Bertha and Her Baptism

N >> Nehemiah Adams >> Bertha and Her Baptism

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

"God knew the history of the tempter during his agency in Paradise; for
angels had sinned and fallen from heaven. But the existence and agency
of fallen spirits had not been disclosed in the Bible,--the time for the
disclosure had not come,--and therefore it is said, with beautiful
simplicity, 'Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the Lord God had made;' and the narrative has respect only to the
external appearance of the tempter, the serpent, because it would have
been premature as yet to bring in the story of fallen angels, or make
allusion to them.

"So, for reasons belonging to the early ages of the world, woman was
included in man, who acted for her.[1]

"But, however the arrangement began, God regarded that organic law of
society, and, in giving Abraham a seal of a covenant for his children,
he restricted it to the sons, they in all things standing and acting as
the representatives of the house, according to the existing custom. God
did not go far beyond the world's advancement, in his ordinances, but,
with condescension and in wisdom, suited the one to the other. But, as
things were then generally represented by types, so the male child was a
type and representative of the more full and complete form, which was
reserved till the fulness of time, and till the world should know the
fulness of Him that filleth all in all. For 'in Christ Jesus there is
neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female.'"

[Footnote 1: A curious reason for this, in the minds of some, appears to
be that, when man was created, woman was included in him. For, they say,
in the first chapter of Genesis, and in the account of the sixth day,
before woman was made, the plural word _them_ is used: "male and female
created he them." They say that the blessing was pronounced on the man
and woman in Adam. For they think it improbable that Moses would
anticipate his history so much as to bring in woman, and, withal, her
blessing, too, at the sixth day, when the narrative teaches that she was
made some time afterwards. Hence, they say, it was that woman was for
ages treated as included in man. There is something pleasing in this
fancy, but it seems like one of Origen's allegories, he being the father
of allegorical interpretation. It had its origin in an ancient
Rabbinical sentiment.]

So I discoursed with my visitors till between ten and eleven o'clock,
and when they rose to go, we all stood up together and joined in
prayer. We commended Janette to her covenant-keeping God, whose name
had been inscribed upon her. We remembered the little boy who had been
the occasion of all this pleasant conversation, and prayed that his
consecration might be accepted, and the sign and seal of it be owned and
blessed to him and his parents. As I walked down to the gate with my
friends, I said to them, that, when God was covenanting with Abraham, he
bade him look up into the heavens, and count the stars, and told him
that his seed, like them, should be innumerable. So I told them
frequently to look up to those old heavens, and remember that the
covenant-keeping God is there, the same who, in blessing Abraham,
included his seed; and that, because Abraham was so good a man, God
calls his posterity "the seed of Abraham my friend." And so we said
good-night.

In reading over what I have written, there are a few things more which I
feel disposed to add, because I know that Percival will make good use of
them in talking with others in your congregation.

I feel, more than I can express, that the state of mind in parents which
will make them prize and use the ordinance of baptism for their children
is the great want of our day. Bringing children to church, and
baptizing them, unless the parents are themselves in covenant with God,
is as wrong as it was for those earthly-minded Corinthians, whom Paul
rebukes, to eat the Lord's Supper. They made a feast, or a meal, of the
supper; and some use baptism just to give a child a name,--to "christen"
it, as they say,--in mere compliance with a custom. But the abuse of a
thing is no valid argument against it. The last supper is the subject of
far more perversion; it gives occasion to a vast amount of superstition
and folly. The procession of the host, the elevation of the host, the
laying of the wafer on the tongue, the solemn injunctions against
spitting for a certain time after receiving it, are no valid arguments
against the Lord's Supper, and no Christian is led by them to disregard
the words of the Lord Jesus, "This do in remembrance of me." Much of the
practical benefit of the Supper comes through the feelings which it
awakens, the conduct which it promotes. So with infant baptism. The
child must be truly consecrated to God, beforehand, and afterwards; and
the ordinance must be used as a sign and seal on our part, as it is on
the part of God,--an act and testimony, a memorial, a vow. Hannah lent
her child to the Lord from the beginning, and then brought him to the
temple, with her offerings. We must take the child from baptism as
though God had placed it a second time in our hands, to be trained up
for him.

