith,” or the “Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church of Scotland.” The English divines who sat at Westminster were probably the most gracious and learned divines that the Church of God in England ever saw before or since! The ministers from Scotland that sat in this assembly were equally eminent in piety and learning; and probably George Gillespie of Edinburgh was as learned as any of the scholars of that famous assembly. But to single out one or two of the most advanced in learning would be hardly fair as they were all eminent divines, pious and deeply taught by the Holy Spirit. “Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures” (Luke xxiv, 45). The true Church of God in Scotland and in other lands were satisfied that the “understandings” of the Westminster divines were truly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as their intimate knowledge of the mind of God was so clear to them, as stated in the Confession of Faith with abundant proofs from Scriptures to clarify what might appear obscure to the unlearned.
They were not inspired or infallible men, but they were men of God, and surely that is the highest testimonial that can be given to the servants of the Lord Jesus Christ—”Moses the man of God.” They were men of God. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and Parliament ratified the Confession of Faith and settled Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland, 7th June, 1690. It has been ever since a national calamity to the Protestant Church of England that they ever departed from the position taken up by the Westminster divines in restoring Episcopacy (Church government by Archbishops and Bishops) through the court intrigues of the Stuart Kings. What the Stuarts had in view was the restoration of the Papal religion, priests, and masses. The Church of England has been ever since divided, fighting, struggling between ritualism, Anglo-Catholics, and the Vatican! Our Confession of Faith is made up of 33 Articles, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Form of Church Government, etc.
What we are really concerned about just now is the serious attacks that have been made on the Confession of Faith by some Baptist ministers, especially, and in a particular sense, by Rev. T. T. Shields, D.D., of Toronto, Canada, in his magazine called the Gospel Witness. Many of our people read this magazine, and we deem it our duty to warn them against these subtle and unwarranted attacks which, to say the least, were uncouth, bold, and in extreme bad taste. We now charge Dr. Shields with being a sacramentarian—conversion by baptism. Dr. Shields will not like this, but if he exposed himself to this charge (as we shall prove he did) let him clear himself of the charge on Scriptural grounds and not by quoting the Word of God at random and applying it to suit his own special interpretation. Let us first of all state what the Westminster divines had to say: but before proceeding to state chapter and verse, I may say that Dr. Shields considers his own judgment, knowledge, learning and understanding above all the divines of the past generations in the Reformed Church! Calvin, John Knox, and all the Reformers “that emerged out of Romanism were never entirely free of the cobwebs of Rome,” in the opinion of the Baptists! If Calvin, Dr. John Owen, Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Peden (the covenanter), Dr. William Twisse (the prolocutor), of the Westminster divines, Thomas Boston, President Edwards of New England, and Thomas Shepherd (the author of the Ten Virgins), if they had understood the mind of the Holy Spirit in the Word of God, “so plainly, so positively, and so evidently” as Dr. Thomas T. Shields of Toronto, Canada, never, never would they say, affirm, defend, and assert that baptism should be administered to the “infants of such as are members of the visible Church.” They were in error and committed a blunder in the bright judgment of Dr. Shields! Edwards and Boston must have been shrouded with the cobwebs of Rome, and as for Calvin and Knox, what did they know about the ordinance of baptism like Dr. Shields! What self-importance, ignorance, and pharisaical hypocrisy! In the high judgment of Dr. Shields the men of Princeton, New Jersey, Drs. Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, the two Alexanders were ignorant men in comparison to him. The Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, all the Continental Confessions of the Reformed Churches and the Papal Confessions are collected into one grand heap in Jarvis Street pulpit and squelched into pulp as all unworthy of the least consideration from a theologian and Reformer of the outstanding understanding, ability and knowledge of Rev. T. T. Shields, D.D., of Toronto! Self-assurance, self-complacency, self-knowledge, and self-importance are the progeny of ignorance of spiritual values! It is often the case that spiritual pride goes before a fall! We pray that Rev. Thomas T. Shields may be mercifully and graciously protected from such a calamity! The Confession of Faith on baptism:—
CHAPTER XXVII.—OF THE SACRAMENTS.
(1) Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him; as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world, and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. Proofs: Matt. xxviii, 19.
(2) There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
(3) The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit and the Word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. See proofs (in the Confession).
(4) There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained. See proofs.
(5) The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New. See proofs.
CHAPTER XXVIII.—OF BAPTISM.
(1) Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, in his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. See proofs (Confession of Faith).
(2) The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel lawfully called thereunto.
(3) Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
(4) Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience to Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
(5) Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. See proofs.
(6) The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered, yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belonged unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. See proofs.
(7) This sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person. See proofs.
