OR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDITION OF CHILDREN IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
BY CAESAR MALAN, DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY.
“For me and my house, we shall serve Jehovah.”—JOSHUA xxiv. 15.
(Translated for the first time from the French.)
(Continued from page 383.)
CHAPTER III.—THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE BAPTISM OF ALL INFANTS CONSISTS IN THEIR INTRODUCING AN ACT OF THE WILL OF MAN WHERE THE SUPREME ORDINANCE OF GOD SHOULD ALONE BE REGARDED.
Samuel.—“Do you mean to say, I pray you, that the ordinance of baptism may be entirely independent of the choice and consent of him that receives it?”
The father of the family.—“I repeat what I said. I believe that every ordinance of God is sovereignly independent both of the approbation and disapprobation of man. That is why, in the controversy which now occupies us—a controversy which unhappily adds to the divisions which afflict the Church of God—it seems to me that it is much less a question of the baptising of infants than a question of the place which infants occupy among the people of God, under the gospel, and of the dignity which God assigns them. Let me put it thus: Water baptism is a sign of a certain will of God towards man, and man, in order to take on him this sign, ought to find himself in a certain condition, a condition the nature of which has been determined by God. That is the reason why, if a child is found in that condition or circumstance, it ought to have this sign placed on it.”
Samuel.—“That is to say, is it not, that you consider baptism as a seal which God, of His supreme authority, puts on a man, and not at all as a mark to which man, taking the initiative, comes and accepts?”
The father of the family.—“Let me say again, my brother, that under the reign of grace man accepts nothing, and, I believe, that that which you have just spoken reveals the root of the error in which, as I reckon, you are found. You think that there is in baptism on the part of man, a certain independence. Man, according to you, comes, as it were, to meet an appointment for which he prepares himself and of which he approves. And therein is there, as I reckon, that which shows to the eye of faith the defect of your practice.”
Samuel.—“Where, I pray you?”
The father of the family.—”In that man changes thereby into an act of his own will what is absolutely an ordinance of the authority of God, and through that misunderstanding he goes forth from the domain of grace in order to enter upon the toil of works. He works where he ought only to receive. He seeks to accomplish something himself where he ought to let God work. That is to say, he appropriates in some sense to himself, under the name of obedience, a work which is altogether that of God toward him, and is by no means a matter of consent or agreement on the part of man.”
Samuel.—”Pardon me, dear brother, if I tell you that I find your observation very difficult to understand.”
The father of the family.—”This is what I mean: If the Lord had said to man—’Thou shalt baptise thyself,’ baptism would have been an active duty, as, for example, it is an active duty to sanctify the Sabbath day. But if God has said, ‘Be baptised,’ it is a passive duty which, in this case, He imposes on man.”
Samuel.—”I grasp your meaning. You consider baptism to be, after a manner, like the anointing with oil, which was put on the vessels of the sanctuary, but which the vessels by no means accepted.”
The father of the family.—”Exactly. For although the vessels which God had thus caused to be sealed with the anointing oil were only metal like to that made use of in any other vase, nevertheless what a dignity was put upon them through this divine destination! Why could not the Levites approach them, and if they dared touch them, why behoved they to die? Why those lamentations when they were put to profane uses by impious kings? (Dan. v. 3, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7). And why also that lamentation of David over the shield of Saul, when it was left on the fields of Gilboa, as if it had not been anointed with the sacred oil? (2 Sam. i. 21). The reason was, as you know, that God, by His sovereign will, had put them apart to a special use, and they were holy, although insensible of their having been so dealt with. The same thing held true of old in respect of circumcision, and it holds true even to-day in respect of baptism. Moreover, as circumcision, a passive sacrament, was distinct from the Passover, an active duty, so also under the gospel, one of the ordinances of God is a passive seal, the other an active duty.”
Samuel.—”That distinction, which is one quite new to me, seems to me worthy of attention. Be good enough, I pray you, to develop that thought.”
The father of the family.—”Ah, well, pay attention, to begin with, to the terms made use of in respect of these two ordinances. The first was instituted with this command—’Go and baptise’: and the Apostles, when they obeyed this order, obeyed using such terms as these—’Be thou baptised,’ or ‘I baptise thee.’ As an example, Paul says—’I baptised Crispus’ (Acts ii. 38, 1 Cor. i. 141). And so, when a disciple sees for himself the necessity of baptism, he says—‘What doth hinder me to be baptised?’ and the reply he gets is not do it, but, ‘thou mayest’ (Acts viii. 36, 37). All these expressions show that the question here is of a mark received, and not at all of a work to be done, a work in which the will or acquiescence of man affects something. But the supper has quite another character. Its institution is in these words—‘Take, eat; do this in remembrance of me,’ and the partaking of it is preceded by an examination—a personal and very active putting to the proof on the part of a disciple who must eat the Supper unworthily if he does not act conscientiously and conform his whole will to that of the Lord.”