But, still, the ordinance is God's, and not man's. He has a work to do
in us by means of it, while it also helps our feelings, fixes them,
makes them vivid, and imposes solemn obligations upon us by its
signified vow. So it is with the Lord's Supper. In each case it is God's
memorial, and not ours; and its benefit does not consist so much in
showing forth the state of our hearts at the time of administration, as
in sealing to us the promises of God.

True, our feelings are awakened and strengthened, ordinarily, by the
ordinances; but that neither explains nor limits the meaning of them. We
are wrong if we suppose that the Lord's Supper has done no good unless
our feelings are vivid at the time of partaking. If we were sincere, our
act had the effect to engage and seal blessings from God of which we
were not aware, and may never be able to trace them back to that
transaction. So with regard to baptism.

Some call this sacerdotalism, and are afraid to allow that the
sacraments have any influence or use, except as a testimony from us to
God. Romanism has driven us to the opposite extreme in our ideas of
sacraments. We do not vibrate back again too far toward Romanism, if now
we conclude that God employs his sacraments, properly received by us, as
seals from him of love and promises. Many Christians derive less comfort
and help from the Lord's Supper than they may, because they regard it as
profitable only so far as they can offer it to God with vivid feelings
on their part; and, when their frames are not as they desire, they
conclude that the ordinance is unprofitable. But let us also consider
who appointed this ordinance. It is the appointment of Christ, not ours;
and at his table we are his guests, not he ours. The Saviour is well
represented as saying to us,

"Thou canst not entertain a king!
Unworthy thou of such a guest;
But I my own provision bring,
To make thy soul a heavenly feast."

There is a divine side to sacraments, as there is a divine side in
conversion. While we are active in regeneration, there is a work of God
wrought in us, distinct from our faith and repentance, yet inseparable
from it. So, while sacraments are vows on our part to God, they are,
primarily, gifts, pledges, seals, on his part to us. Therefore, when one
says, "I can bring up my children, I can be a Christian, without the use
of sacraments," it is a proper reply, "But can God do his part toward
your children, and toward you, without them?" For, not only is prayer
"the offering up of our desires to God for things agreeable to his
will," but there is the additional truth, which is well expressed in
those lines of a hymn:

"Prayer is appointed to convey
The blessings God designs to give."

So with sacraments; they convey gifts from God, not primarily gifts from
us to God.

He, then, who declines to have his children baptized, on the ground that
it is useless, may, in so doing, interrupt the communication of a
divinely-appointed medium between God and his child. For he need not be
told that the faith of parents brought blessings from the Saviour, when
on earth, to their children, nor be reminded that the benefits of
circumcision were bestowed on the ground of the parental relation to
God.

One further illustration occurs to me of the power which resides in the
sacraments themselves, in distinction from their being a testimony from
us to God. Let me call to your remembrance notices which you sometimes
see, of young people going, in a frolic, before a clergyman or justice
of the peace, to be married, when they intended nothing but sport, and
found, afterward, that they had brought themselves into difficulty, and
were legally held to be married.

