The Primitive Church (or Baptist) Magazine

Bushnell may attempt to ridicule this preference as "individualism." We can only say that we prefer this kind of individualism, notwithstanding the Doctor's ridicule. That kind of Jewish understanding may be well enough for the Doctor's baby system, but we prefer "in understanding to be men." There is one point which ought to be noticed here, and that is, the teaching of the great Teacher himself. He says, "I am come not to send peace on the earth, but a sword, to set a man at variance with his Father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. x. 34-36). Thus teaching that the rightful diffusion of His truth would inevitably result in the severance of earthly and worldly ties and relationships, and the New Testament teaches that whatever might be the Jewish notion of households, and of family religion, the Christian is to have regard "especially to the household of faith," and to him "of whom the whole family both in heaven and earth is named;" and though we are prepared to recognise and approve the sacredness and value of family religion, and the high and holy principles which may be cultivated there, yet we hold that the church of Christ is the highest form of social life

on earth."

The Jewish system, notwithstanding its incorporation of children, has not resulted in perpetuating a "godly seed,” and in answering the Doctor on this point, we need do no more than quote his own words, (P. 130):-"The Jewish race are a striking and sad proof of the manner in which any given mode of life may, or rather must, become a functional property in the offspring. The old Jewish stock of the Scripture times, whatever faults they may have had, certainly were not marked by any such miserably sordid, usurious, garbagevending propensity as now distinguishes the raçe.

It may also be necessary here to give the Doctor's own statement of the connection of his idea of "organic unity," and his theory of Infant baptism. We find it on P. 73,-"Now the true conception is that Baptism is applied to the child on the ground of its organic unity with the parents, imparting and pledging a grace to sanctify that unity, and make it good in the field of religion. By the supposition, however, the child still remains within the known laws of character in the house, to receive under these, whatever good may reach him; not snatched away by an abrupt, fantastical, and therefore incredible grace. He is taken to be the regenerate, not historically speaking, but presumptively, on the ground of his known connection with the parent character, and the divine or church life, which is the life of that character. Perhaps I shall be understood more easily if I say that the child is potentially regenerate, being regarded as existing in connection with powers and causes that contain the fact, before time and separate from time. For when the fact appears historically under the law of time, it is not more truly real, in a certain sense, than it was before. And then the grace conferred, being conferred by no casual act, but resting on the established laws of character in the church and in the house, is not lost by unfaithfulness, but remains and lingers still, though abused and weakened, to encourage new struggles. Thus it will be seen that the doctrine of organic unity I have been asserting, proves its theologic value, as a ready solvent for the rather perplexing difficulties of this subject. Only one difficulty remains, viz. :-that so few can believe the doctrine."

Very few indeed, Doctor! And moreover than that, very few will believe it. That difficulty is likely to remain.

Another argument in favour of this " organic unity," and consequently in favour of Infant baptism, the Doctor draws from 1 Cor. vii. 14, an old wellbeaten track with the advocates of Infant baptism-"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy." Now the case which the apostle puts before the Corinthians seems to us to be just this:-That if the believing husband is to put away his wife as unclean, because she does not believe, or vice versa, then to be consistent, the children of such a connection

they hear without a preacher? and, How can they preach except they be sent? But who would go on such a childish errand? Even yet it may be said, "Are infants to be entirely neglected? By no means. Let them have all the

attention which their circumstances require. And if they cannot take the sincere milk of the word, then let them by all means have the mother's breast, or if need be, the cradle and the nursery. Rightful instruction too, so soon as ever they can receive it.

Again, the Doctor attempts to support his theory of Infant baptism by referring to Justin Martyr and Irenæus. But supposing that Infant baptism was practised even in their time-a theory which lacks historical proof-yet even this does not go to show that it was commanded by the Saviour, or practised by his apostles, and inasmuch as it was not commanded by the former, or practised by the latter, it would be nothing more or less than an innovation. But the real innovation had a more subsequent date.

The proselyte baptism of the Jews, assumed to have been antecedent to the introduction of Christianity, is made to do some service. It may help the Doctor with those who know no better, but those who do know will ask the Doctor to prove the alleged fact before making such use of it.

We notice (Chap. 7th, P. 103), so far as it professes to support "the theory of Infant baptism" by another theory, viz.:-"The church membership of children." The Scripture at the head of this seventh chapter, is from Col. i. 2.,-"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." The seventh chapter opens thus:-"These saints and faithful brethren, it will be seen, include young children; for the apostle makes a distribution of them afterwards, in the third chapter of the epistle, addressing the class of wives, the class of husbands, the class of fathers, the class of servants, the class of masters, and, among all these, the class of children,- Children obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.' The epistle to the Ephesians, too, is inscribed in the same way-To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ;' and this again makes a like distribution; addressing the class of husbands, wives, fathers, mothers children, servants, and masters, all as being included in the church at Ephesus,-'Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.' 'Honour thy father and mother; for this is the first commandment with promise.' Where also it is made clear that he is speaking to quite young children; for he turns immediately to the fathers, exhorting them to "bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." They are children so young, therefore, as to be the subjects of nurture, and yet are addressed among the faithful brethren." To all this, and to the whole of the chapter in illustration of this, we simply reply, that inasmuch as the apostle exhorts the children to obey their parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord;' and again, children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right;' their must have been capable of rendering obedience, and were consequently capable of exercising faith; and if so, then we have no objection to the supposition that they were baptised. Our vindication of the baptism of believers does not go so far as to exclude children who can obey, but that is a very different thing from baptising infants who do not know their right hand from their left.