Samuel.—“Here is something which strikes me, dear brother, I mean this examination, this proof of faith which the Christian is bound to undertake before taking the supper, and to which he is certainly not called by any written word when the question is one of baptism. Yes; that fact, beyond question, makes a difference.”
The father of the family.—“That difference is a real one. In the supper faith examines itself, since it acts with reflection, with choice, and with preference. In baptism nothing parallel to this is commanded nor suggested by the word. On this account, if the question be put, why those who baptise their children give them not the supper also? the answer is at hand, and it is the Scripture that supplies us with it—to wit, that baptism is a seal put on by the authority of God, whileas the supper supposes a self-examination to which the communicant is obliged. Now, the little child is capable of receiving a seal put on it by the Lord, but isn’t capable of self-examination. He may then be baptised, but he cannot partake of the supper.”
Samuel.—“That reply is very clear, and to me entirely satisfactory.”
The father of the family.—“It will also convince you of the error of that form of examination and preparation which Baptists habitually demand of those disciples whom they baptise. * Of course, on the supposition of the truth of baptism being only for believers, such an examination as is now referred to, would be quite in place. —J. R. M. As surely the Scriptures not only do not command it, or give an example of it, but besides, they do not so much as suggest it. On the contrary, they are opposed to it. For, if the Scriptures demand faith and, consequently, an action of the will in the matter of the supper, they speak of baptism as of an ordinance having all its force in the sovereign authority of God. Baptism is then as a seal, or as the stamp which the people’s official puts on gold or silver coins—a stamp which marks and designates those coins, and it is done by one whose right it is so to do.”
Samuel.—“Do you mean by that to say that the converted adult whom the minister baptises is under no obligation to give any thoughtful attention to the ordinance, or to prepare himself beforehand, no more than though he were a stone?”
The father of the family.—“No; certainly that is not my meaning. For the adult Pagan or Jew who has received from the Lord faith in the name of the Lord Jesus, receives also by the Word a command to be baptised. He is in duty bound, then, according to that commandment which he believes, to receive on himself with gratitude the seal wherewith God has deemed him worthy of being marked withal. But it is one thing to thank God with adoration for having consecrated me with the seal of His name, which He Himself has put upon me, and it is another thing for me to imagine that my dispositions and my inward preparations have rendered me a more fit and proper person to receive that seal, or give more reality or efficacy to His stamp.”
Samuel.—“Now I understand you. You mean that the adult disciple should render himself in his baptism as passive as an infant, although the adult knows what God does for him.”
The father of the family.—“That is what I mean, and I reckon those preparations and dispositions on the part of the Baptists comparable—if I may so use my imagination—to those of a gold coin which should think itself better stamped because it was persuaded that the stamp had made its mark upon it. Certainly such a persuasion made no odds either to the impression made by the stamp or to the blow of the hammer that fixed it.”
Samuel.—“You return then, don’t you, always to the sovereign authority of God, and you attribute to Him, in its entirety, the ordinance of baptism?”
The father of the family.—“Yes, dear brother, in its entirety; and if I tarry long on this head it is because I am persuaded that here lies the principal and thorough-going error of those who are opposed to baptising any infant. They change into an active duty of faith that which is a passive duty, to which the authority of God summons man, to whom the ordinance has come. Consider the blue collar of the little negroes.”
Samuel.—“I acknowledge that I never supposed that the ordinance of baptism was so serious and so important a matter as you show it me to be.”
The father of the family.—“It has a close connection with the fundamental doctrines of the faith. According to these doctrines, the man who mixes in any way his works and dispositions with the grace of God, misconceives and dishonours the latter, and holds himself at a great remove. In the same way, I think that to change, even in any respect, an ordinance of God into an active duty on the part of man, is to misconceive the majesty of the former and to thrust away the benefit of the ordinance. Such a piece of work is, in my opinion, a kind of insult to the Most High, in that, to say the least, it brings the choice and acquiescence of the creature into association with the sovereign authority and majestic independence of the divine ordinance.”
Samuel.—“Are you not going too far, my friend? Are you not doing injustice to what is but the performing of a work of obedience? Could it procure such joyful and blessed effects in the soul if it were all as faulty as you say?”