You see by this that covenants do not, by any means, derive all their
efficacy from the feelings of a contracting party. Covenants and their
seals are the most sacred of all human transactions, and cannot be
lightly regarded, or trifled with. God reveals himself often under the
name of the God that keepeth covenant. So that we may not set aside the
sacraments, nor undervalue them. This leads me to say, furthermore, that
children, who doubt whether their parents sincerely and truly offered
them to God in baptism, the parents being in an unregenerate state, as
it afterward appeared, when they came with their children to the
ordinance, may be greatly comforted and encouraged by taking this view
of the divine sacrament of baptism as having a force and application in
their behalf, by the goodness of God, irrespective of their parents'
character. God will not let his sacraments depend, for their efficacy,
on the character either of the administrator or of the parents. For, if
the character of an administrator affected the baptism, it might so
happen that one could never really be baptized, since every successive
hand which applied it might prove, in turn, to be that of an unworthy
person. If a child is baptized on the profession of parents who
afterward show that they were not sincere, the child shall not suffer
thereby, if he recognizes the transaction, and makes it his own act. In
the case of a converted husband or wife, while one companion remained a
heathen, the children were, nevertheless, counted "holy," because the
Gospel leaned to the side of mercy, and gave the children the benefit of
the believing parent's faith, instead of attainting them through the
heathen parent. So, when a child is baptized in error, he shall not
suffer, nor even lose anything, if he will accept the covenant with its
seal. No one can justly reply to all this, that, therefore, every one
even though not of the church, may offer his child for baptism. No; for
these are exceptional cases, in which it is true that a covenant, even
if it be not fulfilled, has force, and things may enure under it which
one who does not make the required profession cannot receive. The
covenant, if but the outward conditions be complied with, places all,
who are in any way related to it, under various contingencies, which
sometimes, to some of the parties, may be productive of good. We see
illustrations of this in the great tenderness and love which we feel
toward a child whose parent has brought a stain upon himself and his
family. We find an echo, in our hearts, of those kind words of the Most
High, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father;" and, if that
son behaves himself worthily, every good man is doubly careful to
protect and help him. In this way the broken, or unfulfilled, covenant
operates, with God and with man, to the good of some related to it. But
shall we, therefore, break our covenant? Shall the unworthy be
promiscuously admitted to its privileges? "Shall we continue in sin that
grace may abound?"

In speaking of the influence of sacraments, I am aware that we approach
enchanted ground. The human heart loves a religion of forms and
ceremonies, which professes to renew and save without self-denial,
breathing around us the quietism of ordinances, and lulling us to drowsy
forgetfulness of duty in the luxurious enjoyment of an irresponsible
religion. While, therefore, we cannot too carefully guard against the
abuse of ordinances, we must not forget that God, who made man, body and
soul, chooses to convey some of his gracious operations to us by the
help of the two simple sacraments, and that they are intended to act
upon us, in the hands of his Spirit, in the first instance; not merely
serving as offerings to God.

It is not that there are fewer children baptized now than formerly (if
such indeed be the case), that awakens sorrow and apprehension; but that
parents are deficient in the feelings which make us prize and use
baptism. This is the evil sign, and it is greatly to be deplored. One
must have intelligent views of the Scriptures as a whole,--of both
Testaments,--most fully to understand and value infant baptism; for its
roots were planted in the Old Testament. I always feel deep respect for
a church-member who comprehends this subject in its wide relations, and
is not swayed by the popular demand for an express sign at every step,
but can reason inferentially as well as when proofs are demonstrative
and palpable; and who has in his mind the whole system of redemption,
with its various economies, interdependent, and none made perfect
without the rest. When all our church-members come to understand and
feel the power of this subject in this manner, what times of enlightened
religious prosperity, and a high state of religious culture, it will
indicate. I pray and wait for the time when all our Paedobaptist
churches, of every name, will conspire to promote spiritual views of
children's baptism, holding it forth as the expression of spiritual
feelings, and discountenancing formalism in connection with it. Though I
was never an Episcopalian in my preferences, and though the appointment
of godfathers and godmothers may, like every good thing, relapse into
mere form, I honor it for its excellent and pious design of surrounding
the parents and the children with admonition and help. For there are
sponsors, I am happy to know, who are not mere formalists, but who make
it a rule to have an interview with their godchildren on or near their
birthdays, or the anniversaries of their baptisms, and, in an
affectionate, faithful manner, they endeavor to fulfil the vows which
they took upon themselves at the baptism. Blessings on such faithful
Christian friends! Happy the children who have them for helpers of their
faith and piety. Let us all, as church-members, be sponsors, at least by
prayers and a kind interest for it, to every child of a Christian
brother or sister, when we witness its baptism. Suppose a church-member,
after witnessing the baptism of an infant, its parents, perhaps, entire
strangers, goes to his place of private prayer, and, moved with
disinterested love toward those parents and the child, supplicates the
blessing of God upon them. Could Christian love be more pure than this,
or prayer more pleasing to God? In the revelations of eternity such
prayers will not only be rewarded openly by Him who saw those doors shut
with that secret love and piety, but blessings upon parents and child
without measure may be traced to such petitions as their procuring
cause. How good it is to perform such acts, knowing that they can never
come abroad in this world! Should every Christian who witnesses the
baptism of a child, afterward pray for that immortal soul in secret,
with special petitions, what an increased privilege and blessing it
would be esteemed to offer a child in baptism, and in God's house,
before a witnessing church, rather than at home! I hope, my dear
daughter, that you and Percival, as private Christians, will do good to
your own souls, and to the souls of baptized children, and to their
parents, by making it one of your private rules to pray in secret, on
the Sabbath, for every child whose baptism you witness.

