of sponsors to answer for the child.
Yet the difficulty was not entirely overcome. In those early days,
repentance for sin, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, were acknowledged as indispensable preliminaries to baptism. These conditions are so plainly set forth in all parts of the New Testament, that no Pedobaptist then pretended to call them in question. They felt, on the contrary, that they were obliged to comply with them. They knew also that the repentance and faith of the sponsor, were only those of the proxy or substitute, and not of the child. But it was the child who was to receive the ordinance, not the sponsor, and the Bible requires these conditions of the very person to be baptized himself. Here, it would seem, was an insuperable impediment.
What was to be done? A most convenient discovery was now made and announced to the world. It was an effectual remedy. It was found that infants do, by some unexplained and incomprehensible power of God imparted to them, really possess, truly exercise, and acceptably profess repentance of sin and faith in Christ, and are therefore, according to the conditions prescribed in the gospel, the proper subjects, and legally entitled to receive baptism!
This assumption is so monstrous that many may doubt whether it was ever made. Since then it may, perchance, be called in question, I shall here pause until the amplest proof has been submitted. When first announced, it is not surprising that the proposition did not, at once, command universal assent. It seemed, even to some high ecclesiastics, to be an absurdity.
Bishop Boniface, for example, wrote on the subject, to St. Augustine, as follows: — “If I should set before thee a young infant, and should ask of thee whether that infant, when he cometh to riper years, will be honest and just,” “thou wouldest, I know, answer, that to tell in these things what shall come to pass, is not in the power of mortal man. If I should ask what good or evil such an infant thinketh, thine answer would be with the like
uncertainty. If thou neither canst promise for the time to come, nor for the present pronounce any thing in this case, how is it that when such are brought to baptism, their parents there undertake what the child shall afterwards do? Yea, they are not doubtful to say it doth [believe], which is impossible to be done by infants; at least there is no man precisely able to affirm it done. Vouchsafe me hereunto some short answer, such as not only to press me with the bare authority of custom, but also instruct me with the cause thereof.” To this very modest and sensible address Augustine thus replies: — “In the infant there is not a present actual habit of faith.
There is delivered unto them that sacrament a part of the due celebration whereof consisteth in answering to the Articles of Faith, because the habit of faith that doth afterwards come with years, is but further building up the same edifice, the foundation whereof was laid by the sacrament of baptism. For that which we professed without any understanding, when we afterwards come to acknowledge, do we any thing else but only bring into ripeness the very seed which was sown before? We are then [in infancy] believers, because we then begin to be that which process of time doth make perfect. And until we come to actual belief, the very sacrament of faith [baptism] is a shield as strong as after this, the faith of the
sacrament, against all contrary infernal powers, which whoever doth think
‘impossible’ is undoubtedly farther off from Christian belief, though he be baptized, than are those innocents who at their baptism, albeit they have no concert or cogitation of faith, are notwithstanding pure and free from all opposite cogitations, whereas the other is not free. If, therefore, without any fear or scruple, we may account them, and term them believers, only for their outward professions’ sake, who inwardly are farther off from faith than infants, why not infants much more at the time of their solemn initiation by baptism the sacrament of faith, whereunto they not only conceive nothing opposite, but have also that grace given them which is the best and most effectual cause out of which our belief doth grow. In sum, the whole church [infants and all] is a multitude of believers, all honored with that title, even hypocrites for their professions’ sake, as well as saints because of their inward sincere profession, and infants as being in their first degree of ghostly motion towards the actual habit of faith. The first sort are faithful in the eyes of the world; the second faithful in the sight of God; the last in the ready, direct way to become both.”12 Again: — “Infants do profess repentance by the words of those who bring them, when they do
by them renounce the devil and this world.”13 Mr. Bingham of the Episcopal denomination, in his learned work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church, writing of this early period, says: — “Another sort of names given to baptism were taken from the conditions required of all those who received it, which were the profession of a true faith, and a sincere repentance. Upon this account baptism is sometimes called the sacrament of faith, and the sacrament of repentance. St. Austin uses this name to explain how children may be said to have faith, though they are not capable of making any profession of themselves.” “And upon this account, when the answer [in the. church] is made that an infant believes who has not yet the habit of faith, the meaning is that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith; and that he turns to God because of the
sacrament of conversion.” Fulgentius uses the same terms in urging the necessity of baptism: — “Firmly believe and doubt not, that excepting such as are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no man shall have eternal life who is not here first turned from his sins by repentance and faith, and set at liberty by the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, by baptism.”14
Such are the teachings of the fathers on this subject. But we have still more indubitable authority. The whole doctrine, in all its absurdity, is embodied unmistakably, in the liturgy of the ancient church. The priest there asks the child, and the sponsor answers, as follows:
“
Question
. — Dost thou [the child] renounce the devil and all his works, all his angels, and all his service, and his pomps?”“
Answer
. — I [the sponsor in his name] do renounce.”“
Question
. — Dost thou [the child] believe in Christ? ““
Answer
. — [By sponsor] I do believe.”And he repeats the creed. The infant, after some other ceremonies, is baptized, and of course baptized as a penitent believer in Christ! Thus the proof is complete that neither the ancient church nor the papacy ever abandoned the great truth that repentance and faith are unchangeable gospel preliminaries to baptism, and that from the fourth century up to the
Reformation, infants were believed to possess the required repentance and faith, upon a profession of which they were baptized.