Yet there is another part of this chapter, (P. 109), to which we may briefly refer. The Doctor says, "The church is a school, and the members are disciples, or learners. Does not every parent choose the school for his children, giving them no choice in the matter, and taking it to be his own unquestionable right? This, too, on the ground that they are to have the benefit of his maturer judgment, and his more competent choice. Where, then, is the encroachment when Christian parents baptise their child into the same discipleship with themselves, and set it in the school of Christ? It is only a part of their ordinary charge as parents; for it is given them to have the child in their own character, so to speak, and be themselves disciples with it, and for it (and why not it with them?) in all the honours and hopes of the heavenly kingdom." We reply,

promise again and again, and yet with a sarcasm peculiarly his own, he ridicules the reiteration by baptists of the formula, "Believe and be baptised." It is enough for us to know that in doing that we are in better company than that of Doctor Bushnell; company that we much prefer, and we hope shall ever continue to prefer. We owe the formula to Him who " spake as never man spake," and it is consequently superior to any "organic" formula which Doctor Bushnell ever invented, or is likely to invent.

But however distasteful the sayings and doings of Baptists may be to the Doctor, he puts himself in company with all other Pædobaptists, some of whom say that Infant baptism is good for one thing, and some say it is good for another. Some say that it has a certain efficacy in one way, and others deny it. Some say it is in the place of circumcision, the Doctor says not. Episcopalians say that the best way of administering the rite is through sponsors; Doctor Bushnell flatly denies it, and thus they knock each other on the head. They assert that Baptism regenerates, Doctor Bushnell denies it, and so saves us the trouble of looking at the matter in that light. We are hereby forcibly reminded of a company of men of whom it is said, “Neither, so did their witness agree together."

The Doctor's discussion of his theory reminds us also of an incident which took place at Harrogate. Two individuals who had gone there for the benefit of their physical health, were not altogether unmindful of the spiritual. Having entered into conversation as they met for the first time, they enquired of each other to what section of the church each belonged. One of them replied, “I am a Baptist," and asked of the other, "What are you?" "I am a churchman," said he. 'Aye, then you're a cradle Christian"! said the Baptist. So Doctor Bushnell seems to us to have got his theory in the cradle, and he rocks it, and rocks it, until he forgets himself, for how else could he venture to say respecting his own pet theory, "This view is the only one that gives household baptism any meaning, or any real place in the Christian system." Hence the Doctor's theory of Infant baptism, which is included in the expression household baptism, is the only theory left us to discuss. The Doctor himself, so pleased with his own theory, excludes every other. What, then, is the value of his theory? So far as the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament are concerned, the Doctor can only draw an inference at most in favour of Infant baptism. That inference is not founded on fact, because the fact is wanting. It cannot be founded on probability, because the spirit and genius of Christianity, as unfolded in the New Testament, will not warrant it. It may be replied, "that this is begging the question." Then let us look and see. In the first place, the Christian nurture inculcated in the New Testament does not require Infant baptism in any wise in order to its attainment. Infant baptism is never once enforced in connection with the enforcement of Christian nurture, neither is there a single fact or circumstance in illustration. Moreover, Christian nurture can be accomplished just as well without it, and has been; hence it is only essential to the Doctor's theory, and according to his own statement given above, it is of no mortal use any where else. So we think. But again, as to the inference. We say facts do not warrant it, for the simple reason that the facts are wanting; yet it may be asked, "May not the theory rest on the probability of the case?" Not if the spirit and genius of Christianity are opposed to it. Yet it may also be asked, May not the inference be drawn from the possibility of the case?" Our answer is the same. Not unless the spirit and genius of Christianity require it. And again the question may be put," What do you mean by the spirit and genius of Christianity?" We mean that Christianity is a system propounded by Jehovah, and the Son of God, to those who can receive it. It addresses itself to the heart, the reason, the understanding, and the conscience of men. It demands their faith and trust. How can infants apprehend it? How can they reason upon it? How can they believe it? Who ever heard of the preachers of the cross being sent on a mission to infants? Then,-How can

they hear without a preacher? and, How can they preach except they be sent? But who would go on such a childish errand? Even yet it may be said, “Are infants to be entirely neglected? By no means. Let them have all the

Again, the Doctor attempts to support his theory of Infant baptism by referring to Justin Martyr and Irenæus. But supposing that Infant baptism was practised even in their time—a theory which lacks historical proof-yet even this does not go to show that it was commanded by the Saviour, or practised by his apostles, and inasmuch as it was not commanded by the former, or practised by the latter, it would be nothing more or less than an innovation. But the real innovation had a more subsequent date.