Here they are: who have acted according to the mind of God in His Word—the Reformers, the Puritans of England, Covenants of Scotland, the Presbyterians of Holland, Prussia, France, Calvin of Geneva, Knox of Scotland, the Edwards, and the Hodges of the United States of America, or the Baptists? In this matter of baptizing infants or adults only, both parties cannot be in the path of duty. What is meant by the “baptism of believers”? Who can tell! The Jarvis Street pastor of Toronto took the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and some garbage he collected from the kitchen of the Council of Trent, via the Vatican, and some other rubbish he gathered from the mudheaps of the modern ritualism of idolatrous Episcopal Romanists in England, and elsewhere, and compared and contrasted them, and when he fully satisfied himself (without proof or evidence from the Word of God), and his “baptised” audience, he threw them on the same rubbish heap and gloried in the “baptism of believers” by Jarvis Street standards. This bold bombast should not go unchallenged. We are in duty bound to assert, maintain, and defend our Confession of Faith against all the attacks the devil can charge against it. The Modernists of Scotland, the Ritualists of England, as well as the Baptists, and the Papists, have challenged the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church of Scotland, and the devil is still attacking it. The doctrines of the Confession of Faith must be painful to the carnal minds of Arminians, and Antimomians. For centuries there was no trace of the Baptists. At the Reformation they raised their loud war-cry—”The baptism of believers and only believers should be baptised. How can infants be baptized. They cannot repent, believe or accept baptism. A terrible sin, yea, sacrilege,” declared the Baptists!
“Men and women who were baptised in the Church of Rome must be baptised again.” The Reformers said, “No, that is not necessary. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person, let him be old or young.” From Germany the war-cry of the Baptists spread to Holland, to England, but found no place in Scotland except among some few legally minded folk. This was their idea of complete “separation” from the Papal Church. The next phase in the war-cry was that no infants should be baptised, as they believed only in the “baptism of believers.” It was by faith, and by faith alone, that any person, male or female, should be baptised, and in the absence of faith no baptism. If, however, one professes faith (irrespective of the nature or kind of faith) the pastor is bound to baptise the candidate according to the rites of the Baptists. The candidate must be baptised on the profession of his faith and that is the only ground upon which he or she can be accepted (“the baptism of believers”). If the person baptised kept on his way rejoicing in his new-found blessing and privilege, like the Ethiopian eunuch, good and well, but what of him that proved by his life and conversation in the world that he was a wicked man, a hypocrite, a Judas—was his baptism valid or what was the use of his baptism to this poor, miserable hypocrite?
Let us suppose (as the Baptists are past-masters at suppositions) that this poor Judas-like fellow was later on convinced of his sins, crime, and great wickedness, pardoned and truly regenerated, “a new creature in Christ Jesus,” “old things past away,” would he have to go to the pastor the second time and humbly confess his hypocrisy, wickedness, and how he trifled with the solemn ordinance of baptism on the former occasion when he came to the pastor, and was baptised on the strength of the faith that was not in him? Would he be baptised on this occasion as he had “faith” and was sincere, humble, and truly pious? or would the first stand although he had no “faith” for the Baptists believe in the “baptism of believers” and in no other form, type, or manner of baptism of old or young. As for infants they are left in a “cold-storage!” The mothers who brought their children to Jesus to bless them fortunately lived long before the Baptists were ever heard of!
Abel was a believer, Noah was a believer, and Abraham a believer before he was circumcised, but no word of the “baptism of believers.” It was in the time of Abraham that circumcision was introduced into the family of Abraham, and in the days of Moses and Aaron that the Passover was introduced (see Exod. xii, 11, 27). Were Abel and Noah saved without the rite of circumcision and the Passover? They were according to God’s Word! They were saved by living, saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ wrought in their souls by the Holy Ghost. Why then was the rite of circumcision and the Passover so late in appearing in the Church of God, if it were absolutely essential to the faith of believers to be in possession of these divine ordinances of God? It had a twofold meaning to the faith of the Church of God:—(a) It was strengthening and confirming the faith of the Church in the Messiah that was to come; (b) It was a convincing evidence to their faith that only through the mercy of God could any son or daughter of the race of Adam be saved! Paul says, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus iii, 5). What direct command (or evidence) have we (who believe in infant baptism) from the New Testament that infants of believing parents should be received as members into the visible Church of God?
Many texts of Scriptures are quoted by Protestants in support of the practice of baptising infants. The Baptists are equally courageous in quoting Scriptures in defence of their own practice. Can the Baptists give clear and convincing evidence from the Word of God that infants of believing parents should not be baptised in infancy? Absolutely none. They reject and deny that circumcision or the Passover under the Old Testament had any reference or analogy in them corresponding to the two ordinances of the New Testament, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They virtually blot out these divine ordinances of God as of no significance, application, or the least meaning to the Church of God under the New Testament dispensation. They might as well blot out of their carnal reckoning the Aaronic priesthood, the great day of atonement, the whole worship of the Church of God under the Old Testament as to say, and try to prove by carnal reasoning, that circumcision and the Passover had no meaning, sense or use to the faith of the Church under the present dispensation! It is no wonder John Calvin was so severe (Scripturally so) against the Baptists!