These were mainly, the superstitions that originally produced infant baptism; the belief of a mysterious cleansing power in baptism itself; the necessity in all cases of baptism in order to salvation; and the plea that infants who are baptized have the necessary preliminaries demanded in the gospel. From this accumulation of theological impurities, like Python from the mud of the deluge, sprang infant baptism.
I now proceed to the other branch of the proposition, and shall show conclusively, that the practice of infant baptism perpetuates the superstitions by which it was originally produced.
That all the Sects of Protestant Pedobaptists are under the influence at this moment; to a greater or less extent, of the first, and the second, of these forms of superstition, is a fact that no man can successfully deny. Their standards and other authorities teach unquestionably, that baptism carries with it some mysterious cleansing power, and that it is connected
somehow, with grace and salvation! The ancients believed, moreover, that little children brought to baptism are endowed with the graces of
repentance and faith, and have therefore the gospel preliminaries required for baptism! Do modern enlightened Protestant pedobaptists credit this absurdity? The inquiry is worthy of our attention.
We turn, first, to the great, and, in some respects, incomparable Martin Luther. He practises no concealments, but expresses himself boldly, and without equivocation. He remarks: — “We here say and conclude that the children believe in baptism itself, and have their own faith which God works in them, through the intercession and hearty offering of the
sponsors, in the faith of the Christian church, and that is what we call the power of another’s faith; not that any one can be saved by that but he thereby (that is, through another’s intercession and aid) may obtain faith of his own from God by which he [the infant] is saved.” This faith is, he declares, the infants’ “own faith in which they believe, and are baptized for themselves.”15 In his larger Catechism, published 1529, he further says: —
“The great efficacy and usefulness of baptism being thus understood, let us further observe what sort of persons it is that receive such things as are offered by baptism. This, again, is most beautifully and clearly expressed
in these words: ‘He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.’ That is, faith alone makes a person worthy to receive with any profit, this salutary and divine water. Without faith baptism profits nothing, although in itself it cannot be denied to be a heavenly and inestimable treasure.” “We bring a child to a minister of the church to be baptized in this hope and persuasion, that it certainly believes, and we pray that God may give it faith.” And again. In the “Conference at Wittenberg,” in 1536, when called upon to explain how infants who do not think at all, can believe, Luther answered’.
— “As we even when asleep, are numbered among the faithful, and are in truth such although we are actually thinking nothing of God, so a certain beginning of faith (which nevertheless is the work of God) exists in infants according to their measure and proportion, of which we are ignorant.”16 Thus we have the doctrine of Lutheranism on this subject. It cannot be mistaken. That church holds that it is lawful to baptize those only who exercise repentance of sin, and faith in Christ; that infants do exercise repentance of sin, and faith in Christ; therefore it is lawful, and indeed obligatory, to baptize infants!
Calvin next demands our attention. What did he teach, and what do his followers now hold, on this subject?
Two incompatible and contradictory theories struggled in his mind. The infants of believing parents, and these only, he taught, are to be baptized.
He says: — “This principle must always be maintained,” “that baptism is not conferred upon infants in order that they may become the children and heirs of God, but because they are already [their parents being such] in that rank and position. Otherwise Anabaptists would be right in excluding them from baptism.”17 The grace conferred upon children, and the faith upon which they are baptized, are therefore hereditary! This is the former theory. The latter refers to his doctrine of election. He taught that some infants are elect, and some non-elect, and that only the elect children receive any benefit by baptism! He remarks: — “We diligently teach that God does not put forth his power without distinction to all who receive the sacrament, but only to the elect.”18 “How, it is inquired, are infants regenerated, who have no knowledge either of good or evil? We reply, that the work of God is not yet without existence, because it is not observed or understood by us.”19 Calvin says: — “Though these graces [repentance and faith] have not yet been formed in them, the seeds of both are nevertheless
implanted in their hearts by the secret operations of the Spirit.”20 The grace and benefit are therefore elective! But if they be hereditary how can they be elective? And if elective how can they be hereditary? These two theories are radically the opposites of each other, and never can be harmonized, unless, indeed, God has elected to salvation only the infants of believing parents, whose faith and election are the faith and election of their offspring; in which case faith and election are propagated by natural generation, and no man can be saved whose parents before him were not believers in Christ. Thus does infant baptism overwhelm and destroy the scripture doctrine of Predestination!