The father of the family.—”It is easy to think oneself blessed when one is only pleased. It is a form of speech that is quite ordinary with the people of God to say, ‘How I have been blessed,’ when they possibly ought simply to say, ‘What satisfaction I have drawn from what I did.’ The superstitious man will tell you he is blessed in his austerities and vain observances, for his imagination stands him in place of faith, and his personal approbation seems to him to be the Spirit of God. There is only too much of the same kind of thing among true disciples, and this Christians will tell you who, after having been Baptists, cease from that persuasion. They had thought themselves blest, and that abundantly, when they had got baptised; and they had also spoken of the happiness of their soul and of all the good which they had received. But when their illusion had been spent and they returned to the simplicity of the faith, they justly conclude that those emotions were not of God nor of His Spirit, but merely the result of their personal persuasion, or due to the influence of those who were about them.”
(We do not quite agree with Dr. M. here. Some truly godly Baptists have no doubt derived special blessing through the exercise of living faith on the gospel mysteries set forth in the ordinance.—J. R. M.)
Samuel.—”I assure you, nevertheless, that that is not the case with me, for I am able to render a reason, in accordance with the Word, for that which I have done, both in seeking rebaptism for myself and in repudiating baptism for my infant child.”
The father of the family.—”Oh, well, would you please tell me then wherefore you rebaptised yourself?”
Samuel.—”For two reasons—first, because I came to know that the baptism which I received in my infancy was invalid, and secondly, because I saw positively in the word of God that water baptism belonged only to those who had believed and who made a profession of their faith.”
The father of the family.—”Tell me then, in the first place, what made you think that your first baptism was not valid?”
Samuel.—”There was first, as I said to you already, the incapacity which attached to me then, so that I could not understand the nature of the ordinance of God.”
The father of the family.—”Does that reason yet appear to you a good one?”
Samuel.—”No; I give that one up, for I understand now that the ordinance of God has its authority in and from itself. But there were other reasons which made and yet make me doubt the validity of my first baptism, and one is this, that I am almost certain that the minister who baptised me in my infancy was anything but a converted man himself.”
The father of the family.—”Alas, alas, dear brother, this is a new blow struck at the authority of the ordinance of God. Your first objection bore on the subject of baptism—the infant whose feebleness rendered it incapable of receiving it. Now it is the instrument that disannuls it. Your baptism, say you, was not valid because he who administered it lacked faith! Ah, dear friend, the more you say, the more I see that your zeal was zeal without knowledge, howsoever sincere you may have been in it all.”
Samuel.—“But how so, I pray you?”
The father of the family.—“In this, that you supposed that the ordinance of God receives some power or some efficacy from the instrument that administers it. No, no, brother, it isn’t so. That which the Lord has instituted is good and perfect of itself because that it is His work. The money which the king puts into circulation is good because it bears the likeness or the arms of the king, and not at all because of the person that uses it. In the same way, the ordinance of the Lord is valid because it bears the seal of Jehovah, and not at all because of the man who administers it. It is thus, my brother, that the Supper of the Lord is good—not at all because of the Lord’s servant who serves the Lord’s table, but because it is the Lord of that table who has said, ‘Take, eat, this do in remembrance of me.’ In this case the minister who serves does not make palatable the elements; it is the Word of God that does that, and it is faith that relishes it. So also is it with water baptism. It is neither Paul nor Apollos nor Cephas that renders it valid, but the Lord’s commandment—’Go and baptise.’ Here the Word of God and the invocation of His holy name are everything. Let the institution thus be attended to and administered according as God commanded it, and it will take care of itself. As for the instruments, let them know, and let it be acknowledged, ‘that they are nothing’; and if Balaam was reproved by God when the voice went forth from a brute, so also Jehovah may bless although His word pass through an unclean mouth. If the case were otherwise, what should become of the ordinances of God in His Church? What disciple could receive them in peace if it was necessary at the outstart to assure oneself of the faith and absolute holiness of the minister who dispensed them? Surely in that case my conscience would be in subjection to the conscience of another, and my God should bless me only so far as a sinner like myself was faithful? No, dear Samuel, the case isn’t so, and I don’t hesitate to say that on this second point, as on the first, you have merely been acting under prejudice, and if it was for these two reasons only that you got re-baptised, it was in the darkness of ignorance that you had it done.”
(To be continued.)
A GENEROUS gentleman appeared to be dying. His heir asked him where his fortune was to be found. He answered, “In the pockets of the indigent.”—Cheever’s Anecdotes.