The effort to promote and enforce infant baptism, by ecclesiastical
enactments merely, is absurd. We must fertilize the soil, not spread
glass sashes over the plants. Give Christians right views and feelings
about their covenant privileges and duties; disabuse them of their
mistakes about the severance of the Old Testament from the New; teach
them to look at Abraham, not as a decayed peer, or an old Jew, but as
the founder of the church of all ages, to whom Almighty God virtually
said, 'On this rock I will build my church,'--Abraham being the first
foundation stone, waiting for apostles to be added with him, and, as our
great representative, bearing in his hand the covenant made with him for
us, as well, as for the other great branch of the family of God; show
them that baptism is now the initiating ordinance, and that the old
covenant was never repealed, though the seal be changed; let them see
what it is to have God in covenant with them to be the God of their
seed; and, withal, let us correct, or modify, the intense anti-papal
jealousy of the Christian rites, which makes us all, unconsciously,
verge to the opposite extreme, thus missing the divinely-appointed
intention and use which there is in our two simple ordinances; and then,
with the revival of such spiritual views and feelings, and, as a
consequence, with greater reference in the prayers of Christians, public
and private, to the subject, the practice of children's baptism will
increase, as surely as accessions to the Lord's table increase when
people come to have Christ in them the hope of glory.

We, ministers, can do very much to promote a love for the ordinance in
many ways. We ought to make it convenient and pleasant by all the
expedients within our power. I like the practice which you speak of, in
your church, of the mother remaining with the child in the anteroom till
the introductory services and the loud organ-playing are over. Does
your pastor pour water into the child's face and eyes, and then begin
the words of baptism? I presume not; but I have seen it done. We should
not touch the child's head till near the close of the baptismal formula;
and then so that the child will not see the arm move toward it.

Much can be done by these simple expedients to promote a quiet and
pleasant attendance upon the delightful rite. I like the practice, in
your church, of chanting low some appropriate words of Scripture before
and after the baptism.

I am constrained to say, though with diffidence, that I fear some of my
good brethren give erroneous impressions by what they say of the
church-membership of children. They push it to extremes. They discuss
the question, What shall be done with baptized children, who, on
arriving at years of understanding, refuse to enter into covenant with
God? Church censures are asserted by some to be proper in such cases,
even to excommunication, or interference in some judicial way by the
church. So long as I believe in regeneration by the Holy Spirit, I
cannot feel that baptized children, as such, are, in any sense
whatever, in which the term is generally received among men, _members_
of the church of Christ; while, in another and most important sense,
they do belong to the church, hold a relation to it, and are a part of
it. Strictly speaking, and in the highest spiritual sense, they are not
even "the lambs of Christ's flock;" for lambs have the nature of sheep;
but the children of believers are, by nature, children of wrath, even as
others. And yet, in another sense, they hold a most important relation
to the flock of Christ, as no other children do. In its most important
sense, they are not to the church even what they are to the state; they
have no place whatever in the invisible church,--the church which is
saved,--till they are born again. If children are regenerated by the act
of baptism, of course it is otherwise; but, not believing this, I am
clear that the baptized child of a believer differs from any other
unregenerate child, who is not baptized, only in this: that God looks
upon it with peculiar interest and love, and that it is surrounded with
special and peculiar privileges, opportunities, promises, and hopes,
with regard to its being brought to repentance and saving faith in
Christ; and by baptism it is initiated into special relationship to the
people of God. The church also has special duties with regard to it.
Some of my brethren give great occasion to those who resist children's
baptism, to argue against it as Romish in its nature and effect, by not
discriminating clearly in using the words members and membership in
connection with children. Read almost any modern book against infant
baptism, and you will find that its main force is directed against the
practice as a "church and state" institution, and as making persons
members of the church by means of sacraments. Let us who are really free
from such imputation, assert the truly spiritual nature and object of
this ordinance. I wish to see it divested of all that does not belong to
it, made eminently spiritual, expressed in terms which cannot easily be
misunderstood, and appealing to the natural affections, the
understandings, the consciences, of spiritual men and women, as, in its
sober and legitimate use, God's great appointment, from the call of
Abraham to the millennium, for the increase and perpetuity of his
church.[2]