Do the Baptists themselves believe all the nonsense they teach about the “baptism” of believers”? Some do, but many don’t believe in it. We know that scores of their pastors leave the fort of the Baptists and join other denominations, Presbyterians, Church of England, etc., which is an intimation to all discerning people that the noise the Baptists make is carnal and resembling the noise Papists make about their unwarranted assumptions! It is all a frothy storm. The results show, and prove, that the “faith” of the Baptist is like the “faith” of those who followed Christ for the “barley leaves.” Indeed, Rev. T. T. Shields, D.D., of Toronto, used language depicting those who differ from him and separated from his congregation in Toronto that he ought not to. Their “faith,” “baptism,” profession and persons were cast upon the dunghill. “The baptism of believers”! One of the finest Christian gentlemen (a late aged Baptist pastor in England), said to us in the presence of other friends “that if he were beginning his ministry again he would do so in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.” The Baptists are sacramentarians. Yea, more or less like the Papists: grave danger that you will never see heaven unless you are baptised after the order and rites of the “Baptist believers”!
What authority have we to baptise the infants of believing parents? What authority had Isaac to continue circumcision, Jacob and his sons in their sojourn in Egypt, Moses, Aaron, and the Church to the time the Lord Jesus commissioned His Apostles—”Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen”? The same divine authority as they had in circumcising the male population of their nation when they were eight days old! The parents of the infants were commanded by God to circumcise the infants. The Apostles were to continue the same divine ordinances under different forms, but the spiritual significance remained unchanged—a seal of the covenant—”The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited were, for substance, the same with those of the New.” (Confession of Faith.) Did the Lord Jesus command the Apostles not to baptise infants? No. Did He command to baptise none but “adult believers”? No! What, then, did He command His Apostles to do—”Teach all nations.” Were these nations made up of adults and no children? No children, according to the Baptists, only adults and “the believers” were to be baptised whatever happened to their children. Were children in the family of the Philippian jailer? We know the jailer believed and was saved. How many were in that house? Were there any children? What is written? “And He took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptised, he and all his, straightway” (Acts xvi, 33). The Baptists are so sure (without a shred of evidence) that there were no children in the jailer’s house—”not one,” “only believers.” John Calvin, John Owen, Boston, and Edward could never have understood the nature, the proper form, who, when, and to whom baptism should be administered. Dr. Charles Hodge was a complete ignoramus in comparison to Rev. T. T. Shields, D.D., of Jarvis Street, Toronto! We warn our readers against this baptismal sacramentarian ideology of the Baptists. “And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes” (Deut. vi, 6-9).
The truth remains as applicable to-day as when the above was written. The children are to be received into the visible Church as members thereof as soon as possible, and godly parents are not to be denied by Baptists or Mohammedans the privilege and pleasure of bringing up their children in the fear of God, teaching them to observe what Christ commanded them to believe and respect. There are millions of Christians, and among them many Baptist parents that are not fit to receive baptism for themselves or for their poor children because of their godless life and conversation. The so-called “Baptism of Believers” savours strongly of the Popish “baptism” of infants (in some cases) before they are born into the world! For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. v, 6). “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Rom. ix, 16). Nicodemus was circumcised according to the command of God (equivalent to baptism under the New Testament), but he was not “born again” when he came to Jesus. It is not baptism in infancy or in old age that changes man’s state and nature but grace, the eternal power of the Holy Spirit in the soul. The symbols, types, figures, immersed in water or sprinkled, sitting at the Lord’s table, praying, going to Church—nothing will avail but the saving grace of God in the soul. If that is plain, and in the heart, in the understanding, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Christian believer will be saved through Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and all other isms must be blotted out, and not through any works of righteousness that we can do! While we cannot accept the “baptismal regeneration” of the Episcopalians and Romanists, neither can we accept the “baptism of believers” as preached and practised among the Baptists. It is through grace that sinners are saved. We most sincerely believe in infant baptism as surely as we believe that infants (males) were circumcised according to God’s command. We are as convinced on the other hand that circumcision, baptism and Church membership never did, and never can, save a soul.
May God hasten the day when the breaches and divisions on the walls of our Zion be healed. We love Baptists, not because they are Baptists, whether “strict,” “general,” “particular,” “open” or “closed,” but because they are the Lord’s precious people. We believe our Confession of Faith is as near the truth of God as ever evolved in the Christian Church from the days and times of the Apostles. Let our young people possess a Confession of Faith, read it, study it carefully, and, if properly versed in it, all the attacks of the Baptists, Modernists, Romanists, or Atheists can never change you to their belief.