We notice (Chap. 7th, P. 103), so far as it professes to support "the theory of Infant baptism" by another theory, viz.:-"The church membership of children." The Scripture at the head of this seventh chapter, is from Cōl. i. 2.," To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." The seventh chapter opens thus :-"These saints and faithful brethren, it will be seen, include young children; for the apostle makes a distribution of them afterwards, in the third chapter of the epistle, addressing the class of wives, the class of husbands, the class of fathers, the class of servants, the class of masters, and, among all these, the class of children,- Children obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.' The epistle to the Ephesians, too, is inscribed in the same way-To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ;' and this again makes a like distribution; addressing the class of husbands, wives, fathers, mothers children, servants, and masters, all as being included in the church at Ephesus,-' Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.' 'Honour thy father and mother; for this is the first commandment with promise.' Where also it is made clear that he is speaking to quite young children; for he turns immediately to the fathers, exhorting them to "bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' They are children so young, therefore, as to be the subjects of nurture, and yet are addressed among the faithful brethren.' To all this, and to the whole of the chapter in illustration of this, we simply reply, that inasmuch as the apostle exhorts the children to obey their parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord;' and again, children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right;' their must have been capable of rendering obedience, and were consequently capable of exercising faith; and if so, then we have no objection to the supposition that they were baptised. Our vindication of the baptism of believers does not go so far as to exclude children who can obey, but that is a very different thing from baptising infants who do not know their right hand from their left.

that the "encroachment" is in the inversion of the order the Saviour himself has indicated. The Saviour's order is, disciple and baptise;" the Doctor's order is, "baptise and then disciple." How little a thing it seems to men of this class, to "make the commandment of God of none effect."

The Doctor does not choose to give us any instruction respecting the mode of Baptism. We should suppose that like his Pædobaptist brethren, he would be content to sprinkle. However that may be, we should much prefer that parents, exercising all needful and proper spiritual care over their infant offspring, watching for their souls as those that must give account; and inasmuch as cleanliness is said to be next to godliness, and also because the Doctor has such a dread of what he calls "sanctimony," that, therefore, he should put himself at least in harmony with common sense, and give the infants, what, in the days of our babyhood, was called "a good bowley-wash." A capital thing in connection with Christian nurture.

J. B., L.

THE work of the ministry is not now in England what it once was. There is little "hardness" to endure now compared with that which our puritanical forefathers endured. True, their is much to contend against. There is a worldly spirit in the churches, and a disposition to sit in judgment upon the tone, gesture, attitude, &c., of the ministering servant of God, and some considerable annoyance arising from the absence of that pure and simple piety in the churches which was the characteristic of many of the churches of the last century; but there is not YET the hardness of the fire, the faggot, the thumbscrew, and the prison, which many were called to endure who are now "through faith and patience inheriting the promises." Still, the voice of inspiration to all who are "in the ministry" is, endure hardness." We cannot yet say— Then hath the offence of the cross ceased." Oh, no; there is still "the evil heart of unbelief" to contend with, which is "enmity against God." There is hardness" within the church, and hardness without. Moses found it so in his day; for it was not only the Amalekites outside, and the kings of Moab and Bashan, but the people of his charge were "a stiff-necked people," carnal and rebellious. Nor did Paul find it otherwise in his missionary journies. 66 'Some believed the things that were spoken, and some believed not;" some "gladly received the word," others "bound themselves with an oath that they would neither eat nor drink till they had stoned Paul." Some "received him and lodged him three days courteously," others told him he was "mad” to his face. Sometimes he had "no little kindness" shown him by "barbarous people," at another time he was "bound in chains" through the Jews, though he said "I have nought to accuse my nation of." Thus it was then; nor is the world altered. The "carnal mind is still enmity against God," and in proportion as we are faithful, we think in the same proportion shall we excite the ire and malignity of the world. And if things SEEM to be altered, the alteration is in the want of more faithfulness in the pulpit. Let the preachers of the present be as doctrinal, as practical, and as positive and direct in their ministrations as Knox and Whitfield, and let us see if they will not have to " endure hardness." The gospel should not be preached in bitterness or vulgarity; but IT MUST be preached. The milk is required, and with the cream on too. Amos's "basket

of summer fruit" is better than Cleopatra's "basket of flowers." The one might be eaten the other had a viper concealed beneath their fragrant blossoms. The gospel contains truths sweet as honey, and reviving as pomegranates, but it has also truths as impalatable as 'bitter herbs," and he who preaches "all the counsel of God" must "endure hardness."

« Previous Continue »

Books

The Primitive Church (or Baptist) Magazine, Volume 25