[Footnote 2: This subject is discussed by itself, and more at large, in
another part of this book.]

You are aware that the great question, which has made most of the
trouble in the Christian church from the beginning, relates to the
meaning and use of sacraments and ordinances, or what we call Symbolism.
The tendency of the human mind, even in Paul's day, as indicated by him,
with other things belonging to it, under the name of "the mystery of
iniquity, which doth even now work," was, to increase the number of
sacraments and ordinances, and make them bear an essential part in the
work of regeneration. The right to multiply or extend them, and the
claim that they possess a saving efficacy, characterizes one great
division of the professed Christian church, while those who are called
Protestants and the Reformed, regard them chiefly as signs; though of
these, some seem to have much of that appetency after undue reliance on
forms which Paul seeks to correct in the Epistle to the Galatians, while
others go to an opposite extreme, and undervalue the two
divinely-appointed sacraments, which they think have no efficiency as
used by the Spirit of God, but only as signs used by us to represent
something.

Between these divisions of the Christian church lies the battle-ground
of great ecclesiastical controversies from the beginning, as the
Netherlands were, for a long time, the battle-field of Europe.
Archbishop Leighton seems to strike the balance between formalism and
sacramental grace in ordinances, as well as any writer, in commenting on
these words of Peter, "The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth
also now save us." He says:

"Thus, then, we have a true account of the power of this, and so of
other, sacraments, and a discovery of the error of two extremes. (1.) Of
those who ascribe too much to them, as if they wrought by a natural,
inherent virtue, and carried grace in them inseparably. (2.) Of those
who ascribe too little to them, making them only signs and badges of our
profession. Signs they are, but more than signs merely representing;
they are means exhibiting, and seals confirming, grace to the faithful.
But the working of faith and the conveying Christ into the soul, to be
received by faith, is not a thing put into them to do of themselves, but
still in the supreme hand that appointed them; and he indeed both causes
the souls of his own to receive these his seals with faith, and makes
them effectual to confirm that faith which receives them so. They are
then, in a word, neither empty signs to them who believe, nor effectual
causes of grace to them that believe not."

Let me make the distinction very clear to your mind, for it is of great
practical importance. The "mystery of iniquity" in Paul's time, and
since his day, did not, and does not, consist in making too much of
God's ordinances in their purity and proper use. That cannot be done,
any more than you can intelligently love the Bible too much, or the
Sabbath. But, to pervert them, or to make additions to them, or to rely
upon them wholly, is Romanism. But can men make too much of having a
seal on a deed? Is the deed good for anything without the seal? Can they
make too much of having three witnesses to their wills? Those three
witnesses, instead of two, make an otherwise worthless writing, a man's
last will and testament. Thus, a true sign, ordinance, or seal, among
men, has inherent efficacy of some sort. Shall we deny it to the
ordinances and seals of Heaven? He who lays claim to the covenant, but
rejects the seal, deceives himself. They must go together.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13