Apart, however, from these considerations, the Calvinistic doctrine on the subject before us, may be stated in a few words, thus: — “Faith is
necessary to baptism. No child can be baptized without it. The parents of the child have faith. What belongs to the parents belongs to the child.
Therefore the child has faith, and upon that faith is baptized!” So taught Calvin, and so teach his disciples at this time. Of this fact I could introduce instantly a hundred witnesses. One, however, is sufficient. Dr. Miller, the late distinguished Professor at Princeton, to whom I have before several times referred, remarks: — “After all, the whole weight of the objection [to infant baptism] in this case, is founded on entire forgetfulness of the main principle of the Pedobaptist system. It is forgotten that in every case of infant baptism faith is required, and if the parents be sincere is actually exercised. But it is required of the parent, not of the child. So that if the parent truly present his child in faith, the spirit of the ordinance is really met and answered.” The Calvinistic doctrine is therefore substantially the same as that of the Papists and the Lutherans. Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, and the others, arrive, although by a different route, at the conclusion that the gospel does require faith on the part of all those who are baptized as an indispensable condition of their receiving the ordinance; that the children to be baptized have faith, since their parents’
faith is their faith; and that infants are therefore baptized upon a profession of their faith.
The only other great parent class of Protestant Pedobaptists whose principles remain to be examined, is the Episcopal, embracing Methodists of all sects. Turn, if you please, to the liturgy of that church, whether of England or America, and you will find the doctrine distinctly and
unequivocally taught, that infants are baptized upon a profession of their own faith! “The office” of baptism prescribes that the minister shall ask, and the sponsor answer as follows: —
“
Minister
— Dost thou in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the sinful desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?”“
Answer
— I renounce them all, and by God’s help will endeavor not to follow, nor be led by them.”“
Minister
— Dost thou believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith as contained in the Apostles’ Creed?”“
Answer
— I do.”“
Minister
— Wilt thou be baptized in this faith? ”“
Answer
— That is my desire.”“
Minister
. — Wilt thou then obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life? ”“
Answer
. — I will by God’s help.”Will it be pretended that in these answers the sponsors speak only for themselves? This is a common plea, and very often made, but it is plainly preposterous, since it is the child and not the sponsor that is to be
baptized, and it is the child who is asked, “Dost thou believe;” “wilt thou be baptized;” “wilt thou obediently keep God’s holy will.” It is the infant, therefore, that renounces the world, the flesh, and the devil; it is the infant that believes “all the Articles of the Christian Faith;” it is the infant that desires to be baptized; it is the infant that binds itself to perpetual obedience! These facts are so obvious, that no intelligent man will, I persuade myself, upon mature reflection, venture to call them in question.
These are the professions of their infants, upon which they are baptized.
The fathers of all the Protestant Episcopal churches maintain infant repentance and faith at great length. Bucer, and Peter Martyr, taught the doctrine in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and Archbishops,
Bishops, and inferior clergy, in all the pulpits of the land. But it is necessary to particularize.
Cartwright, a distinguished divine of the Calvinistic school, thought proper to “admonish” the British Parliament on this subject, and in a learned address, expressed his doubts whether all the infants baptized were elect, and in case any were not, he insisted that they could not with propriety be said to believe. “It can,” he avowed, “no more be precisely said that it [the infant] hath faith., than it may be said precisely that it is elected.”21 This paper called forth a spirited reply from the famous Hooker, in which he severely rebukes the presumptuous Presbyterian. “Were St. Augustine now living,” says Hooker, “there are [those] who would tell him for his better instruction, that to say of a child that it is elect, and to say. it doth believe, is all one, for which causesith no man is able precisely to affirm the one of any infant in particular, it followeth that precisely and absolutely, he ought not to say the other. Which precise and absolute terms are not necessary in this case. We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth both to speak and to think.” “Baptism implieth a covenant or league between God and man, wherein as God doth bestow presently remission of sins, and the Holy Ghost, binding himself also to add (in process of time) what grace soever shall be further necessary for the attainment of everlasting life, so every baptized soul receiving the same grace at the hands of God, tieth itself likewise forever to the observation of his law, no less than the Jews by circumcision bound themselves to the law of Moses.
The law of Christ requiring, therefore, faith and newness of life in all men by virtue of the covenant of baptism, is it toyish that the church in baptism exacteth at every man’s hands [infants included] an express profession of faith, and an irrevocable promise of obedience by way of stipulation? ”22 Bishop Beveridge asks, “Why are infants baptized?” and answers thus: — “The reason is, not only because they have the seeds of repentance, and faith in them, which may afterwards grow to perfection, but chiefly because they then promise to perform them, which is as much as we know adult persons, or those of riper years do.”23
We may, however, appeal to still higher authority than that of Bucer, or Peter Martyr, or Hooker, or Beveridge, or all these together. Cranmer the Archbishop, and Primate in his day, of all England, speaks thus: — “In baptism are our sins taken away, and we from sins purged and cleansed,